"aletheiak" <aletheiak@...> writes:

<<good point
followed by a deafening silence
for i am a little surprised our extraterritoriality mavens havent responded
nor even gasped out loud yet>>

I was wondering the same thing. But I also feel that, if I understand you
correctly, that the conclusive reply was rather underwhelming.
Extraterritoriality after all isn't sovereign territory, which would have
created bona fide enclaves and got a lot more people fired up.

But I would venture to guess that the hon. consul is mistaken in his
assumption. It may not be extraterritoriality but mere "inviolability of
their premises" just as in embassies. Traditional extraterritoriality of
land, as opposed to persons, seems virtually dead, with all cases of
examples dating from the days of Western Imperialism that were all given up
or seized by the host countries. See here for examples:

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/E/extrater.html

Cheers, HH