Anne Sacoolas

[Jamie123]

https://news.sky.com/story/harry-dunn-us-diplomats-wife-anne-sacoolas-will-not-return-to-uk-trump-note-says-11831935

Now I know I'm going to get put right by Anatess for saying this (the way I usually am) but I'm going to say it anyway:

• An American woman living in the UK is involved in a fatal road accident in which a motorcyclist is killed.
• Woman's husband is a CIA operative, and therefore has diplomatic immunity.
• Said diplomatic immunity applies not only to him, but to all his family members.
• Woman fears she will be blamed for the accident, and may be found guilty of a road traffic offence.
• Woman invokes diplomatic immunity and returns to the US to avoid potential consequences.
• US President (so far) refuses to waive diplomatic immunity and send her back.

Now I think we can ignore Trump's bluster about "it was an accident". Well of course it was. No one is saying this woman had a death-wish against British motorcyclists.

Also it was a very understandable accident, seeing as Americans drive on the opposite side of the road from the British. When driving in America I have occasionally found myself on the wrong side of the road, and its only by the grace of God something similar didn't happen to me. (This dread feeling this gives me is a powerful incentive to be careful on the road.)

But Anne Sacoolas is not the only American currently driving on British roads. And any one of the others, had this happened to them, would have been subject to the British law. The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from politically-motivated prosecution, not to protect their dependents from the consequences of fatal road traffic accidents. Unless of course the case IS politically motivated: that MI5 agents cut the break cables of this kid's motorcycle causing him to crash into the car of the wife of a US diplomat, so that she could be prosecuted in retaliation for some tea that got a little bit wet back in 1773.

Anne Sacoolas is a mother? Well, so I dare say are any number of other women who were potentially to blame for road traffic accidents. Is this a good reason for giving this particular mother a "get out of jail free card" while denying it to all the others?

And another thing: what kind of an example is she setting to her children, wriggling her way out of trouble on a technicality while anyone else would have had to have faced the music?

And another, other thing: I'd like to know what Trump would be saying right now if things had been the other way round. What if the wife of a British diplomat had run into and killed an American teenager, and the British had whisked her away to safety citing diplomatic immunity? Perhaps I'm wrong (I often am) but I can picture poor old Boris holding the telephone away from his ear at arm's length!

Edited October 11, 2019 by Jamie123

[anatess2]

Sigh.

Anne Sacoolas is operating on self preservation.  It is wrong.  She needs to face the music and let UK justice (as unjust as they can be) play out.

That said, Trump is the President of the USA, not the King of England.  His duty is to his citizens, not the Brits.  He is not the "moral arbiter" of America.  He is the Executor of LAW.  Sacoolas has legal foundation to invoke diplomatic immunity.  It is, therefore, the President's duty to protect his citizens within the bounds of the Constitution.

Now, let's say Prince Andrew raped an American teen-ager in Epstien's New York apartment.  He invokes diplomatic immunity and flees to his Windsor castle.  Trump, as the President of the USA, will be fulfilling his duty to the American teen-ager which may include yelling at Boris over the phone or invoking diplomatic sanctions on the UK if necessary to bring Andrew to justice.  Boris - if he's a good PM to his Queen - will be fulfilling his duty to Prince Andrew and do everything in his power to protect his legal rights.  These duties between Nationalist Countries is exactly what is called DIPLOMACY.

 

[Jamie123]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

Anne Sacoolas is operating on self preservation.  It is wrong.  She needs to face the music and let UK justice (as unjust as they can be) play out.

That said, Trump is the President of the USA, not the King of England.  His duty is to his citizens, not the Brits.  He is not the "moral arbiter" of America.  He is the Executor of LAW.  Sacoolas has legal foundation to invoke diplomatic immunity.  It is, therefore, the President's duty to protect his citizens within the bounds of the Constitution.

Now, let's say Prince Andrew raped an American teen-ager in Epstien's New York apartment.  He invokes diplomatic immunity and flees to his Windsor castle.  Trump, as the President of the USA, will be fulfilling his duty to the American teen-ager which may include yelling at Boris over the phone or invoking diplomatic sanctions on the UK if necessary to bring Andrew to justice.  Boris - if he's a good PM to his Queen - will be fulfilling his duty to Prince Andrew and do everything in his power to protect his legal rights.  These duties between Nationalist Countries is exactly what is called DIPLOMACY.

 

"Sigh" right back at you sister.

Georgia had the grace to waive diplomatic immunity - AT THE REQUEST OF THE US GOVERNMENT - for Gueorgui Makharadze when he killed someone on the road.

