US Diplomat's Wife Hit and Run in UK - Page 7 - 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

#15042846
Drlee wrote:Because without it both he and the US ambassador would have been imprisoned for at least the balance of the war. And, if there was a tint of spying by either (a common pursuit of all legations) they could have been executed.


Why would an unrelated incident with someone else's immunity being waived, somehow create a "tint of spying?"
#15042875
I don't understand your question. I was talking about outcomes diplomats might face in the absence of treaties to protect them. And these are treaties rather than laws I believe.
#15042935
Drlee wrote:I don't understand your question. I was talking about outcomes diplomats might face in the absence of treaties to protect them. And these are treaties rather than laws I believe.


I was under the impression that you agree with BigSteve. That is, diplomatic immunity should NEVER EVER be waived for any reason what so ever. I was saying that I don't buy into this idea. I think you could waive immunity for cases that have nothing to do with diplomatic roles, and that would not damage the usefulness of diplomatic immunity for things related to diplomatic roles.

With respect to Japan during WWII, you stated how the Japanese ambassador was protected in the US. This is the exact purpose of diplomatic immunity. This is why it's important to have it. I agree.

Now, hypothetically, say a few years prior to WWII, had some previous Japanese diplomat committed a crime that resulted in a fatality (like a hit and run), and the diplomat's immunity was waived by Japan. Would that result in a situation where during WWII, the ambassador would not have been protected, because of this previous diplomat's immunity getting waived? I say no, BigSteve would say yes. I'm asking you, is that a yes or no for you.
#15042972
Now, hypothetically, say a few years prior to WWII, had some previous Japanese diplomat committed a crime that resulted in a fatality (like a hit and run), and the diplomat's immunity was waived by Japan. Would that result in a situation where during WWII, the ambassador would not have been protected, because of this previous diplomat's immunity getting waived? I say no, BigSteve would say yes. I'm asking you, is that a yes or no for you.


I have to say yes. It might. But my reason is this:

A nation intent on chicanery with regard to the diplomats of another country could use that previous decision by "Japan" to assert that any current assertion of diplomatic immunity is flawed.

I don't feel like typing a 1000 word yarn to describe how this might work. I am sure you can see where I am going. I believe that diplomatic immunity should be virtually unassailable.

Now watch someone make up some outrageous hypothetical about the husband of the deputy third secretary attacking a kindergarten and murdering all the children. Should that trigger diplomatic immunity? Yes it should. There is not reason however that the nation asserting diplomatic immunity might not prosecute the person itself.

Diplomatic immunity is absolute unless the nation wishing to violate it is willing to suffer the consequences of a break in diplomatic relations as a minimum and war as a possible remedy.
#15043012
skinster wrote:^ A hit and run that results in death is no big deal :eh: .

The only reason this is getting the play it is is because of the status of the person involved. And how she's managed to get away with murder (so far).

:lol: Murder don't make me laugh. What possible reason is there to think that this was pre meditated murder? What evidence is there that the driver even knew the victim? How did they know the victim was going to be passing? What shred of evidence is there that this woman was likely to commit pre meditated murder. What pattern of escalation can be demonstrated? In fact has the driver even got a criminal record of violence.

Oh hang on your comments weren't meant to be analysed seriously, it was just a pathetic attempt to whip some racist anti Americanism. No this is an utterly worthless news story, puffed up to distract from more serious issues. If you want real abuse of diplomatic look to Gadaffis' Libyan embassy. We finally brought Gadaffi to justice for his crimes, in particualr the murder of Yvone Fletcher, in a great intervention the as a Gadaffi lover you no doubt opposed.
#15043041
Presvias wrote:Being a Russian, you would NOT want diplomatic immunity to count for zilch. What happens when a good old Russian diplomat accidentally parks his car in the wrong space and MI5 + met are looking to squeeze em' for some info?


I have a feeling that this statement is out of context. To say the least,
1. The severity of the incident in this hypothesis is much smaller than the one actually happened and we are discussing.
2. No one is saying that the host country can act unilaterally, which I think is what this Honourable Person is suggesting by putting out this hypothesis.

If I am to put this in one sentence, this hypothesis seems to suffer from some slippery slope fallacy.
#15043076
If I am to put this in one sentence, this hypothesis seems to suffer from some slippery slope fallacy.


I completely agree that the argument to universally demand the application of immunity IS a slippery slope argument. Nevertheless, there are times when the "slippery slope" does apply quite directly to logical decision making.

In diplomacy, constancy and predictability are traits to be desired in most cases. At the end of the day countries like to deal with other countries that they can trust to behave consistently. This is proved in the details.

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?

Slippery slope accidents are not always logical fallacies and should probably not be considered as such. Some times they are completely appropriate. They are better called "precedent".
#15043080
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.
#15043109
Drlee wrote:A nation intent on chicanery with regard to the diplomats of another country could use that previous decision by "Japan" to assert that any current assertion of diplomatic immunity is flawed.

I don't feel like typing a 1000 word yarn to describe how this might work. I am sure you can see where I am going. I believe that diplomatic immunity should be virtually unassailable.


