3 ms·
She may have diolomatic immunity in theory (which is something that should exist and has very good reasons to), however this case shows quite clearly that there
by samwillis 7y ago
She may have diolomatic immunity in theory (which is something that should exist and has very good reasons to), however this case shows quite clearly that there are circumstances where it is important to have exceptions. Diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from being influenced by their host country, this is about the death of a man and is in no way being used to influence her or her husband. The UK and US should come to some sort of compromise in this case, even if it is her standing trial remotely, via video, with the agreement that any sentence is cared out in the US.
- tialaramex 7y agoIt's also probably not actually true that she was entitled to immunity. Which is why she left. If she was entitled to immunity she wouldn't need to leave, the most a host country can do about actual diplomats is tell them they're not welcome any more ("persona non grata") and then their sponsor will arrange for them to leave. If she was still in the UK they'd have arrested her already because she isn't actually immune. Her husband was a spook. But spooks aren't diplomats even if they have paperwork which insists otherwise as part of their cover. He didn't work at an embassy, he worked at a US site specifically for spying, a site that exists because it suits the British and American governments to have American spies in Britain doing this sort of thing, no diplomacy involved.