Anne Sacoolas


Jamie123
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

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.

Indeed the case in question (Anne) the USA is not declaring her innocent and Brittan wrongly perusing her.  They are saying totally unrelated circumstances are dictating answers and responses.  While I understand that I still would not mind seeing justice happen.    Are you seeing any options left to pursue that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed the case in question (Anne) the USA is not declaring her innocent and Brittan wrongly perusing her.  They are saying totally unrelated circumstances are dictating answers and responses.  While I understand that I still would not mind seeing justice happen.    Are you seeing any options left to pursue that?

In my opinion, the only way Sacoolas is going to face justice is if she decides (or gets convinced) to face it.  These would be the factors that I believe is on the balance:  Trump is currently heavily pursuing UK's involvement in the 2016 election, the UK needs Trump on their side on the looming Brexit, Trump is in a war against US IA.  All these points to Trump keeping Sacoolas happy while at the same time Boris wants to keep Trump happy.

P.S.  I forgot to mention an important factor - public outcry.  This is usually whipped up by news media and/or activists.  The way it is currently, Trump doesn't seem fazed by public outcry nor media ruckus.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In my opinion, the only way Sacoolas is going to face justice is if she decides (or gets convinced) to face it.  These would be the factors that I believe is on the balance:  Trump is currently heavily pursuing UK's involvement in the 2016 election, the UK needs Trump on their side on the looming Brexit, Trump is in a war against US IA.  All these points to Trump keeping Sacoolas happy while at the same time Boris wants to keep Trump happy.

It seems unlikely she will have a change of heart at this point

So Jamie is attacking the USA and Trump when he should really be focused on the impotence of his own government...  Britain used to be a power that could protect its people... and it could be again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

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.

 

 

I question the “American-on-American-murder-abroad” scenario.  If, for example, the couple was from Utah, I’m quite confident that Utah state court (which handles murder cases here) wouldn’t touch it.  I don’t do almost any federal stuff, but I’m not aware of any federal statute that makes it illegal for a US citizen to commit murder abroad; nor am I aware of any venue/jurisdictional guidelines that would determine which federal district such a case might be filed in.  Would the prosecution be subpoenaing witnesses from the Philippines—people who are not Americans and not subject to American judicial process, to boot—to appear in Salt Lake City?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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..."

I don't disagree with your frustration, and I don't disagree with your overall analysis. I've always hated diplomatic immunity exactly for this reason: People can literally get away with murder (or rape, or extortion, or prostiution, etc.) by invoking diplomatic immunity. To be blunt, it sucks.

But getting upset at Trump because he won't waive diplomatic immunity seems useless. Makharadze was drunk as a skunk when he killed that little Brazilian girl, which I think is a strong motivator to request waiving immunity. The Sacoolas case lacks that element. So I don't think that's really a good comparison.

Again, overall I agree with you, and I understand your frustration. I believe this is a misuse of diplomatic immunity. It would be nice if Sacoolas would just turn herself in of her own free will to be tried by the British courts (which, by the way, don't have a sterling reputation on this side of the pond). But so things go. She is guilty of killing that young man. Living with the knowledge of her guilt and responsibility is not justice, but it's likely all Harry Dunn's family will get. So I'm fully in sympathy. But honestly, of all possible things to get upset about regarding US governmental foreign policy, I would think this one ranks toward the bottom. I expect the UK government would respond similarly in a similar situation going the other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

 the British courts (which, by the way, don't have a sterling reputation on this side of the pond). 

It's curious you should say that, especially as Anatess said something similar earlier. I'd be interested to know what you're actually referring to - though in general people do seem to hate their own country's courts, but have a far deeper suspicion of any other country's.

P.s. Unless of course you're talking about persecuting people for political incorrectness, "virtual crime", calling Scientology "a cult", or daring to say gay marriage is wrong or that Islam is not THE true religion. If you are then I'm right on board with you!

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

P.s. Unless of course you're talking about persecuting people for political incorrectness, "virtual crime", calling Scientology "a cult", or daring to say gay marriage is wrong or that Islam is not THE true religion. If you are then I'm right on board with you!

Bingo.

