5 ms·

Yeah. OK. I think any rational human would agree that the treatment of the servant was wrong. OTOH: NEVER violate diplomatic immunity rules! They are ther

Yeah. OK. I think any rational human would agree that the treatment of the servant was wrong. OTOH: NEVER violate diplomatic immunity rules! They are there to protect US...not THEM. You know, sort of like how it would be incredibly hypocritical to agree to international war crime laws then commit acts of torture and overthrow the sovereign ruler of a country. You can't do that! You...oops.

JanezStupar 13y ago
U.S. is not a member of ICC [1]. And regarding war crimes... You know that the Geneva rules only apply to enemy __combatants__ right? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...
- JoachimSchipper 13y ago
  It is true that the U.S. is not specifically bound by the ICC, and that the Geneva protocols have never been held to apply to franc-tireurs, which is probably the closest analogue to "terrorist". However, this has very little bearing on GP's main point about diplomatic immunity, which is a widely-observed custom going back to at least the Council of Vienna; apparently, it's even an official convention [1] nowadays. The U.S. can and should indeed be expected to respect that. (Yes yes, I know about Assange/Snowden, no need to bring it up again.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...
zaidf 13y ago
Who violated diplomatic immunity rules?
kghose 13y ago
Diplomatic immunity only applies if the actions were taken as part of diplomatic work.
- thedufer 13y ago
  That's only true of consular immunity. Diplomatic immunity is somewhat broader. That said, consular immunity is the relevant one in this story.
KMag 13y ago
At the time of the alleged crime, the accused was a member of the consular staff, not a diplomat, and would therefore only be entitled to consular immunity, not full diplomatic immunity. Consular immunity extends only to actions taken as part of her consular duties. That's a very important distinction. India has re-assigned her to a diplomatic post and tried to get retroactive full diplomatic immunity for her, but she was not a diplomat at the time she allegedly committed perjury by misreporting wages. Edit: added the word "full" to reduce confusion.

JanezStupar 13y ago

U.S. is not a member of ICC [1]. And regarding war crimes... You know that the Geneva rules only apply to enemy __combatants__ right? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...

JoachimSchipper 13y ago
It is true that the U.S. is not specifically bound by the ICC, and that the Geneva protocols have never been held to apply to franc-tireurs, which is probably the closest analogue to "terrorist". However, this has very little bearing on GP's main point about diplomatic immunity, which is a widely-observed custom going back to at least the Council of Vienna; apparently, it's even an official convention [1] nowadays. The U.S. can and should indeed be expected to respect that. (Yes yes, I know about Assange/Snowden, no need to bring it up again.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...

zaidf 13y ago

Who violated diplomatic immunity rules?

kghose 13y ago

Diplomatic immunity only applies if the actions were taken as part of diplomatic work.

thedufer 13y ago
That's only true of consular immunity. Diplomatic immunity is somewhat broader. That said, consular immunity is the relevant one in this story.

KMag 13y ago

At the time of the alleged crime, the accused was a member of the consular staff, not a diplomat, and would therefore only be entitled to consular immunity, not full diplomatic immunity. Consular immunity extends only to actions taken as part of her consular duties. That's a very important distinction. India has re-assigned her to a diplomatic post and tried to get retroactive full diplomatic immunity for her, but she was not a diplomat at the time she allegedly committed perjury by misreporting wages. Edit: added the word "full" to reduce confusion.