US Diplomat's Wife Hit and Run in UK - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15042274
Yes. The cry me a river folks want to mention how I might feel if it was my wife. Angry.

What if my wife is in Saudi Arabia and faces beheading for apostasy? Now do we call out the army, devastate the country and rescue the damsel in distress?

What about arresting the ambassador on trumped up charges? Nukes? We have a lot of them.

How about the hostages in Iran. If it were not Carter we would have (and history shows should have) leveled them and installed a puppet government.

These laws are not designed to protect someone from parking tickets though they do. The principle of the law is valuable. But if you want to end diplomatic immunity think, just for a moment, what might happen to UK diplomats and their families if the host nation needs leverage. You see, with only one exception, the US is powerful enough to extract a terrible price from any country fucking with our people. The UK, not quite so much. In other words, we don't need as much protection as others do. Diplomatic immunity protects the less militarily and economically powerful nations from blackmail by more powerful ones.

This is not a small question regardless of how the US decides it will go.
#15042276
Nonsense wrote:No doubt with an eye on the 'get-out-of-jail' clause embedded into that law.


True, but both sides had to agree to that clause, knowing full well what the possible implications could be...
#15042277
Drlee wrote:OK.

So this is a tragic accident.

Last year 1,792 people in the UK died in traffic accidents. 1.25 million worldwide if we are to believe the google search. In 2014 almost 17,000 hit and run accidents occurred in the UK. 5,000 in London last year.

So is the story here that this is some kind of unique occurrence in the UK? Worthy of New York Times video and print coverage? No. It is a fairly commonplace experience in the world.

So what makes this a story is that there was the wife of a diplomat who left the country claiming immunity. The posting of grieving parents and incensed people is just tacky. IF Her Majesty's government has a problem with the way this played out they can change the rules within the UK. They can petition the US Government to give access to this person for either prosecution or civil action. They may or may not get the answer they want.

As has been said, this is hardly a new situation. Either we have diplomatic immunity or we do not. Crying parents do not change the situation at all. They just sell stuff that advertisers want to sell. I, for one, have decided that taken as a whole, diplomatic immunity is a good thing. But we have to remember. It is the country whose diplomat is involved that invokes immunity. It is not an automatic nor irrevocable thing.

Final thought. Should the families of diplomats even be living overseas? I could make a good case for a no on that. It would be sad for the families to be separated but soldiers suffer this frequently. So the third option is to have diplomats and staff serve at US embassies without their families? That would solve problems like this. But at the end of the day it would just be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. This is a very rare occurrence. As tragic as it is, and it is tragic, it hardly merits the coverage it is getting.


I don't understand the concept of diplomatic immunity if it is the freedom to get away with reckless or stupid behaviour.

Government officials from abroad should conduct themselves in a better fashion, they should not be carelessly running over citizens in the countries where they temporarily reside. This woman and her family are ambassadors for their country.

And as Skinster pointed out, under normal conditions a hit and run will be tried at court. She has managed to escape on the pretext of diplomatic immunity. I can't quite understand why she is immune, however, considering this has nothing to do with diplomacy and she is guilty of a major crime. It's a private crime that she has committed and has nothing to do with her diplomatic status. If this is what diplomatic immunity entails then it is time to review it.
#15042279
late wrote:comedy gold like that is why I come here.. That raises your previous comments from silly to farcical. Underlying all that is the reality is that there isn't much enforcement in international law.

This sort of thing interests me not at all. I just know there is a web of tradition, and custom, underlying diplomatic relationships. It's complicated.

So while I won't go looking for it, it's quite possible I will stumble across someone informed and competent. And if I do, I will post it.


So, the only other position to take would be that lawyers not well versed in international law played a role in formulating it.

That's the position you apparently wish to take.

I won't further burden you with intelligent discourse...
#15042280
Political Interest wrote:It's a private crime that she has committed and has nothing to do with her diplomatic status.


A "private crime"?

I have to say, in all of my 57 years I've never heard such a term.

A "private crime" as opposed to what? A public one?

If it's private, as opposed to public, how is it the government; any government, would play a role at any point?
#15042283
BigSteve wrote:
A "private crime"?

I have to say, in all of my 57 years I've never heard such a term.

A "private crime" as opposed to what? A public one?

If it's private, as opposed to public, how is it the government; any government, would play a role at any point?