I guess its Georgia bad, USA good.

"Might was right when Caesar bled upon the stones of Rome..."

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

"Sigh" right back at you sister.

Georgia had the grace to waive diplomatic immunity - AT THE REQUEST OF THE US GOVERNMENT - for Gueorgui Makharadze when he killed someone on the road.

I guess its Georgia bad, USA good.

"Might was right when Caesar bled upon the stones of Rome..."

Sigh back at you again.

Like I just said before... it's called DIPLOMACY.

Georgia waived diplomatic immunity for Makharadze because it was more to Georgia's benefit to do so.

Diplomacy does not just encapsulate one incident, it encapsulates the entire diplomatic relationship between nations.  Diplomacy is more akin to trade negotiations.  Georgia did not do such thing for "grace"... Georgia did it for "favor" - either gaining one or paying back an owed one or to protect the nation from diplomatic blowback.  

This is one of the main reasons the UK has to settle Brexit - you are too weak right now to have teeth in either trade negotiations or diplomatic negotiations, especially with the strength of the US right now.  

Now, the other example is A$AP Rocky.  He got in trouble in Sweden.  Trump sent Pompeo to negotiate Rocky going home.  The Swedes did not bend to pressure.  Trump was not able to do anything because there were no other legal grounds he could stand on and the US is not just dealing with Sweden, it has to deal with the EU.  And that's one of the benefits of a small country belonging to the EU.

Edited October 11, 2019 by anatess2

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

"Sigh" right back at you sister.

Georgia had the grace to waive diplomatic immunity - AT THE REQUEST OF THE US GOVERNMENT - for Gueorgui Makharadze when he killed someone on the road.

I guess its Georgia bad, USA good.

"Might was right when Caesar bled upon the stones of Rome..."

So you are saying that Because Trump did not ask Anne Sacoolas to waive he is a bad man?  My first question is how do you know he did not?

Trump is a big tweeter... but he is also a tactical one.  Anne Sacoolas is not attacking Trump she is not calling in to question fitness as a President. She is an American citizen that Trump is under oath to protect.  She did a bad thing and then invoked legal protection.  If she does not waive that Trump's duty is clear.  Publicly bullying her to waive it gains him nothing in the political or diplomatic arenas.  Asking her to consider waving it in a private conversation is something we will never know (unless she tells us or it becomes politically or diplomatically advantageous for Trump to say).

This is in addition to the point Anatess was making that there is no politically or diplomatically advantage to revoking Anne's immunity.  (there is always a bit of harm in revoking anyone's immunity, when it is done it is because the advantages outweigh the harm) 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So you are saying that Because Trump did not ask Anne Sacoolas to waive he is a bad man?  My first question is how do you know he did not?

Trump is a big tweeter... but he is also a tactical one.  Anne Sacoolas is not attacking Trump she is not calling in to question fitness as a President. She is an American citizen that Trump is under oath to protect.  She did a bad thing and then invoked legal protection.  If she does not waive that Trump's duty is clear.  Publicly bullying her to waive it gains him nothing in the political or diplomatic arenas.  Asking her to consider waving it in a private conversation is something we will never know (unless she tells us or it becomes politically or diplomatically advantageous for Trump to say).

This is in addition to the point Anatess was making that there is no politically or diplomatically advantage to revoking Anne's immunity.  (there is always a bit of harm in revoking anyone's immunity, when it is done it is because the advantages outweigh the harm) 

There's also the bit about Sacoolas being a member of the IA community that is currently at war with Trump... favors, favors.... gotta think about 3D chess.

Edited October 11, 2019 by anatess2

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

There's also the bit about Sacoolas being a member of the IA community that is currently at war with Trump... favors, favors.... gotta think about 3D chess.

I had not considered that, but it would weight the scale on the side of protecting her.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I had not considered that, but it would weight the scale on the side of protecting her.

Yep!

In any case... Trump is a loyalist.  He tends to side with Americans even the "bad" ones like that Basketball player... whose dad he blasted on twitter after he worked to bring him home.

Edited October 11, 2019 by anatess2

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That said, Trump is the President of the USA, not the King of England.  His duty is to his citizens, not the Brits.  He is not the "moral arbiter" of America.  He is the Executor of LAW.  Sacoolas has legal foundation to invoke diplomatic immunity.  It is, therefore, the President's duty to protect his citizens within the bounds of the Constitution.