I fear we are not far behind you. We already have at least one valued member of this very board—a Canadian, but even so—who thinks it's wonderful that her government tramples on rights of free speech in order to make some people feel better. She is probably not alone even on this board, and is certainly not alone in larger society, including US society. There are a great many who are eager to trade away the exercise of other people's rights to free speech (and other freedoms that we Americans claim are God-given) in order to advance their social and political ends.

I served an LDS mission to Italy in the early 1980s. I loved Italy, almost everything about it. It breaks my heart that I haven't been back (yet). But, naive western US boy that I was, I was rather shocked by many of the ads and permissive public attitudes and actions. When I came home, I estimated that America was about 20 years behind Europe in certain aspects of cultural degredation. I now think my estimate was high; I was perhaps giving the US too much credit.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I question the “American-on-American-murder-abroad” scenario.  If, for example, the couple was from Utah, I’m quite confident that Utah state court (which handles murder cases here) wouldn’t touch it.  I don’t do almost any federal stuff, but I’m not aware of any federal statute that makes it illegal for a US citizen to commit murder abroad; nor am I aware of any venue/jurisdictional guidelines that would determine which federal district such a case might be filed in.  Would the prosecution be subpoenaing witnesses from the Philippines—people who are not Americans and not subject to American judicial process, to boot—to appear in Salt Lake City?

The US Constitution protects American citizens regardless of their location (which is also why American citizens are still subject to US taxation even when abroad).  I believe it was Reid v Covert that is an application of this.

Therefore, the American victim can seek redress of grievances in a US court.  Because the crime is committed in foreign soil, the case will more than likely be filed under Federal jurisdiction although it is not outside of the purview of Utah as the victim is a resident of Utah.  And yes, they can try to subpoena witnesses from the Philippines but Filipinos are not legally bound to honor a US subpoena... except - the Philippines do have a mutual legal assistance treaty with the US and the US could invoke the terms of the treaty if the case qualifies (I'm not familiar with the terms of the treaty only that we have one - it's been used several times when we used to have US bases and soldiers or their family commit non-duty crimes outside the base or Filipinos commit crimes inside the base - yeah, it's usually because of some rape charges or somebody got somebody pregnant and need child support).  Some States have extraterritorial arrangements and can do this process within their courts (I believe California has one) without needing to pass the case to Federal Courts.  When this does happen, the Filipino does not appear in Salt Lake - they meet with a delegate who will then create an affidavit or statement that will then be accepted/validated/authenticated by the US Consulate in the Philippines.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

It seems unlikely she will have a change of heart at this point

So Jamie is attacking the USA and Trump when he should really be focused on the impotence of his own government...  Britain used to be a power that could protect its people... and it could be again.

THIS.  Exactly this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The US Constitution protects American citizens regardless of their location (which is also why American citizens are still subject to US taxation even when abroad).  I believe it was Reid v Covert that is an application of this.

Therefore, the American victim can seek redress of grievances in a US court.  Because the crime is committed in foreign soil, the case will more than likely be filed under Federal jurisdiction although it is not outside of the purview of Utah as the victim is a resident of Utah.  And yes, they can try to subpoena witnesses from the Philippines but Filipinos are not legally bound to honor a US subpoena... except - the Philippines do have a mutual legal assistance treaty with the US and the US could invoke the terms of the treaty if the case qualifies (I'm not familiar with the terms of the treaty only that we have one - it's been used several times when we used to have US bases and soldiers or their family commit non-duty crimes outside the base or Filipinos commit crimes inside the base - yeah, it's usually because of some rape charges or somebody got somebody pregnant and need child support).  Some States have extraterritorial arrangements and can do this process within their courts (I believe California has one) without needing to pass the case to Federal Courts.  When this does happen, the Filipino does not appear in Salt Lake - they meet with a delegate who will then create an affidavit or statement that will then be accepted/validated/authenticated by the US Consulate in the Philippines.

I believe Reid applies to a military wife stationed overseas, arguing her right *not* to be tried by military tribunal.  AFAIK it does not create a right for American crime victims living overseas to compel their home government (whether federal or state) to prosecute the crime perpetrated against them.  (I’m not sure even American crime victims living here could be said to have such a right; the government retains prosecutorial discretion.)