It was a crime committed irrespective of diplomacy and politics, although of course it has implications in that respect.

But what does her having diplomatic protection have to do with a hit and run? A crime is a crime.

I could understand diplomatic immunity if it means protection from the political situation. What I don't understand is why it allows people to get away with these types of major crimes. There was a case in Singapore a few years ago where a Romanian diplomat was guilty of hit and run and also fled the country.
#15042311
Political Interest wrote:It was a crime committed irrespective of diplomacy and politics, although of course it has implications in that respect.

But what does her having diplomatic protection have to do with a hit and run? A crime is a crime.

I could understand diplomatic immunity if it means protection from the political situation. What I don't understand is why it allows people to get away with these types of major crimes. There was a case in Singapore a few years ago where a Romanian diplomat was guilty of hit and run and also fled the country.


I'm not entirely sure what you're hoping I'll say.

It's a crime, sure. But it's a crime which cannot, because of diplomatic immunity, be prosecuted...
#15042327
I guess the issue is whether in diplomatic immunity is absolute or qualified in actuality and whether it should be.

In ancient history is cases of such exceptions.
The other fundamental question of relations between subjects was the question of immunity granted to ambassadors and other diplomats. Interestingly, although there is a very ancient tradition of such immunity, it was not unqualified. Ambassadors could be used as high-value hostages in fact, without this being deemed to be a breach of the law of nations by some peoples.


But Ambassadors are subject to a more modern convention as already stated, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Where they are absolutely immune to the criminal jurisdiction of the recipient state.
The most a recipient country can do is expel someone no matter how severe the crime and how it offends moral sensibilities of what is just.

Whether this should be the case seems to be defended on how it not being absolute is a slippery slope that undermines the principle of immunity.
But then this needs to be tested someone in considering how certain defined openings might seriously undermine diplomatic immunity's intended function.
As I do see an exception stated in this articlefor example "They also enjoy immunity from civil proceedings unless the case involves property or business interests unrelated to their diplomatic duties."
And this seems to be the point that jars one's moral sensibilities, this wasn't some cross cultural offense in the midst of one's diplomatic duties.
But then how much protection could be given based on the idea that immunity is granted only to the extent that it pertains in the line of one's diplomatic duties. This seems quite narrow, and so I imagine the broadness of the immunity does seem to be a conservative basis to make sure that it doesn't err on the side of undermining the principle of immunity itself but leading to absurdities to moral sensibility such as this case.
#15042333
BigSteve wrote:There has been no murder here, so please spare us your drama...


There's a dead teenager in this story.

It was an accident. Accidents happen.


It would've been an accident if the person responsible didn't run away from the "accident" and then onto another country.
#15042336
The White House has asked for an urgent meeting later on Tuesday with the family of Harry Dunn, who was allegedly killed in a crash involving the wife of a US diplomat.

Anne Sacoolas - the American motorist suspected of colliding with Mr Dunn - fled back to America shortly after the incident in August.

A wife of an intelligence officer, she is said to be covered by diplomatic immunity, though that protection is now in dispute.

On Tuesday, Harry Dunn's family's spokesperson, Radd Seiger tweeted to say that they had all been invited to a meeting at the White House.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-15/wif ... c-mistake/


Trump invited Harry Dunn's family to the White House to meet with Anne Sacoolas - a wife of an intelligence officer. Probably she will seek an out-of-court settlement with payments of money out of court. Millions of dollars could be paid out to the victim's family. Trump has no intention of sending her back to Britain.
#15042344
skinster wrote:There's a dead teenager in this story.


People die daily without it being murder, nor has "murder" been discussed here.

Sparing us the drama would make your point more acceptable. Otherwise it's nonsense...

It would've been an accident if the person responsible didn't run away from the "accident" and then onto another country.


If it's an accident that doesn't change based on the conduct of the driver. Hitting the teenager was an accident unless, of course, those whining about "murder" can offer up some evidence to support the idea that she actually meant to kill him.

Hitting the kid wasn't the crime...
#15042348
The kid didn't die, he was killed. If me referring to this as murder is what bothers you more than the killing itself, you might want to just die yourself maybe.

If she didn't mean to kill him, perhaps she should've attended to him after she hit him with her car, like law-abiding fags do (the type your ilk normally adore).
#15042388
skinster wrote:The kid didn't die, he was killed.