I'd be interested to know if you'd be making the same case if Anne Sacoolas had stabbed the kid to death, committed necrophilia with his dead body, and then urinated on his grave. Every one of your points would stand up just as well in that situation.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Boris - if he's a good PM to his Queen - will be fulfilling his duty to Prince Andrew and do everything in his power to protect his legal rights. 

Well if he did - and the case against him was such that any other citizen would have been extradited - I'd not be voting for him! Plus if the Queen was behind him, I'd be applying to join the Anti-Monarchists!

Edited October 11, 2019 by Jamie123
Spelling

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I'd be interested to know if you'd be making the same case if Anne Sacoolas had stabbed the kid to death, committed necrophilia with his dead body, and then urinated on his grave. Every one of your points would stand up just as well in that situation.

Well if he did - and the case against im was such that any other citizen would have been extradited - I'd not be voting for him! Plus if the Queen was behind him, I'd be applying to join the Anti-Monarchists!

Doesn't change the duties of the President of the USA.  It simply means it would be much harder for Trump to get Sacoolas what she wants.

I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend.  In a court case - there is the lawyer that prosecutes the murdering necrophiliac and there's the lawyer that defends the murdering necrophiliac.  Both lawyers have their duties to perform REGARDLESS of the morality of their clients.

 

[Jamie123]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend.  In a court case - there is the lawyer that prosecutes the murdering necrophiliac and there's the lawyer that defends the murdering necrophiliac.  Both lawyers have their duties to perform REGARDLESS of the morality of their clients.

Indeed, but no defence lawyer has the power to give his or her client immunity.

[Just_A_Guy]

Did somebody say “lawyer”?  

I can see both points of view—from a realpolitik standpoint, of course national leaders defend their own citizens (and to some degree, without much consideration of whether those citizens are in the right or not); but from an equal treatment/reciprocity/justice approach:  We can’t shield Sacoolas and simultaneously expect all those UN grifters to pay their outstanding New York City parking tickets.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I'd be interested to know if you'd be making the same case if Anne Sacoolas had stabbed the kid to death, committed necrophilia with his dead body, and then urinated on his grave. Every one of your points would stand up just as well in that situation.

I would be...  I try to based my decisions on principles rather then emotions (I am not perfect but I do try) and your case is basically saying what we make what she did not just wrong...  But more wronger...  The intensity of the wrong does not change the foundational principle.

[Jamie123]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend.  In a court case - there is the lawyer that prosecutes the murdering necrophiliac and there's the lawyer that defends the murdering necrophiliac.  Both lawyers have their duties to perform REGARDLESS of the morality of their clients.

And another thing - in sending Anne Sacoolas back, Trump would most certainly NOT be acting as a moral arbiter. Any moral arbitration would be the responsibility of the British court that tried her.

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Indeed, but no defence lawyer has the power to give his or her client immunity.

Trump did not give Sacoolas immunity.  She already has it granted by law as part of her duties.  Trump wouldn't be doing HIS duty to ignore the law.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Did somebody say “lawyer”?  

I can see both points of view—from a realpolitik standpoint, of course national leaders defend their own citizens (and to some degree, without much consideration of whether those citizens are in the right or not); but from an equal treatment/reciprocity/justice approach:  We can’t shield Sacoolas and simultaneously expect all those UN grifters to pay their outstanding New York City parking tickets.

Yes we can.

Like I said... it's all about Diplomacy.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

And another thing - in sending Anne Sacoolas back, Trump would most certainly NOT be acting as a moral arbiter. Any moral arbitration would be the responsibility of the British court that tried her.

No... YOU want Trump to ignore her diplomatic immunity claim using a moral justification.

[estradling75]

@Just_A_Guy Since you are in this thread I would like your thoughts on something.  I realize that it is outside your expertise but you have more then I do in this area.

I saw I TV show (Yes I know not the most trusted of sources) where a diplomat committed murder.  The investigators had her dead-rights (as only TV shows can) but she used her Diplomatic Immunity to get the State Department to intervene and force them to back off.  In a made for TV moment (clearly) the State Department told the Investigators that while their case and facts are solid the diplomat was free to go.  Then the State Department Official turned to the Diplomat and as long as she wanted to invoke her immunity she could walk but they would be sending all the facts and evidence to her country to her country for them to do with as they please.  The diplomat realizing the State Department was going to hand her political enemies a 'loaded gun' that would get her thrown into a dangerous third world jail at best... So she chose to waive her immunity.

My question is TV fiction aside... is having an whole different nation persecute a crime something reasonably doable?   

[Just_A_Guy]

29 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

@Just_A_Guy Since you are in this thread I would like your thoughts on something.  I realize that it is outside your expertise but you have more then I do in this area.