And yes, there is often (not always) a process to have a local subpoena domesticated in the recipient’s home state or country.  It takes months within the US under the best of conditions, and I’ve seen Hague-complaint service of petitions take over a year (it was actually on my client—I was doing parental defense at the time—and it was all great fun watching the state’s attorneys squirm!).  Even then you still have to deal with motions to quash and the like.  (Heaven help you if the defense seeks a continuance and you have to send a new subpoena for a new trial date!)

And I don’t think it’s realistic to expect to be able to convict someone of murder with an affidavit—the defendant has a constitutional right to cross examine the witness.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy, @estradling75,

Now here's something that will blow your cookies very much related to what we're talking about...

Back in... 1988?.. roundabouts... Imelda Marcos - the wife of President Ferdinand Marcos was tried at a US Federal Court for racketeering.  The US filed a case against Ferdinand for buying Manhattan property using Philippine Government Money... Marcos' lawyers repeatedly objected to the case stating that the racketeering was done by Filipino politicians using Filipino taxpayer money, so why is the US suing Marcos?  To make matters more difficult for the prosecution, Ferdinand died in the middle of the case, so now they have to provide additional evidence that Imelda is party to this crime (which is how the 3,000 pairs of shoes went into evidence).  But regardless, the fact still remains - it's a Filipino politician (or his wife) defrauding the Filipinos of Philippine money, so having the US summon the Marcoses is silly.

So... why did this happen?  Because... tat-tada.. Reagan and HW Bush supported the Marcos dictatorship throughout their administration including flying him out of the Philippines in the middle of the revolution to exile in Hawaii, the public outcry turned against Reagan and HW Bush during campaign season... hence, the trial.  Of course, this is just my opinion on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe Reid applies to a military wife stationed overseas, arguing her right *not* to be tried by military tribunal.  AFAIK it does not create a right for American crime victims living overseas to compel their home government (whether federal or state) to prosecute the crime perpetrated against them.  (I’m not sure even American crime victims living here could be said to have such a right; the government retains prosecutorial discretion.)

And yes, there is often (not always) a process to have a local subpoena domesticated in the recipient’s home state or country.  It takes months within the US under the best of conditions, and I’ve seen Hague-complaint service of petitions take over a year (it was actually on my client—I was doing parental defense at the time—and it was all great fun watching the state’s attorneys squirm!).  Even then you still have to deal with motions to quash and the like.  (Heaven help you if the defense seeks a continuance and you have to send a new subpoena for a new trial date!)

And I don’t think it’s realistic to expect to be able to convict someone of murder with an affidavit—the defendant has a constitutional right to cross examine the witness.  

It may be difficult to try but the fact remains - US citizens are bound/protected by the US Constitution regardless of their location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It may be difficult to try but the fact remains - US citizens are bound/protected by the US Constitution regardless of their location.

Hmm.  The white-collar financial stuff where money is moving in and out of US accounts for illegal purposes is admittedly murky (as well as the sorts of campaign finance/interfering with election stuff we’ve been hearing about lately); as I think I acknowledged earlier. 

But when there’s no connection to the US other than the country of origin of the parties involved—murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc—can you name a case where the American government, or a US state government, prosecuted an American national under an Article 3 or state court proceeding for crimes the American committed while not within the borders of a US territory, embassy, or military base?

Back during the Carter administration, when there was a national 55 mph speed limit—are you telling me that an American who did 120 on the autobahn, could have come home and faced prosecution?

If I go to Nevada and hire a Utah-born, Nevada-resident hooker in one of the counties where it’s legal, am I subject to prosecution when I get back to Utah County?

I’m kind of thinking that current location and jurisdictional boundaries mean something here—maybe for better, or maybe for worse; but they do have a significant role on what does and doesn’t get prosecuted, and where, and by whom. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2019 at 10:14 PM, Vort said:

Bingo.

I fear we are not far behind you. We already have at least one valued member of this very board—a Canadian, but even so—who thinks it's wonderful that her government tramples on rights of free speech in order to make some people feel better. She is probably not alone even on this board, and is certainly not alone in larger society, including US society. There are a great many who are eager to trade away the exercise of other people's rights to free speech (and other freedoms that we Americans claim are God-given) in order to advance their social and political ends.

