View Single Post
Old 10-07-2019, 09:19 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,705
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
LOL. Hyper-nationalists? Nation States rarely waive immunity.
While your second statement is true - nation states rarely waive immunity - the first is also true of the US at this time. The Trump administration is more hostile towards foreign nations in general (rather than opposing specific nations) than I can remember the US being in a long, long time. That makes the current US government even less likely to waive immunity than would normally be the case.

Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
And if we had a full accounting of the swept under the rug crimes and misdemeanors committed by UK diplomats and family in the USA the outrage would dissipate quickly.
Whataboutery and tu quoque assertions will help no one and nothing in this instance. ALL countries have a history of misbehaving diplomat's & family using and abusing diplomatic immunity to evade consequences for their actions.

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
She's not the diplomat though and she's not on official business. Is she now not free to leave the country?
Diplomatic immunity extends to the families of diplomats as well as the diplomats themselves. She has diplomatic immunity. She can't remove it. Even if she did go to the UK as a "private citizen" she would STILL have diplomatic immunity whether she wants it or not and the US government is going to have a fit if the UK tries to prosecute her, perhaps even if they merely interview her or allow the police to interact with her and, the UK wanting to preserve its own diplomatic immunity privilege for its own diplomats and their families, are not going to allow that. Most likely, if she did arrive in the UK the UK authorities would just put her on an airplane going back to the US as soon as possible. However much Mr. Dunn's family and/or the Northhampshire police want to pursue this, it is not in the best interest of the upper level UK government to allow it.

Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Waving immunity sets what would undoubtedly be a very uncomfortable precedent because a decision like that is purely subjective. "When", "what", and "how bad" become blurry lines. It also leaves open the possibility of foul play. For example, you are a diplomat in my country and, for some reason, I want to punish you or the nation you represent, I could simply trump up charges and demand to put you on trial. I don't see how any diplomat could ever feel safe or protected again.
... and that is WHY diplomatic immunity exists. It's not for the benefit of those guilty of crimes, but rather for the much larger group that are innocent of wrong-doing.

Which makes circumstances such as prompted this thread no less distressing.