|
Discendo Vox posted:Mordin, here are some questions for you there hasn't been much mainstream coverage of the embassy, because it is genuinely embarrassing to the us establishment. what coverage there has been has been really low quality. this is from wapo for instance, about an incident where a guaido supporter broke into the embassy and barricaded himself in for a few hours (trashing the room in the process) before the dc cops came in and hauled him off. https://twitter.com/Marissa_Jae/status/1123699156869103623 now, there is video of this man in the embassy, and video of the secret service hauling him off (see thread below if you really care). in order to fake this, people would have had to impersonate federal agents while being watched by the secret service. the wapo reporter would rather ignore all video evidence to take the word of this man at face value. https://twitter.com/RealAlexRubi/status/1123536909870010368 so in this instance, who is better, WaPo or alternative media?
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
lol apparently we transferred the embassy from ROC control to PRC control upon recognition and then set up separate Definitely Not An Embassy institutions between Taiwan and the US edit: DC cops entered the embassy?! Violation of sovereignty! 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 22:34 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Zurakara posted:It's up to the government to decide who's an ambassador of their government and who isn't. And the USA considers Guaidó to be the head of the government of Venezuela. So according to you the USA should accept whomever Guaidó picks as ambassador. It ain't a loving hard question, after all.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:lol apparently we transferred the embassy from ROC control to PRC control upon recognition and then set up separate Definitely Not An Embassy institutions between Taiwan and the US the cops were probably invited in by one of the venezuelan governments. the question is which one (and if they did it at the behest of the protesters or the remnants of the maduro delegation, did they implicitly recognized the maduro government as legitimate owners of the embassy)?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:And the USA considers Guaidó to be the head of the government of Venezuela. So according to you the USA should accept whomever Guaidó picks as ambassador. It ain't a loving hard question, after all. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:the cops were probably invited in by one of the venezuelan governments. the question is which one (and if they did it at the behest of the protesters or the remnants of the maduro delegation, did they implicitly recognized the maduro government as legitimate owners of the embassy)? I was being snarky obvs but yeah that partially answers my question as to how to actually resolve embassy disputes: the recognized government can allow local law enforcement to do things. I don't really have a strong opinion about the shitshow, I mostly just find the fiddly little international-law-adjacent questions it raises interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:my initial response was "lol embassy protectors" but uh how DO you handle a dispute over embassy control anyway The governing law is the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, subject to interpretation and caselaw (or equivalent precedent) in the "receiving state," the place where the embassy is. Both the receiving state and the sending state can unilaterally reject members of the mission, or the mission. An embassy is not "foreign territory," the Simpsons lied. Embassies and diplomatic staff just have specific, very strong protections under international law. This also comes with a lot of restrictions; under the scenario you describe, the receiving state would be obligated under Article 22 to protect the property and its functions. In this case, Maduro terminated the embassy and all of Venezuela's consulates, so pretty much none of the normal protections apply - it's effectively just a piece of real estate owned by the Venezuelan state. Of course, that still makes it an asset, like the other ones we've discussed, albeit one with symbolic importance (also its Georgetown property value is really high, though nothing compared to some other DC embassies). Additionally, the US rejected the credentials of the diplomatic staff, which is also something they can do unilaterally with any or no reason under the Convention at Article 9. Even if the embassy were still considered an embassy, the "protection force" couldn't be made up of US nationals under the convention. None of the above law is some sort of weird calvinball interpretation of the law that only the US uses, it's how all such properties are governed. The Maduro regime gave access to "protection force" members (some of whom they've been shipping back and forth from Venezuela with their media teams). They've been holding press conferences since early April to english language coverage of the event via the same channels as always. It's been getting more publicity because Vecchio tried to give a speech out front yesterday. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:51 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Zurakara posted:This only works in a world where you think the US Government should be allowed to dictate reality. Which, of course, you do. How does it feel when all the other babies make fun of you for having the softest skull in the nursery? I mean it's a weird extension of the question of what the US should do about disputed bank accounts etc (or something that hasn't really come up in Venezuela but has in Egypt: should the US follow through on weapon sales et al to an illegitimate government? is that really noninvolvement?) Maduro's hold is currently still firm enough that there's not really a dispute as to who the de facto president is though. edit thanks Discendo that was exactly the sort of nerdery I was hoping for
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
How long have people been living in front of the embassy?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:How long have people been living in front of the embassy? the 'embassy protectors' have been in there since April 10, when the embassy staff's visas expired
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Zurakara posted:This only works in a world where you think the US Government should be allowed to dictate reality. Which, of course, you do. How does it feel when all the other babies make fun of you for having the softest skull in the nursery? The US government gets to determine who it thinks is the Venezuelan head of state, just like every other government does. I could have said Denmark or Colombia or any of the dozens of other countries who also recognize Guaidó as the legitimate head of state. Or for that matter China and Russia, they get to decide too. Seriously is this too complex an idea or something? Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:my initial response was "lol embassy protectors" Seems like an effective act of civil disobedience to me
