Huh. I would have thought that driving on the wrong side is something that would come back quickly, like riding a bike…
The previous two-year residence in the UK also is a rebuttal to the “why do we need a trial? It’s obvious what happened” argument.
This thread was started four months ago, has now reached over 500 posts, and we’re just now hearing about a significant fact that goes directly to the issue of her negligence.
Maybe, just maybe, the law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in England know more about the details of this case than posters on a message board, and that’s why they think a trial is warranted?
Wild and crazy thought, I know, but perhaps we should entertain it. 
In my experience, that happens best when there are visual queues, especially other cars driving on the “correct” side of the road. If you switch back and forth over a period of time, you won’t get a sense of things being wrong without feedback.
Agreed. But whatever her job was, I still don’t see how her being - or having been - an agent makes things worse. She was, by all accounts on this trip a spouse visiting her husband, as previously stated. It seems to me that outing her as an agent is just a petty revenge, and a damned dangerous one at that.
Whatever they might hope for from the trial, I’m pretty sure death isn’t a possible outcome.
True, but part of the feedback can also be the car itself. That is, if you’re driving a right-hand drive car, and drive on the right, you’ll find yourself right against the curb with limited view of the left side of the road, which feels very weird.
Meanwhile, driving with the steering wheel on the “wrong”, nearside, of the car feels generally weird, and it becomes a bit more understandable how someone could drive on the wrong side for a while.
IME
If a foreign spy is involved in the death of a person in your country, and is whisked away and protected by the foreign government, it adds to the feeling that foreigners are doing bad things in your country and getting special protection.
The fact that apparently she is a foreign spy is part of the overall picture. It should not be concealed from the people of Britain, who are assessing whether their government is properly handling thus issue. Is the British government not doing everything it can, because the “special relationship” means HM’s government has to kowtow to the American spymasters? That’s a fair question for the British to be asking.
If protecting her spy cover was so important, and blowing it can put lives at risk, then wouldn’t it have been better for her to plead to the charge, get a fine and community service, and avoid the chance that her spy status becomes public by protracted proceedings, as has actually happened here? If she’s truly a dedicated spy for her country, wouldn’t that have been a sounder course of action?
“My only regret is that I have but two wrists that can be slapped for my county…etc., etc.”
There are actually four levels of offence for causing death by driving:
Anne Sacoolas has been charged with the highest level of offence, causing death by dangerous driving.
From the sentencing council leaflet:
As noted, once the threshold for causing death by dangerous driving is reached, there is no further higher charge of causing death by dangerous driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. However, being under the influence can be considered an aggravating factor when the judge determines sentencing. The lowest level of sentencing is for “Driving that created a significant risk of danger” and has a starting point, based on a first time offender pleading not guilty, of a three year custodial sentence. If driving under the influence or other aggravating factors were to raise the nature of the offence to “Driving that created a substantial risk of danger”, the starting point rises to five years. The minimum guideline sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is two years. However, judges are not obligated to comply with this guideline. They may also choose to order a custodial sentence, and then suspend it.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/
TLDR: It’s a very serious charge, and while prison time is not guaranteed, any sentence would be more than a slap on the wrist.
If the person in question had been in the Witness Protection program, such that revealing her real name and status might result in her death and/or danger to her family, would you make the same claim?
People who work in the clandestine services look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. It’s not like soldiers, who get to go home and be safe. It may take a while for a soldier to feel that they are safe. For a member of the clandestine services, not only are they never safe, but everyone they worked with them could be identified by association. And everyone who rented them a room, or sold them groceries, or delivered their newspaper is at risk of “aggressive interrogation” just by dint having crossed paths with them.
That’s why it is considered completely beyond the pale to advertise that status. None of us can predict what the unintended consequences may be.
So no, the British public does not “have a right to know” what her job was.
The American policy of protecting the identity of their spies has no legal status in Britain. The British people certainly are entitled to question and critique the actions of their government, and to ask if their government is favouring foreign spies at the expense of due process in the British court system.
Having their cover blown by their actions in a foreign country is one of the risks that spies voluntarily assume.
Query: would you apply the same standard in the United States with foreign spies? If a Russian or Chinese spy is accused of a crime in the United States, would you say that the US government should protect the spy’s status from the American people?
Why would you choose adversaries for your question? Surely you mean “should the US protect the identity of British spies?”.
Beacause TruCelt made a sweeping claim that the identities of agents in “clandestine services” should have their identities protected. Chinese and Russian spies are in “clandestine services”, so by her claim, their identities should be protected.
If TruCelt wants to come back and restrict her claim to American spies, she can.
Plus, how can you be certain that the current US regime views Russian spies as adversaries, given that the President was willing to share highly qualified intelligence with the Russian Ambassador?
Just to clarify, that is not meant ironically/sarcastically on my part. If the President shares highly classified intelligence with the Ambassador of a foreign country, that strongly suggests that country is not an adversary.
That’s exactly what I was wondering. And my answer is that no, I don’t think it would be appropriate for the US government to blow the cover of a British spy, unless we had some serious falling out with great Britain. And I don’t mean a traffic death.
This makes me wonder just how bad US/UK relations are right now.
I’ve been thinking now about this, and I’ve changed my answer. If she’d only recently returned, I do think it would unfortunately easy to confuse the sides. I was dancing left-handed today, as a hack. It’s something I do from time to time. And even though I’ve done it frequently, it’s easy to get confused and go the wrong way. (And to do the same for a while when i switch back, too.)
I certainly would. Because in the case of a Russian spy the landlord, and the paperboy, and the grocer in question would have been American citizens. I do not agree with spy cases being blown up all over the newspapers, period.
Perhaps if the spy in question had been accused of murder - as the British press seems intent upon treating this case - and the consequences could somehow magically be narrowed to the murderer, then I might agree with you.
But in no case should a person accused of some degree of traffic accident have their life put at risk in retaliation.
And in no case should any government allow a member of their own clandestine services to be taken into custody and questioned by a foreign government - however friendly. Because that would be just plain stupid, and the precedent it would set might be tragic.
I continue to be convinced that the fact of her having been employed by the CIA further supports the decision of the two governments to respect her immunity in this case. I still do not see any justification for why anyone would be more upset by it. The news should have garnered a deep sigh and “Oh, so that’s why it was so important!” from all concerned.
Two governments? The British government formally requested her extradition.
But consider my point too: if you’re in a right hand drive car that’s a visual and tactile reminder.
Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
Having switched back and forth a few times, I can tell you that it’s often not enough.
We create cues like that when dancing mirror. We hold hands the “other” way to remind us. It’s helpful, but doesn’t completely do the job.
This. It’s now obvious why the US told her to go home, and claimed diplomatic immunity. And really quite irresponsible of the British press and whoever leaked the CIA info to have released that information.
So can I; it’s the presence of other traffic that reminds you.