Um, okay.

Did you have a point?

If me referring to this as murder is what bothers you more than the killing itself, you might want to just die yourself maybe.


Your stupid commentary aside, you appear to be quite ignorant to exactly what "murder" is.

Accidentally hitting someone with a car and killing them isn't it...

If she didn't mean to kill him, perhaps she should've attended to him after she hit him with her car, like law-abiding fags do (the type your ilk normally adore).


You seem to have some emotional issues. "law-abiding fags"? What the fuck is that?

Anyway, permit me to educate you in the hopes that you can discuss this from a more intelligent position.

Here's the definition of "murder":

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


So, before you fly off the rails on some drama-laden rant, if you want to call it "murder" and appear intelligent as opposed to emotional as you do, please provide something; Hell, anything, which shows that hitting the kid with her car was premeditated...
#15042400
don't understand the concept of diplomatic immunity if it is the freedom to get away with reckless or stupid behaviour.


You could put it like that. It is, in fact, "the freedom to get away with reckless or stupid behavior" provided that the country this reckless person represents decides to not apply diplomatic immunity.

Government officials from abroad should conduct themselves in a better fashion, they should not be carelessly running over citizens in the countries where they temporarily reside. This woman and her family are ambassadors for their country.


Really? You want to put it like that? We all ought to do a lot of things. Having an accident is always one of them. It has not been established that this was anything other than a tragic accident. The only "crime" of which she is accused is leaving the scene of an accident.

And as Skinster pointed out, under normal conditions a hit and run will be tried at court. She has managed to escape on the pretext of diplomatic immunity. I can't quite understand why she is immune, however, considering this has nothing to do with diplomacy and she is guilty of a major crime.


Hit and run is not a "major crime". It is a crime. Understanding why is as simple as this:

Her Majesty's government has entered into an agreement with other nations granting this to her in exchange for the same privilege for its own diplomatic corps abroad.

It's a private crime that she has committed and has nothing to do with her diplomatic status. If this is what diplomatic immunity entails then it is time to review it.
Review away. Keep us posted on how that works out for you.
#15042416
So after they let her escape under the pretext of diplomatic immunity, they now say that diplomatic immunity has been revoked. But she won't have to come back to face justice anyways. I wonder how the Trump fanboys justify this degree of hypocrisy.
#15042447
The Americans only gave her diplomatic immunity after the accident

It's worse than disgusting. Harry Dunn's parents do not want a private meeting with her on her terms.

They want her to come back and face justice.
#15042468
snapdragon wrote:The Americans only gave her diplomatic immunity after the accident

No, that is not how it works.
The Americans can propose someone to receive diplomatic status and then the host country has to accept that person. It is not an automatic thing.

Also, it was an accident, not murder.

The British did not "allow" the American woman, to leave the country, she was taken out by private plane.

Accidents happen every day and it is sad, very sad. Why this particular accident continues to be in the news ? Is it because the woman is American ? Because her husband is a spy ?
Nothing is bringing that young man back to his family.
#15042493
Hit and run is not murder whether you stay at the scene or not. Hit and run is a crime no matter what happens to the victim.
#15042499
This was likely preventable and foreseeable.

If host countries tested all drivers, they could refused to grant driving privileges to the guest if s/he was demonstrably not up to the task. The guest pays the bill. Now countries with similar laws and traditions eg driving on the same side of the road etc might waive the tests. But unless this lady was completely unaware of her inadequate skills, she should be or at least could be charge with something like undue care and attention, which is a middling offence and the driver wouldn't do time, or criminal negligence. I expect the parents could go from there to suing the driver.

People could spare themselves a lot of money (and grief) if they simply shelled out for a taxi instead of renting cars.

Edit

If diplomatic immunity is a factor, the driver'side home country could pay for retraining the guest driver who fails an in eligibility test.

I'm thinking of my mother here. She had a tough time transitioning, especially in the countryside with roads that were too narrow to warrent a dividing line. The sound of the grinding gears as she shifted or turned a corner was frightening :|
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Another school shooting

@BigSteve According to the CDC, in 2017, roughl[…]

It was famine. Or prisoner execution. No worse th[…]

The teachings of the Austrian school are still use[…]

Ukrainegate

On the contrary, they are subjecting testimony […]