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Zidrooner posted:Seems like an effective act of civil disobedience to me Seems to be! The terminology is pretty overtly propagandistic but it's been three weeks and the embassy is still not in the hands of a MUD delegation.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The US government gets to determine who it thinks is the Venezuelan head of state, just like every other government does. I could have said Denmark or Colombia or any of the dozens of other countries who also recognize Guaidó as the legitimate head of state. So your saying the UK could, in theory, forcibly evict our ambassodor in favor of Vermin Supreme's choice if Corbyn gets elected?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:[...] Probably won't get an answer from DV seeing as how you failed to start your post by sucking them off and telling them how smart you think they are (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Can the Venezuelan interim president appoint legitimate ambassadors? Thought the sole purpose of the position was to call an election.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Raccooon posted:Can the Venezuelan interim president appoint ambassadors? Thought the sole purpose of the position was to call an election. Rather predictably the (Maduro-controlled) national election council has declined to organize the necessary election.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Raccooon posted:Can the Venezuelan interim president appoint legitimate ambassadors? Thought the sole purpose of the position was to call an election. Since his coup failed, absolutely no way he can.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Mischievous Mink posted:Since his coup failed, absolutely no way he can. I mean he can appoint people they just have no connection to the institutions of Venezuela.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Mischievous Mink posted:Since his coup failed, absolutely no way he can. Uh, yeah, he can. He's still interim President.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Raccooon posted:I mean he can appoint people they just have no connection to the institutions of Venezuela. The Venezuelan National Assembly apparently being from Mars or Upper Volta.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The Venezuelan National Assembly apparently being from Mars or Upper Volta. Honest question when did they decide this?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:Honest question when did they decide this? Honest clarifying question back: are you asking when Guaidó became nominally acting or interim or whatever President? Or something else? It's late here and I'm not sure what you're asking.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Honest clarifying question back: are you asking when Guaidó became nominally acting or interim or whatever President? Or something else? It's late here and I'm not sure what you're asking. My understanding is that he declared himself president, but I don't understand how that claim has legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:My understanding is that he declared himself president, but I don't understand how that claim has legitimacy. The NA declared the president's post abandoned on account of him allegedly rigging the election and stacking the supreme court, and in case of abandonment the presidency falls to the NA president. People ITT have claimed that the declaration of abandonment is analogous to impeachment, which the NA would also be entitled to declare for no reason at all.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:My understanding is that he declared himself president, but I don't understand how that claim has legitimacy. Well there is the constitutional question which we've gone in circles on forever but there is also, as has been discussed on this page, the notion of legitimacy as reflected by external recognition. For example, the first nation to recognize the USA as a sovereign nation was Morocco. These sorts of things are incredibly important and have been since the birth of the nation state as a concept. Therefore part of Guiado's legitimacy (or perhaps better put, Maduro's illegitimacy) stems from the sorts of formal declarations that we've seen from most European and South American nations. I think a lot of people here have handwaved away the huge number of nations who side with the National Assembly's interpretation of the constitution as well as the fact of Supreme Court's own illegitimacy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Zurakara posted:So your saying the UK could, in theory, forcibly evict our ambassodor in favor of Vermin Supreme's choice if Corbyn gets elected? I'm assuming by "us" you mean American, in which case yes, but there are restrictions on Vermin Supreme's choice of ambassador- they'd need to be an American national, for instance. And it'd be contingent on recognizing Vermin Supreme's government as sovereign, with all the glory that entails.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The governing law is the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, subject to interpretation and caselaw (or equivalent precedent) in the "receiving state," the place where the embassy is. Both the receiving state and the sending state can unilaterally reject members of the mission, or the mission. An embassy is not "foreign territory," the Simpsons lied. Embassies and diplomatic staff just have specific, very strong protections under international law. This also comes with a lot of restrictions; under the scenario you describe, the receiving state would be obligated under Article 22 to protect the property and its functions. if it is just a piece of property owned by maduro's government, why can't the maduro government authorize us citizens to reside there? they aren't diplomatic staff, but they should get the normal property protections. also, i would argue that the former venezuelan embassy isn't being treated as just another piece of dc real estate, as the secret service are in charge. they are in charge of protecting embassies in the us, if the embassy had reverted to normal property the dc metro police would be heading things. the root problem is that you can't have a comprehensible policy when there are two competing claims to government legitimacy. recognizing a government as legitimate that doesn't control a single acre of territory has led to this standoff.