TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Quote After the U.S. denies the extradition request, Dunn’s family will face the less-than-satisfying option of pursuing a civil action against Sacoolas in the United States. The probable outcome will be a settlement funded largely, if not wholly, by the U.S. government. ... In the end, I expect this matter will blow over. There is little choice for these two governments to do anything other than to let it. They can’t say so, but the British Foreign Office probably hopes America will deny extradition, because in similar circumstances elsewhere, they may be forced to protect British personnel the same way. The U.S. State Department noted that “The use of an extradition treaty to attempt to return the spouse of a former diplomat by force would establish an extraordinarily troubling precedent.” It is unlikely that the British have missed these implications. https://www.palisadeshudson.com/2020/01/shared-interests-override-a-diplomatic-dispute/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 34 minutes ago, BigFun said: Of course the US would take this same perspective if it were the other way around. When will Brits learn this 'special relationship' is fluff talk. One way maybe but both ways, never. Perhaps you should take note of the post below re Britain's history on this same topic: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 34 minutes ago, Bundooman said: She didn't have immunity. She had immunity when she was in the UK. The British govt publicly acknowledged that. Once she left and returned to the U.S., that immunity no longer applied, and it became an extradition issue, which the U.S. has denied. The next step, AFAIK, is for the family to pursue civil litigation in the U.S., which they are entitled to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: The spirit of the law, so to speak, is that diplomats and their families are immune from prosecution. It doesn't matter whether it's a case of persecution or whether they ran over and killed someone while plastered drunk. The immunity applies regardless of the type of incident involved. I can't say for certain, but I'd wager, it's relatively rare that any countries waive diplomatic immunity when their government employees are facing prosecution. It has happened, but I'd say certainly is the exception... And I'm talking around the world... not just cases involving the U.S. The spirit of the law, so to speak, is that diplomats and their families are immune from unjust prosecution. The spirit of the law is not that they can misbehave as much as they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caldera Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 I think there should be provisions for trying them at home, if they cannot be extradited to face trial. That would only be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, stevenl said: The spirit of the law, so to speak, is that diplomats and their families are immune from unjust prosecution. The spirit of the law is not that they can misbehave as much as they like. Please show me anywhere in the Vienna Convention language on this where it has any notion of just vs unjust prosecutions... The immunity is, and always has been, blanket, unless the diplomat's country waives their right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiBunny Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Caldera said: I think there should be provisions for trying them at home, if they cannot be extradited to face trial. That would only be fair. Could you give more detail on how you see this working in practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caldera Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said: Could you give more detail on how you see this working in practice? What problem do you see? People who abuse children abroad can already be tried at home in many countries, including the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Please show me anywhere in the Vienna Convention language on this where it has any notion of just vs unjust prosecutions... The immunity is, and always has been, blanket, unless the diplomat's country waives their right. You're confusing letter and spirit of the law. Maybe look at the purpose of immunity, that should explain things. The system needs an overhaul. It is abused now for minor infringes like speeding, illegal parking etc., it is used to protect again major infringes it was not meant for, like in the case at hand, and it is abused by many countries who have non-diplomats (spies) pretending to be something they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animalmagic Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Bundooman said: Possibly very true. Delighted that it is fun for you to see how the UK is 'bullied' by the US. What happy fun that must be for you. Happy endings every day? Which means, as your closest ally, we join the ranks of every other country around the world that despises you, doesn't trust you and like everyone else, know that you, the most powerful nation on earth at the moment, will never be an empire. Your country is falling apart pal - you can thank yourselves for that! If I could refer you to my original post, which claims I am way past believing politicians anywhere. I am confused as to why I was included in your little rant. There was no reference to a specific country, either UK or the US, and it looks like you have presumed I am from the US? p.s. I am not from the US. p.p.s. I do not often believe politicians as they have neither permanent friends or enemies; simply permanent self-interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, stevenl said: You're confusing letter and spirit of the law. Maybe look at the purpose of immunity, that should explain things. The system needs an overhaul. It is abused now for minor infringes like speeding, illegal parking etc., it is used to protect again major infringes it was not meant for, like in the case at hand, and it is abused by many countries who have non-diplomats (spies) pretending to be something they're not. There's a big difference between how the system exists and how you THINK it should exist. Let's not confuse those two very different notions. Meanwhile, let's wait and see how the British govt. will respond should the FBI come knocking with an extradition request for Prince Andrew in connection with the Epstein sex trafficking scandal. