Drlee wrote:This incident may seem, on a diplomatic scale, to be minor and easy to resolve by simply throwing the lady to the mercy of the British legal system. But it is not so simple. If we do not assert immunity on this occasion we will find it more difficult in the future; especially since this incident has become a media circus. Suppose we give her over to justice and in two weeks a similar thing happens in Saudi Arabia and we choose not to give the person over. What does that say to the Saudi's?
I deliberately added the word fallacy
because I acknowledge that Slippery Slope can be legitimate at times. If I thought Slipper Slope was universally bad I would have omitted that word.
My concern is that, the previous hypothesis by my Honourable Friend suggests the possibility of a unilateral action by the host
country, which is undoubtedly unacceptable in almost all circumstances. Gratefully, my Honourable Friend decides to provide a relevant response here.
This newer argument can be seen as like the Extradition Law issue in Hong Kong, purely on the perspective of law at least. I still consider the actual case being more valid, because US and UK have similar bodies of law and judicial system, which, sadly, is not true for countries like Saudi Arabia. It is much easier to trust a System very much the same as one's own. Using my Honourable Friend's term, consistency
(of law System) is in play here.
Meanwhile, one may also follow my Honourable Friend's argument and say the US showed a rather bad inconsistency, because it had asked others to waive immunity in similar cases (although it's some 20 years ago), but refused to follow the example when it's one of theirs who got involved. If the US Government shares my Honourable Friend's view on diplomatic immunity they might as well issue an apology or even compensation to Gerogia and the wrongdoer in concern.