I understand.
#15043179
@Patrickov said...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
.

This is a very good point. It could and should be considered. When countries are as close as the US and UK have been it is far easier to decide to trust each other's legal systems. It could make the decision not to assert diplomatic immunity acceptable. Still. You offer an even better solution yourself. To wit.
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 thewrongdoer harmed party in concern.


The US could, and in my opinion should, stand responsible for the actions of its diplomats and their families overseas. So in this case, I would expect the US to offer a settlement to the family of the deceased. It is pointless to try to conjure up an amount and it would be impossible for a court to be involved because of the issue of diplomatic immunity, but a substantial settlement is nevertheless called for.

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.


They might but that is pretty old news. Clearly the US did not act consistent with the values expressed in this case. That is regrettable. In the final analysis though, as one might say, "that was then, this is now".

I do hope that my government will offer a very substantial settlement to the family of the deceased. It will never seem enough but we ought to do it anyway. It would also appear that an apology is called for. I would go on to say that the US government ought to consider comprehensive training for diplomats and their families to prepare them for living in other countries. And further, that this training should include a serious admonition that - a) they are expected to behave without reproach and that b) they should not automatically expect the US Government to stand for the abuse of diplomatic immunity. (Please do not infer that I am saying that this situation represents and abuse of diplomatic immunity.)
#15043265
If Mr Sacolaas had been a diplomat, there would have been no need to hustle his wife out of the country.

She would have been automatically covered by diplomatic immunity so would have no reason to leave.
#15043269
snapdragon wrote:If Mr Sacolaas had been a diplomat, there would have been no need to hustle his wife out of the country.

She would have been automatically covered by diplomatic immunity so would have no reason to leave.


Well yes but they wanted to avoid the media circus and the embarrassment.
I can imagine her being hounded by paparazzi when taking her kids to school or shopping.

And then there is something else which has not yet been talked about : there are several categories of diplomats. We don't know to which category her husband and she belonged.
Let me clarify: there are people who are sent out to do a job and they carry a government passport. That passport affords some protection but not full diplomatic immunity.
(I know this because I was in that situation for six years in Africa)
#15043371
Patrickov wrote:I have a feeling that this statement is out of context. To say the least,
1. The severity of the incident in this hypothesis is much smaller than the one actually happened and we are discussing.
2. No one is saying that the host country can act unilaterally, which I think is what this Honourable Person is suggesting by putting out this hypothesis.

If I am to put this in one sentence, this hypothesis seems to suffer from some slippery slope fallacy.


It's about setting precedents that are bad and hypothesizing about what'll happen if x happens.
#15043372
Ter is correct.

I read one account the described her husband as a military intelligence officer. I do not know about that.

I do not wish to start a conspiracy theory going around but we do not really know the nature of her assignment to the UK. She may have had some "unofficial" role in the country as well.

Clearly there is a media frenzy about this. There appears to be little to gain from having her return. Indeed it is virtually certain that she could not get fair treatment if she did. The public pressure is too great. It is best for the US and probably all involved to just let this one die down as it inevitably will.
#15043374
snapdragon wrote:If Mr Sacolaas had been a diplomat, there would have been no need to hustle his wife out of the country.

She would have been automatically covered by diplomatic immunity so would have no reason to leave.


But if he wasn't a diplomat there would've been no reason for a request to waive immunity...
#15043666
Drlee wrote:Clearly there is a media frenzy about this. There appears to be little to gain from having her return. Indeed it is virtually certain that she could not get fair treatment if she did. The public pressure is too great. It is best for the US and probably all involved to just let this one die down as it inevitably will.


If "there is a media frenzy" and "the public pressure is too great" then there must be someone other than the said public to blame, because it's that "someone" who made the public (and the media of course) in such a frenzy. This kind of development is no different from how the China and Hong Kong authorities keep making matters worse.

The more one tries to hide, the more gruesome his or her end is, and the more the person in concern tries to lie or hide. As one can see, this is a vicious circle and is simply wrong. We really need to find a way to stop people from making such kind of gamble.
#15043667
There isn’t anything unusual about this case. I lived in Canberra (Australia’s capital) for a number of years. The diplomatic cars have blue number plates. One had to keep an eye out for them because they get immunity if they run you over or crash into your car.

Anyway, this whole incident could have been avoided if the Americans were forced to drive on the correct side of the road.
#15043967
foxdemon wrote:Anyway, this whole incident could have been avoided if the Americans were forced to drive on the correct side of the road.


The majority of the world recognizes right hand traffic (RHT).

You guys need to get with the program...
#15043986
This kind of development is no different from how the China and Hong Kong authorities keep making matters worse.


I beg to disagree. It is quite different. The situation in Hong Kong is ongoing. This is over for the US.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Another school shooting

So what just because you want to cling to one wor[…]

Countries with nukes won't be invaded by USA, tha[…]

Ukrainegate

Look at the simple minded bullshit ^ that Republi[…]

Betrayal

And it's cheap, all NK had to give him was a phot[…]