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:if it is just a piece of property owned by maduro's government, why can't the maduro government authorize us citizens to reside there? they aren't diplomatic staff, but they should get the normal property protections. If it's just a piece of property it's still a government asset in which case the same sovereignty recognition applies. If the opposition government goes through the legal process of reopening it (which I don't believe they've done yet because of the occupation), then the Article 22 obligation would still apply. I can't tell if it would apply in advance based on the convention, but the protesters' presence on the property would already be unlawful, same as if they occupied some random person's house. There's a whole separate set of clauses that could also be invoked whereby the protesters are basically acting on the assumption that the property is still an embassy, in which case Maduro's closure would cause a new set of problems and let the US evict them. Secret Service can still be involved without it being an embassy, but they are likely there because it was previously and will in the future function as an embassy property. DC Metro is also involved. The root problem is that people are occupying the space and serving as human shields for the purpose of Maduro's propaganda. Generally, I should note that I only knew like two thirds of this before I went and read a bunch of documentation of how the convention works this afternoon- I'm not trying to hold myself out as an international law expert, and it's possible I'm missing things. but (and I'm not referring to you specifically GoluboiOgon) "Lol the law doesn't matter the US just does whatever" isn't accurate, and framing it that way when consuming state media is a great way to get taken for a ride. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:44 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If it's just a piece of property it's still a government asset in which case the same sovereignty recognition applies. If the opposition government goes through the process of reopening it (which I don't believe they've done yet because of the occupation), then the Article 22 obligation would still apply. I can't tell if it would apply in advance based on the convention, but the protesters' presence on the property would already be unlawful, same as if they occupied some random person's house. if the us can legally evict the protestors, why haven't they so far? now they seem to be stopping people from bringing food in, in an attempt to starve them out. (like they charged someone with assault for trying to throw bread into the embassy) if the cops felt they had a legal justification, why don't they just arrest everyone for trespassing? i have no idea about the legality, but the secret service is certainly not behaving like they have an ironclad legal basis on their side here. calling non-violent protesters "human shields for propaganda" is certantly a take. were the montgomery sit ins also "human shields for soviet propaganda?" even if you disagree with the politics of their decision, they are risking arrest and assault of their own volition, they could walk out at any time. by calling them human shields, you deny these people any sort of agency, as if telesur was some sort of mind-control ray.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Bloomberg reporting more details on the events of the 30th. Their sources are blaming confusion in communication and the unpopularity of Leopoldo Lopez for the failure of the uprising. The article also mentions key members of the Maduro government being in on it. The head of SEBIN The defense minister The president of the Supreme Court The head of the Presidential Guard quote:Maybe Venezuela’s most famous political prisoner, Leopoldo Lopez, was the thread that unraveled it all. William Bear fucked around with this message at 01:20 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GlumBird/status/1123726734984196097 So, uh, this feels important
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
That's a lot of senior figures who were potentially on board with this. The Maduro regime is going to get a lot more brittle and paranoid, and the opposition and/or their US backers are going to be encouraged to push a lot harder next time. I see no reason to assume this'll be the end of it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
that article is a fairly blatant attempt to make maduro feel paranoid. The coup didn’t fail because Lopez being on board made people nervous, it failed because they didn’t bother checking to see if the army was on board with the idea before they started. I mean I’m not a maduro apologist but that is some serious Baby’s First Psyop
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:that article is a fairly blatant attempt to make maduro feel paranoid. The coup didn’t fail because Lopez being on board made people nervous, it failed because they didn’t bother checking to see if the army was on board with the idea before they started. I mean I’m not a maduro apologist but that is some serious Baby’s First Psyop Yea 'he was TOTALLY just about to hand over power because we have all these double agents in his cabinet but then mean ol Lopez spooked him by being TOO tough and cool?' is as pathetic as 'he was juuuuust about on the plane before Russia forced him back!' They're painfully transparent efforts to call him a big weak baby with no real support. Also one good flag for that would be the quote from the guy who's currently hiding out in the embassy for...Chile I think?....saying 'I'm not afraid of prison or Maduro'.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:https://twitter.com/GlumBird/status/1123726734984196097 i hesitate to make a judgement here because I can't really evaluate the evidence very well
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
This embassy thing is nuts. I can’t believe 50 people are just living in the embassy and not letting people in. Its seriously impressive civil disobedience.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:
It's stupid and wrong. In the video you can see there's a line of police behind the trucks which were in a prolonged confrontation with protesters. They were facing each other down a long time before the incident, and the trucks repeatedly tried to punk the protesters accelerating towards them then stopping suddenly, before anyone got hit. Afterward the trucks retreated back into the rest of the police and they slowly withdrew from the crowd before eventually coming back. If the opposition had actually controlled all those riot cops and vehicles they could have used them to do something actually useful instead like seize a radio station or literally anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGDn2-Qr_Lg Here in this longer version you can better see everything going on. Unless you are talking about the other guy who got hit by an armored vehicle? I didn't see that one so I don't know.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:https://twitter.com/GlumBird/status/1123726734984196097 There is a long history of pro-west forces in Venezuela using false flags as a pretext for further American intervention. Now that Guaido has failed in the one mission that the US prepared him for, he's probably sweating bullets about the closed door discussions going on right now about the need for a martyr for the opposition to rally around.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
It's true that it's not certain if some of the figures mentioned in the article are really on Guaido's side. The claim that the head of SEBIN, Figuera, defected seems pretty solid, though. Consider: 1. SEBIN released Leopoldo Lopez 2. Figuera's wife flew to the US on the 28th 3. Figuera apparently released a letter explaining himself and Maduro fired him? (I'd be interested to see the letter) 4. No one knows where Figuera is
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:38
|
|