4 ms·
And we shouldn't have prid pro quo on such matters with an ally. Our legal and diplomatic systems should be able to asses each question on its merits. I feel
by 7952 5y ago
And we shouldn't have prid pro quo on such matters with an ally. Our legal and diplomatic systems should be able to asses each question on its merits.
I feel conflicted on the Sacoolas question. Obviously she should face justice. However, I don't think someone should be prosecuted if no crime has been committed. And with diplomatic immunity that is the case. If we have a problem with that we should change the law. Of course the real issue is allowing so many spooks to operate in a legal in between place.
- spacedcowboy 5y agoIt's not Quid Pro Quo, it's that if you want extradition to work in one direction, you ought to be open to the idea of it working in the other direction too. If you're not, well, get lost then. Since the current adjudgment of the US Administration is that "She's never going back", I see no reason to allow extradition to the USA. Whether she in fact had diplomatic immunity has gone back and forth - to the point where it's still an open question. If she had diplomatic immunity, though, I can't see the case for the UK government asking Interpol to issue a red notice.