If I understand correctly, to paraphrase. The logic of the process is that the U.K. asks the U.S. government if they will waive immunity and permit the prosecution to proceed. If the U.S. refuses to waive, the U.K. will not proceed as a matter of diplomatic courtesy to the United States. So even if Sacoolas flew to the U.K. and said she wanted face the charges in U.K. court, the U.K. will not proceed. The immunity privilege was never “hers” to waive.
My understanding is part of the wrinkle is, as per the standing agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, American officials stationed in the UK who aren’t part of embassies or consular missions, but who have more technical type jobs, have a general “waiver” of immunity to criminal prosecution. What this means is that most people working in the base where Jonathan Sacoolas works, while they have general diplomatic immunity, the United States has waived their immunity for criminal offenses in the local jurisdiction. But by a weird quirk of the text of that waiver, the waiver only waived it for the direct holder of the immunity, i.e. if Jonathan Sacoolas had gotten into this car wreck, he likely would not have enjoyed immunity as it had been waived for him for ordinary criminal offense. But as an oversight, the immunity was not waived for families of the person with immunity. Since the “default” agreement is that people on the type of credential Jonathan was on enjoy diplomatic immunity AND so do their spouses, a waiver has to be in place for it not to apply. A general waiver is actually in place, but its specific text only mentioned the primary holder of the immunity and not their spouses. I believe this is also why Raab got so mad about the situation, he felt like it was a loophole and as a matter of good faith and adherence to the existing general waiver, the United States should have waived immunity.
Why has the United States done a general waiver for people in Jonathan Sacoolas position? My understanding is it puts them more in line with how U.S. soldiers stationed at those bases are treated. Basically, Jonathan wasn’t there as part of a diplomatic mission, wasn’t working or stationed at an Embassy or Consular office, he was an intelligence officer on a technical assignment. There’s lots of members of the U.S. military stationed in friendly countries like Britain and Germany. Generally speaking our agreements with those countries say if you’re off base driving around drunk and committing crimes, and local police stop you, you are not immune from prosecution. My understanding is the reason for the general waiver is to treat people on diplomatic passports who aren’t actually diplomatic staff, but serving more of a technical role away from any diplomatic mission, more akin to how hosted U.S. soldiers are treated. I may be misunderstanding it, but that was my take.
And then crafting of the waiver ended up creating a weird loophole where it didn’t apply to spouses.
There may not be a weird loophole for her. Her actual position there is Very much Top Secret, but the US Government has admitted in Court she is a State Dept employee of some sort, not just a spouse. They used the spouse “loophole” as they did not want to admit her position.
The indications are she is/was a NSA operative.
I’m aware there’s some stuff about her status that her attorneys said can’t be disclosed in open court, so it could be she is an intelligence operative as well. But just going off what is publicly known, Dominic Raab seemed angry because his interpretation of the existing agreement is that since Jonathan Sacoolas would not have enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution, his wife should not have either–even if she was an analyst there with an intelligence service that would mean her position was very similar to Jonathan’s, and in fact might even suggest a bigger loophole–that she was asserting immunity a U.S. operative was explicitly waived, by instead claiming the immunity of a spouse (which had not been waived largely due to an oversight.)
I do think the standing waiver was poorly crafted, and my understanding is both the US and UK have agreed to a rewrite of it.
I forgot to include my cite or it just went away or something, so here it is:
And I am not sure if Jonathan Sacoolas would not have enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution. Read that cite.
The British government has given diplomatic immunity to intelligence agency technical officers at RAF Croughton because it regards their work as vital and sensitive and because its most important ally, the United States, no doubt asked for it.
Lots of non experts have blabbed their opinion about this case, including of course me.
But the fact remains, both the UK and USA government agree that she had immunity. Whether or not that was due to a “loophole’ is meaningless and just adds ire to the 'string her up” community.
My understanding is there has been a general waiver of criminal prosecution immunity for any U.S. diplomats working out of RAF Croughton in the U.S. Annex there, for anything outside their official duties, since 1995:
After discussions with the U.S. State Department, the two countries agreed to revise the “immunity arrangements” at the Croughton Royal Air Force station annex for U.S. personnel and their families. Since 1995, diplomatic immunity hasn’t applied to U.S. staff there outside of the course of their official duties. Now, that arrangement has been expanded to waive immunity for their family members as well, Raab said in a statement.
The waiver just had not applied to the families of diplomats stationed there until this incident prompted the revision.
It was an accident that was the product of gross negligence - driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone isn’t some little case of ‘whoops’. I understand that she didn’t leave her driveway intending to kill anyone, but it’s still negligence. If you can’t drive a forklift or a tractor, don’t get into one and turn on the ignition - same with driving in a foreign country.
How do you distinguish between negligence, and gross negligence, or do you not distinguish? I ask because you use both, and it occurs to me that there might be some significance attached to the qualifier. Or not.