I served an LDS mission to Italy in the early 1980s. I loved Italy, almost everything about it. It breaks my heart that I haven't been back (yet). But, naive western US boy that I was, I was rather shocked by many of the ads and permissive public attitudes and actions. When I came home, I estimated that America was about 20 years behind Europe in certain aspects of cultural degredation. I now think my estimate was high; I was perhaps giving the US too much credit.

One thing I would say in respect to both Canada and the UK is that cases where prosecuting authorities have tried to do something, and failed, are conflated with those where they have succeeded. Sometimes its the courts who are "the good guys".

In Canada for example there was the case of Greg Elliot, who was charged with harassing two feminist activists on Twitter. Four years of restrictive bail conditions and prosecutorial shilly-shallying later he was acquitted of all charges, the judge agreeing that Eliot's tweets were "indecent and homophobic", but not threatening in nature. Soon afterwards (and this is something the mainstream media did not report) the judge issued an amendment saying they were not "indecent and homophobic" either, having been shown that the particular tweets he had identified as "indecent and homophobic" were not from Elliot at all, but from a sock-puppet account created by someone else. What happened to Elliot should not have happened of course, but the fact that it did was not the fault of the court.

In the UK, two particular cases stand out - these were for allegations of what we would all (I hope) agree were genuine crimes, though where the evidence was nonexistent: the first was Kato Harris, a deputy school principal who was accused of raping a 15-year-old girl. In the original investigation the police concluded there was insufficient evidence, but the girl's super-rich parents hired the services of  top lawyer Alison Levitt, and ex top-cop Sue Akers to put pressure on the CPS to take the case. They also employed a QC (I'm not sure what the US equivalent is - they are top-tier lawyers who charge an absolute fortune), forcing Harris to hire one of his own, which could well have bankrupted him. The jury, however, took only 15 minutes to acquit Harris, and some of them even came up to him after the trial to wish him well. Money - and a system which allowed itself to be manipulated by money - almost had its way, but it was through the court that the fresh air of reason came in. (It's also worth noting that the judge ordered the CPS to pay all Harris' legal bills - which after much boo-hooing they eventually did.)

Another case was that of Mark Pearson, who was accused of sexual assault in Waterloo Station by an unnamed actress. She told police he had "penetrated her" and hit her on the shoulder. There were no witnesses and no forensic evidence. The CPS did show CCTV evidence, but this (if anything) proved the opposite of what the accuser had claimed. Still the case got pushed to court (more to do with the nature of the accusation than the nature of the evidence) and again the man was acquitted. Lasting damage was done, but nevertheless court common-sense prevailed over police/CPS stupidity.

Of course its not all good news: there was the case of Mark Meacham, a Scottish comedian who trained his girlfriend's pug dog to do a Nazi salute whenever he said "Gas the Jews". He did it (so he claimed) because he was sick of the way his girlfriend kept going on about how "cute" the dog was, and wanted to make it the least cute thing imaginable. When he posted this on YouTube, not one single Jew complained, but some SJW-type did. Meacham was arrested for "racism" - and sadly convicted. Only to a fine I grant you, but still... The thing was obviously meant as a joke - in bad taste yes - but how was this any different from anything you see on Family Guy? (In case you've never watched Family Guy, it's far worse than anything Meacham ever did.) If anything  offends me about it, it's the fact that a poor innocent animal that loved its owners - was made the butt of a joke it couldn't understand. I get the same way about stupid people who dress their dogs and cats up in human clothes and take pictures of them with stupid captions added. It's disrespectful and mean-spirited, but I don't want to see anyone prosecuted, let alone convicted and given a criminal record for it.

But nevertheless, I cannot believe Trump really thinks that in this case (which in any case has nothing to do with "homophobic" tweeting, calling police horses "gay", Nazi pug-dogs, referring to the prophet Muhammed as "a war lord", or saying "no s**t" to a police officer when your child has gone missing [an actual case!]) the UK would not give Anne Sacoolas as fair a trial as she would have had in America. He is just using it as an excuse to "protect his own" - which may well be as Anatess points out "his sworn duty" - but let's call the thing what it is.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Your mood might be improved if you stopped blaming the USA for the failures of Britain because you should have a voice in Britain, you do not in the USA.   Simple fact is both Britain and the US of A have agreed to the international set up of diplomats.  They did this because both countries felt it was in there best interest to do so.

