28 ms·

Yes - my understanding is she was the wife of a spoon and didn't have diplomatic immunity? I agree perhaps there is more to it, but still it leaves a bad taste

Yes - my understanding is she was the wife of a spoon and didn't have diplomatic immunity? I agree perhaps there is more to it, but still it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

trasz 5y ago
She (and US officials I think?) lied that she was a diplomat’s wife and thus had immunity. The fact that she’s herself a spook - and thus didn’t have immunity - was discovered later, during the trial.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  For non-native English speakers, spook is vernacular for government intelligence agent (spy).
  - microtherion 5y ago
    … or a caucasian, or an Asian, or an Afrian-American, or an Australian, or a heroin addict: https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/a23ap7q https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/a23ap7q Clearly, the parent comment's interpretation is correct in this context. The only other use I've encountered was #3, I believe in James Ellroy novels.
    - mdda 5y ago
      FWIW, for the International audience, the (excellent) UK series "Spooks" was renamed "MI-5" - it was all about the domestic intelligence services in the UK, and (IMHO) worth looking for on NetFlix...
- anonymousDan 5y ago
  I stand corrected, thanks.
argonaut 5y ago
There are conflicting reports on her diplomatic immunity and whether she was still employed as a spy (she was definitely employed by the US govt at the time, and as a spy in the past). So it's not as simple as saying she didn't have it or she lied about it. Looks to me like a complicated legal matter. At least the US State Dept position is that she did have diplomatic immunity.
- rjsw 5y ago
  And if she was still a spy that should have been declared to the UK.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  what is the point of diplomatic immunity? surely it's not intended to grant the right to murder/manslaughter
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    That’s exactly the point since otherwise there would be more opportunities for false flag attacks on, or by, diplomats overriding a non absolute immunity.
    - trasz 5y ago
      That might the point for some third world countries, and the US, which openly protect their criminals (usually war criminals) from justice. With more civilized countries, the idea is that the person accused is still being tried, but in its country court, with the assumption that if they are guilty, they will get sentenced anyways.

Yes - my understanding is she was the wife of a spoon and didn't have diplomatic immunity? I agree perhaps there is more to it, but still it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

trasz 5y ago

She (and US officials I think?) lied that she was a diplomat’s wife and thus had immunity. The fact that she’s herself a spook - and thus didn’t have immunity - was discovered later, during the trial.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
For non-native English speakers, spook is vernacular for government intelligence agent (spy).
- microtherion 5y ago
  … or a caucasian, or an Asian, or an Afrian-American, or an Australian, or a heroin addict: https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/a23ap7q https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/a23ap7q Clearly, the parent comment's interpretation is correct in this context. The only other use I've encountered was #3, I believe in James Ellroy novels.
  - mdda 5y ago
    FWIW, for the International audience, the (excellent) UK series "Spooks" was renamed "MI-5" - it was all about the domestic intelligence services in the UK, and (IMHO) worth looking for on NetFlix...
anonymousDan 5y ago
I stand corrected, thanks.

argonaut 5y ago

There are conflicting reports on her diplomatic immunity and whether she was still employed as a spy (she was definitely employed by the US govt at the time, and as a spy in the past). So it's not as simple as saying she didn't have it or she lied about it. Looks to me like a complicated legal matter. At least the US State Dept position is that she did have diplomatic immunity.

rjsw 5y ago
And if she was still a spy that should have been declared to the UK.
bagacrap 5y ago
what is the point of diplomatic immunity? surely it's not intended to grant the right to murder/manslaughter
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  That’s exactly the point since otherwise there would be more opportunities for false flag attacks on, or by, diplomats overriding a non absolute immunity.
  - trasz 5y ago
    That might the point for some third world countries, and the US, which openly protect their criminals (usually war criminals) from justice. With more civilized countries, the idea is that the person accused is still being tried, but in its country court, with the assumption that if they are guilty, they will get sentenced anyways.