Are you trying to equivalate a drunk driver vs a pure accident? :dubious:
And I want to point out that:
1.the Republic of Georgia could have said no.
So, people make decisions. The US looked up her accident as a pure accident, and said No, as is our right. the Republic of Georgia looked upon his drunken driving as something they couldnt defend, and said yes- as is their right.
Yes, there is usually- the courts. However, in this case the UK courts will be unable to hold a fair trial, so no, in this case- there is no such forum.
It’s interesting to compare this case with the situation at US bases on Okinawa, where traffic accidents are covered by a special agreement with the Japanese government.
Of course, there are far more serious problems involving the US bases on Okinawa - traffic accidents are the least of it - but the arrogance is exactly the same.
Next question?
You are effectively repeating the similarly nonsensical claim that
A high profile trial where the process will be held under extreme scrutiny, the evidence will be freely available to reporters, and where the US will still have to waive her immunity to sentence if she’s found guilty? I mean, you do recall the whole “waiver of immunity from jurisdiction in respect of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be held to imply waiver of immunity in respect of the execution of the judgment, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary” point, right?
Yeah, I reckon she’s got a damned good chance of a fair trial and sentencing. Because what sort of idiot prosecutor, defender or judge is going to publicly fail to do their job in a high profile case, effectively making themselves a global idiot attracting criticism from all quarters, knowing that if justice is not clearly seen to be done the US will go “nope, not having it” and she walks free?
So now we’ve moved on from your blanket “no trial should be held as she has diplomatic immunity.” to claiming that the US should only waive immunity when it feels the case is indefensible. I guess that’s progress of a sort. So then
So far you have claimed:
I get the feeling this list is likely to grow.
Do you think it’s necessary to conduct a full legal trial to distinguish between a drunken joy ride and forgetting which side of the road you are supposed to drive on?
Really?
Ok, now one where it wasn’t the British diplomat who is the victim of the crime? Lol.
You do realise that for Britain to waive immunity for a diplomat, another country has to request that first, right? You’re essentially asking me to try to find an example of something that may never have happened.
So tell you what: how about you try to substantiate your claim of British hypocrisy on this by putting forward an example of them refusing to waive immunity under the circumstances you want?
Haven’t you noticed the shockingly small number of examples of waiving immunity in all these articles on the subject? And the one example you can find is about a Brit diplomat being beat up by her husband, so they waived it for the husband.
Yes I do. More importantly though, the body responsible for making the decision on whether a trial is appropriate thinks it’s required too, which is why they charged her with the crime.
“In a statement released on Friday, Chief Crown Prosecutor Janine Smith, said:“Following the death of Harry Dunn in Northamptonshire, the Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised Northamptonshire Police to charge Anne Sacoolas with causing death by dangerous driving.”
The options as far as I can see them are:
Absent of evidence of 1 or 2, I’m have to conclude her opinion on the issue is more relevant than yours.
Your claim was:
" I figure that in the last 60 years, a Brit diplomat has crossed a line somewhere, no? I ask only to weigh how much of this is American “arrogance” rather than standard practice, with the Brits standing in as the most humble country on the planet."
Somehow you think that the fact I can’t find an example of Britain refusing to waive immunity supports your claim. Are you familiar with burden of proof? If you want to assert that Britain is being hypocritical on this, all you have to do is provide an example of them refusing a request in these circumstances. Failing that, your claim would appear to be incorrect.
Yes, there has been a media shitstorm and the UK government is under huge pressure. They cant just slap her on the wrist. The Uk courts will be forced to apply a heavy sentence.
Yes, very high profile, tens of thousands of Brits screaming “lock her up”. The courts will be forced to give her a heavy sentence, not just the usual slap on the wrist. The prosecutor will be forced to ask for the maximum sentence, etc.
I never said "the US should only waive immunity when it feels the case is indefensible. You are putting words in my mouth.
I have no idea of how “Romania’s request for VanGoethem” enters into this at all.
She does face 14 years in prison, that is the max sentence as allowed by law, quoted from UK sources.
She can’t get a fair trial, the prosecutor and the courts will be under heavy pressure to demand a heavy sentence. Once immunity is waived and she is in GB, where did you get the idea that " despite the law requiring the US having to agree with the ruling and sentence, and allow any punishment to be executed"
Immunity can be waived, but it is very rarely done.
I never made that claim. You were the one that claim drunk driving manslaughter is the same thing as a auto accident.
You’re the one who brought up “hypocritical”. I was just digging into the extent that this is “American arrogance” to not waive immunity.
I did indeed accuse the US of hypocrisy. To do so I provided an example (requesting immunity be waived for the drink driving killer Gueorgui Makharadze, refusing to waive immunity for the drink driving killer Christopher VanGoethem).
See how that works? Make claim, give supporting example for the claim.
How it doesn’t work is what you’ve tried here. Make a claim, then demand I find an example to prove your claim wrong…when there may well be no example because that presumes there’s actually a case where Britain was asked to waive immunity in the first place. Do you follow? If there’s not been a request in a case that meets the requirements you’re looking for, you can hardly be surprised that there’s been no compliance with such a request.
I’m sorry, but the prosecutor asking for a trial is hardly the prosecutor claiming she can’t tell the difference between a drunken joy ride and driving on the wrong side of the street without a trial. And I bet if you asked her directly, she would admit that yes, she can tell the difference without a trial. As can you, and I, and everyone else in the thread.
She authorised Northamptonshire Police to charge Anne Sacoolas with causing death by dangerous driving. I imagine that’s routine following a traffic death. Upholding diplomatic immunity is also routine. There’s no real conflict, everyone is doing their job.
You are saying that this case is so egregious that the US ought to waive diplomatic immunity, which is not at all routine. and which makes more sense for the drunken joyride, imho.
Jesus, what bullshit. You say this as though it is fact, as opposed to a what it is – a delusion.
The USA prosecuted VanGoethem and found him guilty of two charges. There was no need to waive immunity.