3 ms·

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 umbrell

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 18d 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 18d 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 17d 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 17d ago
    > 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. that's not what it means, though. it means that Immunity is meant to ensure the persons enjoying immunity can fulfill their duties, it doesn't mean that it is only selectively applied or that it can be discarded at will by the host country a person with diplomatic immunity could murder another person and still be immune from prosecution, and it'd be then up to the sending & host state to figure out what to do. from what I know, the sending state can waive such immunity to allow for prosecution

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 18d 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 18d 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 17d 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 17d ago
  > 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. that's not what it means, though. it means that Immunity is meant to ensure the persons enjoying immunity can fulfill their duties, it doesn't mean that it is only selectively applied or that it can be discarded at will by the host country a person with diplomatic immunity could murder another person and still be immune from prosecution, and it'd be then up to the sending & host state to figure out what to do. from what I know, the sending state can waive such immunity to allow for prosecution