Sorry not using it necessarily in a strictly legal sense - I don’t know what the local jurisdiction’s standard is for negligence/gross negligence. But I assume that they think what she did was criminal, and I tend to agree, even if it wasn’t her intent to cause another person to die. She needs to be held accountable - that is my point. I don’t think she should rot away in a prison - it was a mistake. But some mistakes are bigger than others.
Yes, it was as the Uk says “careless driving”. Which does include negligence. No doubt. But not “dangerous” driving, which Sacoolas was charged with.
" Regardless of this absurdity, I believe the CPS deliberately overcharged for the specific purpose of securing an extradition warrant to appease Harry Dunn’s family and supporters. This is the principle reason that the U.S. Govt will never waive Mrs Sacoolas’ immunity and as Charlie correctly points out, she would win an extradition case in a U.S. federal court. It also sets a troubling precedent and dare I say that the same people would not like it if it happened to a British diplomat -especially a mother with young children. They and the UK popular press would scream to the rooftops that she’d been overcharged and petition for charges to be reduced if not dropped on compassionate grounds."
Other Americans who accidentally killed a UK resident in similar circumstance were charged with the lesser crime. This is politcal.
Quite what degree of negligence was involved and what degree of blame should be attached, or whether there is ‘overcharging’ or not, depends on all the evidence being heard and argued over in the proper forum - a court of law. That is not political. Pre-judging the issue as somehow to be dismissed, would be.
(I don’t see why the question of what exactly her work, if any, for the US government was would need to be mentioned in such a trial).
I’m not sure there’s a federal criminal statute that applies to this situation. There’s legislation introduced in seemingly every Congress to impose criminal liability on civilian federal employees abroad (there’s a similar law already in place for the military and military contractors), but it has never passed, which makes me think that there’s possibly no US crime that she committed. There’s nothing that could be done about that retroactively.
Didn’t see this coming:
I did. I’ve always assumed that there was a secret reason that the US governmnet whisked her out of the UK so quickly.
And here’s part of it:
All that talk of comity between nations?
The US government was lying to one of its most important allies, and probably claiming diplomatic immunity when it did not exist under the treaty.
I think it would be interesting to find out what U.S. government official made the decision to counsel Anne to leave the country. While the Trump Administration eventually backed the play all the way up to the White House level, I have to think that a relatively minor intelligence officer involved in a traffic crime in Britain, the initial decision to have her flee the country likely didn’t go very far up the chain of command at State, probably some consular officer. I would think that person would be held accountable for essentially creating a diplomatic SNAFU way outside the bounds of the proper station of his/her office.
Of course, maybe this was just part of the standard playbook and whatever mid-level diplomatic official was making these decisions was just following orders, and if so I find that pretty surprising.
I am shocked! Shocked, I say! Who could have ever imagined that the US would do such a thing?
Actually, wait, it’s not surprising at all!
You may be right about it being a relatively minor official, but I can’t see the US officially or publicly backing down here in any way. If such a person exists, and if they are disciplined, I doubt the rest of us will find our.
Maybe in a couple decades if anyone remembers to put in a Freedom of Information Act request.
I’m not surprised by this at all.
Countries have interests, not friends. Even close allies spy on each other. Although I won’t be surprised if she was working with British intelligence in a way that’s embarrassing to the UK. It’s easier to handle if the public is mad at the US government.
I expect any decisions were made at a high level, possibly with previously written instructions. You don’t leave these sort of things to chance.
I keep wondering:
-
If Anne Sacoolas had decided she was honor-bound to face a UK court, how much would her (presumably NSA) employers pressure her not to?
-
Is the US government worried only about preserving the norm of immunity, or is it also worried about classified information being spilled at a UK trial?
I dunno, I come at it from having spent a career in the military a decent chunk of it stationed in European bases. We routinely had soldiers prosecuted by local authorities (they would always face serious discipline within the military as well for violating local laws), it’s just a little odd to me that we would cause a diplomatic issue over someone who my perception is, would be a minor intelligence officer. We literally have thousands of intelligence analysts working in NATO countries any number of whom are very replaceable at their jobs. Maybe she was involved in some weird shit that is significantly out of the norm, I don’t know, but at least in my experience the U.S. government is just fine letting its people face the music in host countries in Europe and doesn’t do much about it or seem to much care.
Keep in mind the U.S. and the U.K. have essentially the highest level of intelligence cooperation of any two countries in the world. The Five Eyes (U.S. / U.K. / Canada / New Zealand / Australia), under the ECHELON program have extremely high levels of intelligence sharing. We’ve kept big secrets together, including some of the most critical code breaking and nuclear secrets during WWII and the Cold War.
I find it really unlikely Sacoolas was working on something so secret we weren’t comfortable with the UK knowing about it, and as part of the intelligence network I seriously doubt the UK would be in the practice of leaking important state secrets out in a criminal trial any more than the US would do such a thing.