I saw I TV show (Yes I know not the most trusted of sources) where a diplomat committed murder.  The investigators had her dead-rights (as only TV shows can) but she used her Diplomatic Immunity to get the State Department to intervene and force them to back off.  In a made for TV moment (clearly) the State Department told the Investigators that while their case and facts are solid the diplomat was free to go.  Then the State Department Official turned to the Diplomat and as long as she wanted to invoke her immunity she could walk but they would be sending all the facts and evidence to her country to her country for them to do with as they please.  The diplomat realizing the State Department was going to hand her political enemies a 'loaded gun' that would get her thrown into a dangerous third world jail at best... So she chose to waive her immunity.

My question is TV fiction aside... is having an whole different nation persecute a crime something reasonably doable?   

I can’t perfectly answer this from a legal standpoint.  But ideologically, I would disagree with it strongly.  I think nations should only prosecute crimes that happen within their borders.  That said, I think there are countries that presume to punish their citizens for conduct abroad.  I think maybe the US might even try to do this in cases of . . . say . . . campaign finance, or election tampering.  (@anatess2 is probably more up on this sort of thing than I am, given current events.)

I *think* that what would ordinarily happen is that law enforcement would inform the embassy of what info they’ve collected, and in a particularly heinous case the embassy would probably revoke the perp’s diplomatic credentials and leave them at the mercy of the legal system of the country where the crime was committed.

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Georgia waived diplomatic immunity for Makharadze because it was more to Georgia's benefit to do so.

Yes I'm sure it was in Georgia's best interests to do so - just as it was to the best interests of Spekky Weedy Four-Eyes Johnson to hand over his lunch money to Basher McGruff in return for not being beaten to a pulp during recess.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Like I said... it's all about Diplomacy.

Yeah, too right it is: it's about the appeasement of the strong by the weak, and the stonewalling of the weak by the strong whenever they can get away with it. You're quite right - along with Ragnur Redbeard - "By land and flood, it's wrote in mud, the Gospel of to-day!"

<rant> Just don't expect me to get teary eyed over "Truth and Justice, the American Way" - Superman, Johnny Appleseed, Davy Crockett, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington crossing the Delaware, or the "Star Spangled Banner" fluttering defiantly in "the rocket's red glare" over the battlements of Fort McHenry...when the "Land of the Free" is no more than a sniveling overgrown playground bully demanding money from "the weak kids" and rewarding them by shoving their faces in the mud. Perhaps the National Anthem should be changed to something by Greenday. (Which is actually, in my opinion, a very good band.)

I know what you're going to say Anatess: there's no point talking to people like me. Well maybe you're right, there isn't. I'm a hopeless romantic. It's the very fact that I love America so much that makes it ten times worse. </rant>

Edited October 11, 2019 by Jamie123

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I *think* that what would ordinarily happen is that law enforcement would inform the embassy of what info they’ve collected, and in a particularly heinous case the embassy would probably revoke the perp’s diplomatic credentials and leave them at the mercy of the legal system of the country where the crime was committed.

That is what I was thinking to... Which makes it subject to diplomacy and politics rather then justice. (as Anatess was saying)

That is not something I prefer but given the realities of international relations I am not sure there is a better way.

 

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Yes I'm sure it was in Georgia's best interests to do so - just as it was to the best interests of Spekky Weedy Four-Eyes Johnson to hand over his lunch money to Basher McGruff in return for not being beaten to a pulp during recess.

Yep.  That's EXACTLY how things run.  And that's why North Korea - as teeny weeny as that country is - has the chutzpa to keep Otto Warmbier and abuse him in prison.  Because the US - as mighty as it is - didn't do anything in the face of Chinese Big Brother.  Trump became President and the dynamics shifted.  All of a sudden China was not as scary (or it still is, we just discovered we're scarier) and Warmbier was back home pronto - except it was too late to save Warmbier's life.

 

11 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Yeah, too right it is: it's about the appeasement of the strong by the weak, and the stonewalling of the weak by the strong whenever they can get away with it. You're quite right - along with Ragnur Redbeard - "By land and flood, it's wrote in mud, the Gospel of to-day!"

<rant> Just don't expect me to get teary eyed over "Truth and Justice, the American Way" - Superman, Johnny Appleseed, Davy Crockett, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington crossing the Delaware, or the "Star Spangled Banner" fluttering defiantly in "the rocket's red glare" over the battlements of Fort McHenry...when the "Land of the Free" is no more than a sniveling overgrown playground bully demanding money from "the weak kids" and rewarding them by shoving their faces in the mud. Perhaps the National Anthem should be changed to something by Greenday. (Which is actually, in my opinion, a very good band.)