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-bbc-interview-extradition-investigation-latest-a9208171.html Quote Legal experts have said that the prince is not entitled to any form of immunity from the US investigation by virtue of his position as a member of the royal family. Also, as I posted above, British diplomatic staff abroad have a long history of getting involved in unsavory incidents abroad and being protected by their diplomatic immunity. And Britain hasn't typically waived that immunity, even in clear cut criminal cases. So let's not get too high-handed on this topic. Edited January 25, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: There's a big difference between how the system exists and how you THINK it should exist. Let's not confuse those two very different notions. "There's a big difference between how the system exists and how you THINK it should exist. Let's not confuse those two very different notions." I am referring to how it was meant to exist. So that is to the spirit of the system. But agree with you, that is how the present system works, and the main countries with influence will not want to change the present system. Despite all its flaws. Edited January 25, 2020 by stevenl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 28 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Please show me anywhere in the Vienna Convention language on this where it has any notion of just vs unjust prosecutions... The immunity is, and always has been, blanket, unless the diplomat's country waives their right. I believe the host country is the one that has to approve a diplomat and thetefore immunity. If the host country rescinds the approval of the diplomat he leaves. If she had immunity why did they tell her to leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Something that might not be clear in any of these threads is that RAF bases housing US pers in UK are 'Drive-on-the RIGHT' as soon as vehicles enter the front gate. As soon as drivers leave the base and rejoin UK's roads they are supposed/expected to drive on the left like everyone else.... When UK forces occupied German bases after WW2 as part of BAOR (or any other base worldwide for that matter) traffic in camp was always as per the host nation. HTH 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavideol Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 this is what GOOD friends do to each other...... they must have forgotten the MAGA, more to come if and when they start trade deal negotiations, but I will not say "" I told you so"" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Sujo said: I believe the host country is the one that has to approve a diplomat and thetefore immunity. If the host country rescinds the approval of the diplomat he leaves. If she had immunity why did they tell her to leave? She wasn't a diplomat herself. She was the wife of a U.S. embassy officer. So I don't think she herself would have been on any kind of UK govt list like you're talking about. I don't think the UK told her to leave. She left on her own, probably on advice from the U.S. govt. and/or the Embassy staff there. Edited January 25, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, evadgib said: Something that might not be clear in any of these threads is that RAF bases housing US pers in UK are 'Drive-on-the RIGHT' as soon as vehicles enter the front gate. As soon as drivers leave the base and rejoin UK's roads they are supposed/expected to drive on the left like everyone else.... When UK forces occupied German bases after WW2 as part of BAOR (or any other base worldwide for that matter) traffic in camp was always as per the host nation. HTH Also, from what I've read on the case, supposedly she had only been in the UK a relatively short time at the time of the crash... And the police tested her and found no evidence of intoxication. So from all indications, this was an accident, a tragic one that resulted in death, but still an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarshall Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Also, from what I've read on the case, supposedly she had only been in the UK a relatively short time at the time of the crash... And the police tested her and found no evidence of intoxication. So from all indications, this was an accident, a tragic one that resulted in death, but still an accident. Sure it was an accident, since it is unlikely that she actually intended to strike the cyclist, but that doesn't mean that she has no culpability. She was demonstrably negligent in driving on the wrong side of the road, for one thing. And therefore culpable even if sober. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thingamabob Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Diplomatic immunity is hard to define. Whatever the outcome is the young man, very sadly, will remain dead. Sometimes it's best to let go, and cherish the memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarshall Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Thingamabob said: Diplomatic immunity is hard to define. Whatever the outcome is the young man, very sadly, will remain dead. Sometimes it's best to let go, and cherish the memory. Other times, however, it's best to sue the grossly irresponsible party who caused the death of your loved one into poverty and cherish the court's award of damages. The appropriate response to smarm is snark. Edited January 25, 2020 by cmarshall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foghorn Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 19 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Of course it's sad and regrettable that someone died