4 ms·

She had diplomatic immunity. There is a lot of bad reporting in that case. The US always puts it diplomats back on a plane ASAP after that sort of incident. M

She had diplomatic immunity. There is a lot of bad reporting in that case. The US always puts it diplomats back on a plane ASAP after that sort of incident. My buddy in the foreign service ran someone over while on a tour and they did exactly the same thing. Back on the next flight out. It sounds callous, but the person would otherwise become a scapegoat for the US.

trasz 5y ago
Indeed, the US tends to protect its criminals from justice, as long as they work for the government. It’s not callous, though, it’s just bullying. The “scapegoat” argument could make sense in a few countries without proper judicial system, but obviously doesn’t make sense with European countries.
- rhino369 5y ago
  The "scapegoat" argument makes sense here too. Mrs. Sacoolas was seen as a personification of Trump's foreign policy. People were calling for her head, for an crime that generally doesn't even receive jail time (in the UK or USA). People don't normally get incensed over non-DUI car accidents. People were out for blood because her husband and allegedly she worked for US intelligence agencies. If she was just a tourist who forgot which side of the road she was supposed to drive on the case would just be in the local papers. You can see it in this thread on hacker news. THEY WERE SPOOKS! STRING EM UP. Uh, no, they were working on a joint intelligence mission with the UK. The vast majority of intelligence workers are analysts and support staff not little green men.
  - trasz 5y ago
    No, people wanted blood because she avoided all responsibility by lying about diplomatic immunity and fleeing the country. Nobody would say a thing if she did have a minimum of dignity and didn’t behave like a professional criminal. The only reason for mentioning her being a spook is how she used that fact to escape.
gadders 5y ago
There's pretty good evidence that she didn't have diplomatic immunity at the time of the incident: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-office-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-... (And say what you like about Craig Murray, he was an ex-diplomat so should understand the rules around immunity).
- rhino369 5y ago
  Both the State Department and the UK High Court agreed she did. The US and UK even changed the rule to remove diplomatic immunity from spouses of people at that base after the incident (but not retroactively), which proves she did have it at the time.
  - trasz 5y ago
    I’m not aware of High Court determining that. I’m aware of American court proving that she didn’t. The State Department doesn’t have any reason not to lie, given that they facilitated her escape.

trasz 5y ago

Indeed, the US tends to protect its criminals from justice, as long as they work for the government. It’s not callous, though, it’s just bullying. The “scapegoat” argument could make sense in a few countries without proper judicial system, but obviously doesn’t make sense with European countries.

rhino369 5y ago
The "scapegoat" argument makes sense here too. Mrs. Sacoolas was seen as a personification of Trump's foreign policy. People were calling for her head, for an crime that generally doesn't even receive jail time (in the UK or USA). People don't normally get incensed over non-DUI car accidents. People were out for blood because her husband and allegedly she worked for US intelligence agencies. If she was just a tourist who forgot which side of the road she was supposed to drive on the case would just be in the local papers. You can see it in this thread on hacker news. THEY WERE SPOOKS! STRING EM UP. Uh, no, they were working on a joint intelligence mission with the UK. The vast majority of intelligence workers are analysts and support staff not little green men.
- trasz 5y ago
  No, people wanted blood because she avoided all responsibility by lying about diplomatic immunity and fleeing the country. Nobody would say a thing if she did have a minimum of dignity and didn’t behave like a professional criminal. The only reason for mentioning her being a spook is how she used that fact to escape.

gadders 5y ago

There's pretty good evidence that she didn't have diplomatic immunity at the time of the incident: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-office-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-... (And say what you like about Craig Murray, he was an ex-diplomat so should understand the rules around immunity).

rhino369 5y ago
Both the State Department and the UK High Court agreed she did. The US and UK even changed the rule to remove diplomatic immunity from spouses of people at that base after the incident (but not retroactively), which proves she did have it at the time.
- trasz 5y ago
  I’m not aware of High Court determining that. I’m aware of American court proving that she didn’t. The State Department doesn’t have any reason not to lie, given that they facilitated her escape.