This means that per that agreement the only option a hosting country has to criminal actions of foreign diplomats is to kick them out.  That is what happen here.  Anne Sacoolas leaving the country is something Britain agreed to long before she even showed up. If you do not like this you can kick all the diplomats out and then it can not happen any more.  Are you willing to have Britain pay that price?

Now countries also have diplomatic and political options above and beyond this.  This requires the countries to negotiate.  In this case Britain has to offer the US of A something it wants.  What are you going to offer?  So far the only offer I see is we get to "feel good" about doing the "right thing"

Really???  We should feel good about abandoning the diplomats and their families who are presumably loyal and working in our best interest... who in return reasonably expect our loyalty and protection.  We should abandon this one and basically tell all our others nope we will not?  In addition we should feel good about declaring open season on our diplomats?  Let every country know that if you want to pressure our people all they have to do is to be able to "trump up" some crime so that we will "do the right thing" I am sure other intelligence agencies would love for us to give them that opening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Your mood might be improved if you stopped blaming the USA for the failures of Britain because you should have a voice in Britain, you do not in the USA.   Simple fact is both Britain and the US of A have agreed to the international set up of diplomats.  They did this because both countries felt it was in there best interest to do so.

This means that per that agreement the only option a hosting country has to criminal actions of foreign diplomats is to kick them out.  That is what happen here.  Anne Sacoolas leaving the country is something Britain agreed to long before she even showed up. If you do not like this you can kick all the diplomats out and then it can not happen any more.  Are you willing to have Britain pay that price?

Now countries also have diplomatic and political options above and beyond this.  This requires the countries to negotiate.  In this case Britain has to offer the US of A something it wants.  What are you going to offer?  So far the only offer I see is we get to "feel good" about doing the "right thing"

Really???  We should feel good about abandoning the diplomats and their families who are presumably loyal and working in our best interest... who in return reasonably expect our loyalty and protection.  We should abandon this one and basically tell all our others nope we will not?  In addition we should feel good about declaring open season on our diplomats?  Let every country know that if you want to pressure our people all they have to do is to be able to "trump up" some crime so that we will "do the right thing" I am sure other intelligence agencies would love for us to give them that opening

No one is suggesting "open season" on diplomats; only that individual cases should be treated on their merits. Anne Sacoolas no longer has diplomatic immunity now she is back in the US, which makes her no different from any other fugitive from justice. If the US, having assessed the evidence and decided there was no merit in the case, had refused to extradite her on those grounds, that would have been one thing. But to immunize her from justice simply because she is American - you might as well get rid of extradition altogether.

This is the UK. It is not North Korea. And whatever you might say about the British courts being "so unfair" (and I'm not going to argue about that), I've heard some pretty nasty stories over the years about justice in the USA, so it's the pot calling the kettle black. And I cannot believe that you and Anatess really think that the degree of "wrongness" of a person's deeds is irrelevant. If Anne Sacoolas had committed a school shooting, would you still be defending Trump? And if you would, then what about putting anthrax in the water supply? Or organizing Islamic terrorists to do a 9/11-style attack on the Houses of Parliament? Don't tell me there is no point at which the degree of wrongness ceases to be irrelevant.

And if you're going to say Britain is just as bad, you're absolutely right. Britain has done some terrible things. If Reginald Dyer were alive today, I'd be the first to want him extradited to India to face charges of mass murder - and that would most certainly NOT depend on any quid pro quo from the Indians. And if Anne Sacoolas were British and Harry Dunn American, I'd be saying nothing different from what I'm saying now.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

No one is suggesting "open season" on diplomats; only that individual cases should be treated on their merits. Anne Sacoolas no longer has diplomatic immunity now she is back in the US, which makes her no different from any other fugitive from justice. If the US, having assessed the evidence and decided there was no merit in the case, had refused to extradite her on those grounds, that would have been one thing. But to immunize her from justice simply because she is American Diplomat - you might as well get rid of extradition altogether.

