4 ms·

I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place. There isn't enough turnover of d

I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place. There isn't enough turnover of diplomats anyway and they typically have too much power or they know too much stuff that their citizens don't know - It creates a massive disconnect between politicians and citizens. Maybe they should be less powerful and more disposable. If every country had highly disposable diplomats and government officials, everything would probably be much better for everyone and each country should mind its own business. No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. It's a logical contradiction. You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line.

gambiting 6y ago
>>We can just elect another diplomat in their place. Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then, if it basically comes with a "disposable" label, and if the government basically says "go and represent us, but if things go tits up we'll just replace you". >>No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. Well, that idea was never true, going back thousands of years. Diplomats are effectively guests and get special treatment, like any guests do. If they abuse our hospitality then they get kicked out, simple. >>You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. Of course you can - after all this isn't a loophole, it's specifically agreed upon and allowed in the law of our democratic societies. >> You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line. Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Just like the American president(and most presidents and leaders in fact) is immune from prosecution while in the office - that's also not "equal under law". Or like police officers are immune from certain prosecution, how journalists are, private investigators etc. The rules are equal - but the rules also say that certain people are exempt. I just don't see the issue here.
- cryptica 6y ago
  >> Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then Most jobs these days are disposable, attracts plenty of people. Just pay a regular average salary and people will be lining up. >> Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Clearly it's not. It's a slippery slope. For example, even corporations today have more rights than people, they can move to a new country and not have to apply for citizenship like people do. Corporations also pay lower taxes in many countries, also they can commit crimes and get away with only small fines; they are never jailed or terminated. By extension, corporate executives often get better treatment than regular people when it comes to certain crimes. It's also well know that rich people pay much lower % taxes on average. Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    >> Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle. We've never diverged from it because it was literally never true, at any point in history. But back to the main point - maybe look at it this way: diplomats are offered diplomatic immunity as a courtesy. Countries basically say to each other "look, we're not going to bother your representatives, if you don't bother ours, deal?". Same reason why embassy terittory is technically out of jurisdiction of the hosting country. You could also ask "how is that fair?". Well, perhaps it isn't - but international diplomacy requires some concessions on each side, and that's the concession we agreed on to have good relations with each other. Diplomats are not bothered, embassies are not bothered - but both can be kicked out if needed. Good arrangement if you ask me.
pydry 6y ago
>I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place. If a diplomat is afraid of their host government, whose interests do you think they are going to represent. Yours or theirs? What's even the point of sending over a representative if they're not going to represent? Also, while you could probably find people who would be willing to be cannon fodder in an unsafe diplomatic job, they're unlikely to also have the finesse, savvy and communications skills your country would actually require of its representatives to be adequately represented.

gambiting 6y ago

>>We can just elect another diplomat in their place. Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then, if it basically comes with a "disposable" label, and if the government basically says "go and represent us, but if things go tits up we'll just replace you". >>No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. Well, that idea was never true, going back thousands of years. Diplomats are effectively guests and get special treatment, like any guests do. If they abuse our hospitality then they get kicked out, simple. >>You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. Of course you can - after all this isn't a loophole, it's specifically agreed upon and allowed in the law of our democratic societies. >> You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line. Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Just like the American president(and most presidents and leaders in fact) is immune from prosecution while in the office - that's also not "equal under law". Or like police officers are immune from certain prosecution, how journalists are, private investigators etc. The rules are equal - but the rules also say that certain people are exempt. I just don't see the issue here.

cryptica 6y ago
>> Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then Most jobs these days are disposable, attracts plenty of people. Just pay a regular average salary and people will be lining up. >> Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Clearly it's not. It's a slippery slope. For example, even corporations today have more rights than people, they can move to a new country and not have to apply for citizenship like people do. Corporations also pay lower taxes in many countries, also they can commit crimes and get away with only small fines; they are never jailed or terminated. By extension, corporate executives often get better treatment than regular people when it comes to certain crimes. It's also well know that rich people pay much lower % taxes on average. Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle.
- gambiting 6y ago
  >> Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle. We've never diverged from it because it was literally never true, at any point in history. But back to the main point - maybe look at it this way: diplomats are offered diplomatic immunity as a courtesy. Countries basically say to each other "look, we're not going to bother your representatives, if you don't bother ours, deal?". Same reason why embassy terittory is technically out of jurisdiction of the hosting country. You could also ask "how is that fair?". Well, perhaps it isn't - but international diplomacy requires some concessions on each side, and that's the concession we agreed on to have good relations with each other. Diplomats are not bothered, embassies are not bothered - but both can be kicked out if needed. Good arrangement if you ask me.

pydry 6y ago

>I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place. If a diplomat is afraid of their host government, whose interests do you think they are going to represent. Yours or theirs? What's even the point of sending over a representative if they're not going to represent? Also, while you could probably find people who would be willing to be cannon fodder in an unsafe diplomatic job, they're unlikely to also have the finesse, savvy and communications skills your country would actually require of its representatives to be adequately represented.