Hacker News Reader

Comment by InclinedPlane | Hacker News Reader

Despite coups, despite wars, etc. the embassy has been held as being above all that. Civilized societies do not invade embassies, they do not hold diplomats as hostages, they do not kill or threaten to kill diplomats, period. This is true even in a time of war.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with a sneak attack the US did not storm the Japanese embassy, they did not hold Japanese diplomats hostage. They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies. Etc. That sort of boorish behavior is not and should not ever be tolerated. If you cannot tolerate the continued presence of a country's diplomats in your country then you eject them, you do not hold them hostage. Period.

View on HN

> When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with a sneak attack the US did not storm the Japanese embassy, they did not hold Japanese diplomats hostage. They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies. Etc. That sort of boorish behavior is not and should not ever be tolerated. If you cannot tolerate the continued presence of a country's diplomats in your country then you eject them, you do not hold them hostage. Period.

Roughly 400 Japanese Embassy staff (including diplomats) were actually held by the FBI and used in trade for American embassy staff who were stuck in Japan. Same was done with German and Italian diplomats. They were reportedly held comfortably at resort compounds the government took over. While they were treated much better than other Japanese in the US at the time they were still held against their will, and were used as currency to recover American staff.

> They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies.

No idea about the Japanese but several employees of the German embassy were arrested for 'spying'.

Ok I agree with your point but bad example: America did not storm the embassy but did forcibly intern thousands of Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Also- its important to note a few things: 1) the embassy storming was carried out on a whim by one group of over eager revolutionaries, it was not officially sanctioned until it was a fait accomplie, 2) saying the 1979 revolution was a direct result of the 1953 coup is bumbling self centrism at best - a lot happened in the country over that period that culminated in the revolution. Which leads to 3) Khomeini was not the stated aim of the revolution- a democracy was. Khomeini and the Islamists hijacked the revolution and killed, imprisoned, or exiled all other parties involved until that point. They have maintained control since then with history's most sophisticated religio-political machinery combining censorship and xenophobia, police state security infrastructure, and a unique brand of divine mysticism. Fascinating and tragic.

They might well have done that had Pearl Harbor been an overthrow of Congress rather than a bombing of a far-flung military base. It did result in Japanese Internment after all.

Why? Why should diplomats be treated any differently than any other person? My estimation would be that if these rights are essential for diplomats they are just as essential for everyone else.

If they are not provided to everyone else then why would diplomats expect these privileges? What is the philosophical framework that elevates diplomats above others?

If the people are subject to internment, why not the diplomats?

If the people may be killed by drones, why not the diplomats?

If the people may be held without trial, why not the diplomats?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity -- "Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. Originally, these privileges and immunities were granted on a bilateral, ad hoc basis, which led to misunderstandings and conflict, pressure on weaker states, and an inability for other states to judge which party was at fault."

Your vision falls apart where embassies are actively involved in espionage, as they nearly always are.

Embassy immunity is like saying it is OK to shoot an and enemy soldier but not an enemy president? Why, because he real war isn't nation vs nation, but sociopolitical elite vs humanity.

These are the agreements that civilized peoples make with one another. What provocation is sufficient to violate the sovereignty of embassy land?

Again, if you don't want diplomats in your country you eject them. It happens from time to time. You don't take them hostage, there is no excuse for that, not even all out war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com