FTFY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, anatess2 said:

FTFY.

She is not an American diplomat. She is not even the wife of an American diplomat. She is the wife of a CIA operative, who had diplomatic immunity while she was in the UK. She is no longer in the UK, and no longer has diplomatic immunity. Now she is just an American - in America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

No one is suggesting "open season" on diplomats; only that individual cases should be treated on their merits. Anne Sacoolas no longer has diplomatic immunity now she is back in the US, which makes her no different from any other fugitive from justice. If the US, having assessed the evidence and decided there was no merit in the case, had refused to extradite her on those grounds, that would have been one thing. But to immunize her from justice simply because she is American - you might as well get rid of extradition altogether.

This is the UK. It is not North Korea. And whatever you might say about the British courts being "so unfair" (and I'm not going to argue with you about that), I've heard some pretty nasty stories over the years about justice in the USA as well, so it's the pot calling the kettle black. And I cannot believe that you and Anatess really think that the degree of "wrongness" of a person's deeds is irrelevant. If Anne Sacoolas had committed a school shooting, would you still be defending Trump? And if you do, then what about putting anthrax in the water supply, or organizing Islamic terrorists to do a 9/11-style attack on the Houses of Parliament? Don't tell me there is no point at which the degree of wrongness ceases to be irrelevant.

And if you're going to say Britain is just as bad, you're absolutely right. Britain has done some terrible things. If Reginald Dyer were alive today, I'd be the first to want him extradited to India to face charges of mass murder. And if Anne Sacoolas were British and Harry Dunn American, I'd be saying nothing different from what I'm saying now.

Except she was under diplomatic immunity when it happened you can not just wave that away because you do not like it.  That was the rule of law that applied to her crime.  Then the laws that applied to her changed.   Its like if I eat an apple today... and tomorrow they pass a law that makes eating applies illegal.  After the law passes I do not eat any apples, but someone remembers and can prove that I ate one today so I get thrown into jail anyways...  Its a form of Ex post facto.

As for open season that is exactly what will happen based on your suggestion.  To judge a case on it merits would require the US legal system to vet the proof offer by the other country.  For Britian this is about as easy as it gets (and it is still hard enough to require a judge and court).  We are generally friendly, we have a lot of shared cultural and legal setup.  But how do we vet North Korea?  Or China or Russia?  We can't so we would have to take there word for it... thus open season.

We have both Diplomats (with immunity) and Extradition treaties with Britain.  Both are legal constructs that both sides agreed to.  And seems that per these legal constructs Anne gets away with it.  It sucks but that is the rule of law.  Now if the British Government wishes to negotiate a change to the existing extradition treaties to be able to extradite former diplomats(or otherwise immune) that were accused of a crime, while a diplomat(or otherwise immune) , but only come after them after their immunity ends... Well I am not a lawyer so I can not see all the ins and outs for that.. But even if you get it, it would not apply to Anne   

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

She is not an American diplomat. She is not even the wife of an American diplomat. She is the wife of a CIA operative, who had diplomatic immunity while she was in the UK. She is no longer in the UK, and no longer has diplomatic immunity. Now she is just an American - in America. 

Ok, I'll make the fix even clearer for you.

 

1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

No one is suggesting "open season" on diplomats; only that individual cases should be treated on their merits. Anne Sacoolas no longer has diplomatic immunity now she is back in the US, which makes her no different from any other fugitive from justice. Anne Sacoolas doesn't need diplomatic immunity within her own country but she is still the wife of a diplomat (all agents with diplomatic immunity are diplomats... hence the diplomatic in diplomatic immunity) so will once again get immunity if she leaves her own country that makes her different from any other fugitive from justice.  If the US the UK (because it is silly for the US to extradite their own citizens who is in their home country), having assessed the evidence and decided there was no merit in the case, had refused to extradite her on those grounds, that would have been one thing. But to immunize her from justice simply because she is American Diplomat - you might as well get rid of extradition Diplomat Privilege altogether.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