I know what you're going to say Anatess: there's no point talking to people like me. Well maybe you're right, there isn't. I'm a hopeless romantic. It's the very fact that I love America so much that makes it ten times worse. </rant>

Romantics don't stop wars nor promote peace.  Their rose-colored lenses can't imagine that there are actually real, live, walking people in positions of power who has no problem blowing up their babies.  There's a time to romance, and there's a time to threaten... and then there's a time to just take these people out of power - none of which can happen if you don't have any cards you can play in the Diplomatic or Military arena.

 

[Jamie123]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Romantics don't stop wars nor promote peace.  Their rose-colored lenses can't imagine that there are actually real, live, walking people in positions of power who has no problem blowing up their babies.  There's a time to romance, and there's a time to threaten... and then there's a time to just take these people out of power - none of which can happen if you don't have any cards you can play in the Diplomatic or Military arena.

I wonder then why Americans salute the flag, and put their hands on their hearts when they sing the National Anthem before football games. And say the Pledge of Allegiance before class (...err...oh you don't do that anymore do you? Never mind.) What could be more "romantic" than that?

I'll take your advice though and not become a politician. (I'm a simple soul, who has enough difficulty dealing with students who cheat on their assignments!)

[anatess2]

28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I can’t perfectly answer this from a legal standpoint.  But ideologically, I would disagree with it strongly.  I think nations should only prosecute crimes that happen within their borders.  

That said, I think there are countries that presume to punish their citizens for conduct abroad.  I think maybe the US might even try to do this in cases of . . . say . . . campaign finance, or election tampering.  (@anatess2 is probably more up on this sort of thing than I am, given current events.)

I *think* that what would ordinarily happen is that law enforcement would inform the embassy of what info they’ve collected, and in a particularly heinous case the embassy would probably revoke the perp’s diplomatic credentials and leave them at the mercy of the legal system of the country where the crime was committed.

Nations have the right to prosecute civil crimes (war crimes are handled differently) that are done by/to their citizens regardless of the crime's location.  Most of it is handled through international agreements and extradition treaties.

The perfect example of this is the case with the Catholic Priests.  Priests have Vatican citizenship.  The Priests committed crimes outside of the Vatican.  The Vatican tried to invoke their prosecutorial rights of their own citizens... it failed - not because it isn't legal but because the outcry was too great such that the Vatican couldn't keep back the pressure.

On hypotheticals - let's say, for example, an American couple went to vacation in the Philippines where the husband becomes suspected of killing his wife.  The Philippines wouldn't bother with this case as none of its citizens are involved.  The US would try the husband in a US court.

Now, let's say the husband is American, the wife is Filipino.  The Philippines now has a vested interest in the case.  If the husband is caught in the Philippines, he would be tried in Philippine court.  The US also has a vested interest in the case.  The US would most likely send a delegate to ensure the husband is getting a just trial.  If the husband manages to enter US Embassy gates before he got caught, the dynamics changes and the Philippine Law Enforcement job becomes more difficult.  Now, the Philippines will have to work with the US Embassy to plea for extradition which would require law enforcement to present enough evidence worthy of such.

Now, let's say the husband is Filipino, the wife American.  The Philippines wouldn't bother with this case as there's no Filipino victim to defend.  The US State Department would now be working with the Philippine government to request extradition to try the husband in a US court even if the crime happened in the Philippines.

And then there's the additional layer of Diplomatic Immunity.  The TV Show - as described - does not go into why the government lets a person with diplomatic immunity go.  But, usually, in these cases - a diplomat committing civil crimes not related to their duties gets away with diplomatic immunity because there are assets/relationships/alliances/and yes, even corruption the victim's country wants to protect/maintain/hide... or, in other words, the reason for the resolution of the case usually does not have anything to do with the crime committed.

 

 

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I wonder then why Americans salute the flag, and put their hands on their hearts when they sing the National Anthem before football games. And say the Pledge of Allegiance before class (...err...oh you don't do that anymore do you? Never mind.) What could be more "romantic" than that?

I'll take your advice though and not become a politician. (I'm a simple soul, who has enough difficulty dealing with students who cheat on their assignments!)

Sure.  You can call Patriotism romantic.  You hold your hand in salute to your country's flag in the same manner you respect and are loyal to your parents.  That said, Patriotism doesn't end wars nor promote peace.