3 ms·

Diplomatic Immunity isn’t just found in movies, and while it can lead to some unsatisfying outcomes it’s necessary.

by EA-3167 23d ago

ygjb 23d ago
Sure. It would be nice if countries would waive diplomatic immunity for things that are crimes back home. Diplomatic immunity should extend to foreign laws, but the diplomats shouldn't escape domestic criminal or civil consequences.
- EA-3167 22d ago
  That gets into a discussion that HN as a whole doesn't excel at: The realpolitik of what goes on in embassies, what staffers might know about ops, and the need to keep those secrets rather than have them spilled in a foreign court. You also have the much grimmer reality that a country almost certainly wants to do their own investigation, since a scandal like this can be weaponized to remove someone or end their career. All told no country is ever going to shrug and say, "Sure take our guy, wring him out and let us know what he says." That's not how anything works and it's frankly not how it should work. But again... people here tend to have an extremely black-and-white way of thinking and very little actual knowledge beyond tech.
traceroute66 23d ago
> it’s necessary. Yes, but the point in this case is that we are told the person did not have diplomatic immunity. Not everybody who works at an embassy has diplomatic immunity. The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank. This is not the first time either that the US has flown somebody out of the UK in questionable circumstances before they were questioned by UK police. The UK is not a third-world country, there is no reason why somebody should not be questioned by UK police or dealt with in UK courts. You can also bet your bottom dollar that if the tables were turned and the equivalent happend on US soil, there would be little chance of being flown out covertley. Most sensible people don't like "One rule for US, another rule for everyone else", even more so under the present US administration.
- freitasm 23d ago
  From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."
  - junto 23d ago
    In other words a spook. And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.
    - wildzzz 23d ago
      Not necessarily, administrative, service, and consular staff are not diplomats but still receive varying levels of diplomatic immunity, typically just as it relates to their job. A CIA officer would be under the cover of a diplomat, no one would ever say that they actually aren't a diplomat. https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/diplomatic_immunity.html https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/diplomatic_immun...
    - traceroute66 23d ago
      > And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe. This person was allegedly looking at CSAM. Police and courts interrogating someone as to why they were looking at CSAM is a specific line of enquiry and doesn't touch upon their job. Also from the US State Department website: Under international law and practice, persons enjoying immunity from the jurisdiction of a receiving State’s laws nonetheless have a duty to respect those laws. Immunity is not a license for misconduct. It is a doctrine intended to benefit the sending State or IO, not individuals. If the allegation is correct and the guy was looking at CSAM at home, then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply. Allegedly looking at CSAM at home does not "benefit the sending state".
      - r_lee 22d ago

Diplomatic Immunity isn’t just found in movies, and while it can lead to some unsatisfying outcomes it’s necessary.

by EA-3167 23d ago

Diplomatic Immunity isn’t just found in movies, and while it can lead to some unsatisfying outcomes it’s necessary.

ygjb 23d ago

Sure. It would be nice if countries would waive diplomatic immunity for things that are crimes back home. Diplomatic immunity should extend to foreign laws, but the diplomats shouldn't escape domestic criminal or civil consequences.

EA-3167 22d ago
That gets into a discussion that HN as a whole doesn't excel at: The realpolitik of what goes on in embassies, what staffers might know about ops, and the need to keep those secrets rather than have them spilled in a foreign court. You also have the much grimmer reality that a country almost certainly wants to do their own investigation, since a scandal like this can be weaponized to remove someone or end their career. All told no country is ever going to shrug and say, "Sure take our guy, wring him out and let us know what he says." That's not how anything works and it's frankly not how it should work. But again... people here tend to have an extremely black-and-white way of thinking and very little actual knowledge beyond tech.

traceroute66 23d ago

> it’s necessary. Yes, but the point in this case is that we are told the person did not have diplomatic immunity. Not everybody who works at an embassy has diplomatic immunity. The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank. This is not the first time either that the US has flown somebody out of the UK in questionable circumstances before they were questioned by UK police. The UK is not a third-world country, there is no reason why somebody should not be questioned by UK police or dealt with in UK courts. You can also bet your bottom dollar that if the tables were turned and the equivalent happend on US soil, there would be little chance of being flown out covertley. Most sensible people don't like "One rule for US, another rule for everyone else", even more so under the present US administration.

freitasm 23d ago
From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."
- junto 23d ago
  In other words a spook. And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.
  - wildzzz 23d ago
    Not necessarily, administrative, service, and consular staff are not diplomats but still receive varying levels of diplomatic immunity, typically just as it relates to their job. A CIA officer would be under the cover of a diplomat, no one would ever say that they actually aren't a diplomat. https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/diplomatic_immunity.html https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/diplomatic_immun...
  - traceroute66 23d ago
    > And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe. This person was allegedly looking at CSAM. Police and courts interrogating someone as to why they were looking at CSAM is a specific line of enquiry and doesn't touch upon their job. Also from the US State Department website: Under international law and practice, persons enjoying immunity from the jurisdiction of a receiving State’s laws nonetheless have a duty to respect those laws. Immunity is not a license for misconduct. It is a doctrine intended to benefit the sending State or IO, not individuals. If the allegation is correct and the guy was looking at CSAM at home, then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply. Allegedly looking at CSAM at home does not "benefit the sending state".
    - r_lee 22d ago