We have both Diplomats (with immunity) and Extradition treaties with Britain.  Both are legal constructs that both sides agreed to.  And seems that per these legal constructs Anne gets away with it.  It sucks but that is the rule of law.  Now if the British Government wishes to negotiate a change to the existing extradition treaties to be able to extradite former diplomats(or otherwise immune) that were accused of a crime, while a diplomat(or otherwise immune) , but only come after them after their immunity ends... Well I am not a lawyer so I can not see all the ins and outs for that.. But even if you get it, it would not apply to Anne   

The Brits don't need to change existing extradition treaties.  They simply need to negotiate an extradition with the US.  These negotiations are seldom publicized so we don't know if the Brits are working with the US on it.  If they really want Sacoolas, they can give up their docs on the UK collusion on the 2016 election and she's theirs... although, the way Barr is running things, they probably already have the UK collusion docs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Brits don't need to change existing extradition treaties.  They simply need to negotiate an extradition with the US.  These negotiations are seldom publicized so we don't know if the Brits are working with the US on it.  If they really want Sacoolas, they can give up their docs on the UK collusion on the 2016 election and she's theirs... although, the way Barr is running things, they probably already have the UK collusion docs...

I admit I do not know too much about the inter working between the governments...  But I did ask you if there was a method to still hold Anne accountable.  I would consider her being  extradited as holding her accountable.  So either we misunderstood one another, or you really do not think it is likely.

All I really know is that I am very tired of the US being blamed for the failures of the UK government.  If the UK can step up and get Anne through proper legal and diplomatic channels... Good for them.  If they can't then the citizen of the UK need to look to their Government to chastise and correct not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I admit I do not know too much about the inter working between the governments...  But I did ask you if there was a method to still hold Anne accountable.  I would consider her being  extradited as holding her accountable.  So either we misunderstood one another, or you really do not think it is likely.

All I really know is that I am very tired of the US being blamed for the failures of the UK government.  If the UK can step up and get Anne through proper legal and diplomatic channels... Good for them.  If they can't then the citizen of the UK need to look to their Government to chastise and correct not mine.

I very much doubt the UK has a bargaining chip big enough to extradite Sacoolas... the chances of the US needing Sacoolas to build a case against UK nationals/agents for the 2016 election is slim to none.  The chances of the US needing Sacoolas to get a favorable economic trade agreement post-Brexit is nil.  The chances of Boris wanting to upset the cart over Sacoolas is nil, especially when the UK can't be brought to care about the victims of migrants.

But, if they were in a position to bring Sacoolas to justice, they wouldn't need to revise extradition agreements.  They simply negotiate.

Which reminds me of the case of the journalist that was suspected of having been killed by the Saudi prince... now THAT has tons of negotiating chips... unfortunately, the chips went against the journalist too and not even the media mayhem could get anything done about it.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, I understand the frustration individuals feel when confronted with unaddressed crimes that get swept away by executive privilege of some sort, such as diplomatic immunity. This particular case seems to rankle exactly because it's an American involved, and Americans are perceived as being overly privileged.

A woman accidentally drives on the wrong side of the road, and as a result accidentally kills a young man. Sure, I get the anger. If it were my son who was killed, I would be howling for heads to roll (assuming I could do anything other than curl up and weep). But from an international relations standpoint, I don't get it. If the woman were drunk, I would get it. If she were driving recklessly, I would get it. But she kept to the right, as she has been taught her whole life to do, in a country where people keep to the left. This is a tragedy, for sure. it may be criminal, in a definitional sense. But this is not a bad actor looking to get away with murder. This is a woman who drove on the right instead of on the left, and as a result accidentally killed a young man.

I'm not justifying Sacoolas' actions or exculpating her from any responsibility. I'm wondering why this particular tragedy deserves such focus. Forcible rape? Armed robbery? Extortion? Killing someone by driving drunk? In all such cases, I could see petitioning for withdrawal of executive privilege such as diplomatic immunity. But why would people want to expend their ammo on this case? A woman accidentally drove on the wrong side of the road and, with no malice or evil intent, killed someone by her accidental but technically illegal action. Is this a hill worth dying on? I'm genuinely baffled by the intensity of emotion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share