in a traffic collision. That notwithstanding, however, it's hard to see how the woman involved would not be covered by diplomatic immunity, as the wife of a U.S. Embassy officer there. If some country wants to take the position that the family members of their Embassy officers should not be covered by diplomatic immunity when abroad, they're likely to quickly find their embassy staff's family members being held de facto hostage by any number of adversary governments. Surely the woman should of stayed in the american compand until she had brains enough to know on what side of the road we drive in England . Why was she not detained at the time and passport confiscated until the court date, horrible woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer90210 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Diplomatic immunity that was once for the wellbeing of peace, cross nation relationships etc....has become a duty free abuse racket, with unacceptable behaviour from many of the accredited....no matter from which country they are from....welcome to the XXI century. Like him or not, Giuliani was one of the first public figures who enforced strict rules towards the diplomatic community in NYC years ago, for parking abuse and unpayment of the related fines and violations. However, many nations do not extradite their nationals, with or without Diplomatic Immunity. So perhaps it could be time now for the US to show the example and take the woman to justice, within the USA and put her on trial for (unwanted) manslaugter (as it is a bit late to investigate if she was drunk) and perhaps treat her like any other lower class and humble US citizen would have been treated by the US Criminal Justice System. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sucit Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 So why doesn't Britain wake up and start defying US foreign policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 13 minutes ago, cmarshall said: Sure it was an accident, since it is unlikely that she actually intended to strike the cyclist, but that doesn't mean that she has no culpability. She was demonstrably negligent in driving on the wrong side of the road, for one thing. And therefore culpable even if sober. She was an American who by nature and habit would be driving on the side of the road she was on... (albeit the wrong side for driving in the UK). And note the prior poster who mentioned that the driving on the U.S. bases in the UK is done US style, not UK style. So all in all, it's hardly the kind of situation to drag out a noose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmicbkktxl Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 At the time of the accident she didn't have immunity.She got immunity after the accident.So the USA should send her to England.Being the the family member of a diplomat doesn't give you automatic immunity. A German guy got two life sentences for killing parents of his exgirlfriend even he was the son the German vice Consul consulate Detroit,didn't save him from prison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyCarlton Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 19 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: That notwithstanding, however, it's hard to see how the woman involved would not be covered by diplomatic immunity, as the wife of a U.S. Embassy officer there. He was not a US embassy officer and neither of them had diplomatic immunity at the time of the accident. Diplomatic immunity is granted to individuals by the host country. In the case of the UK it's granted by the Home Office and all granted diplomatic immunity are placed on a Home Office list. At the time of the accident neither were on the list. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, sucit said: So why doesn't Britain wake up and start defying US foreign policy? If Britain desired to, they certainly could move to reform the current rules for international diplomatic immunity. But considering the numbers of UK diplomatic staff who get into scrapes abroad themselves and are protected by diplomatic immunity, I won't be holding my breath on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, mrmicbkktxl said: Being the the family member of a diplomat doesn't give you automatic immunity. Yes, it does. If the husband was covered by immunity by virtue of his position, then his immediate family is also covered... automatically, no ifs ands or buts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said: He was not a US embassy officer and neither of them had diplomatic immunity at the time of the accident. Diplomatic immunity is granted to individuals by the host country. In the case of the UK it's granted by the Home Office and all granted diplomatic immunity are placed on a Home Office list. At the time of the accident neither were on the list. Do you have some source for that?.. if so, provide it. Because in Parliament, the government testified that she had diplomatic immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarshall Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: She was an American who by nature and habit would be driving on the side of the road she was on... (albeit the wrong side for driving in the UK). And note the prior poster who mentioned that the driving on the U.S. bases in the UK is done US style, not UK style. So all in all, it's hardly the kind of situation to drag out a noose. When negligence results in death it may well rise to the level of criminality. Driving on the wrong side of the road, like running a red light, makes that driver entirely responsible. I am an American who has been living for years in a country with left-side driving. I have never driven a car in this country just because I would not trust my reactions not to end up in the wrong lane. If I can't trust my nature and habit then I don't expose myself and others to the risk. I think Sacoolas is criminally responsible, should be imprisoned, and should pay enormous damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now