• Pakistan blocks US diplomat from leaving after fatal crash
    20 replies, posted
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44094872
He ran a red light and killed someone. He should be in jail.
Not sure why "diplomatic immunity" allows you to resist arrest, you're still an individual and should be investigated if you're involved in something. At this point it might as well be called having a license to kill.
That would be inaccurate. What it should be presented is as (and this is accurate) 'the right to ignore a country's laws'.
Diplomatic immunity has its purposes but jfc you can't act like a cunt and just ignore traffic laws that apply basically anywhere and everywhere.
Absolutely can. It harms political goodwill between your country and the country you're in for you to do so and is also why we should always be very careful about who we send out into the world as our Diplomats. They basically live off our soft power and every political circus they run into costs us some of that soft power to fix.
You know what else harms political goodwill between your country and the country you're in? Killing their people.
I'm verrrry iffy about this. This harms more than the relations with the US but other countries as well because it puts into jeopardy any embassy in the country. On the other hand, he did run over a guy. That being said, I'm gonna wait for more info until I take sides.
Well, yes. That's what I wrote.
The reasons why diplomatic immunity hasn't had its shit kicked in is because the world has other, more pressing matters to debate about doing something about them.
Couldnt we all agree diplomatic immunity should end when someone gets killed? Like it has its use, and people do abuse it, but this is cut and dry man slaughter.
Not in all cases. There would be incentives to jail under false charges our foreign diplomats in hostile countries if that were an exception to it; further they could be tried by the military tribunal of a military dictatorship. The immunity from local prosecution is a feature, not a bug, and without it our diplomats would be vulnerable to states who'd be willing to kidnap and make false charges against them to hold them hostage and thereby force us to a bargaining table. The immunity should be rescinded if the diplomat is recalled and found to have done the things that have been claimed. This diplomat should be recalled and an independent investigation should go in and check the story in question to see if it's true. If it's true, he should be stripped of his immunity and possibly his job - which would then make him open to prosecution and demands for him to be sent to the country in question to stand trial for his crimes.
People with diplomatic immunity should at least abide by and be tried to the same extent of the law as a civilian in their home country.
True, but the home country is the only one responsible for holding them accountable. They could decide that the laws of the other country that were broken don't rise to or respect the same things that would get you trial'd in said home country. (e.g. if the acquisition and sales of pirated material isn't specifically illegal in the way you did it in China - but it was illegal in the US - if you're a Chinese diplomat you could get sent home for breaking US laws, but it'd be up to China to decide 'should we hold you to the standards of Chinese law or American law') If it was done any other way, it'd get very hairy very quickly. Requiring a foreign nation to enforce your laws in their country is a pretty big ask; you're asking them to subvert their own legal system to appease you - to bring foreign laws down on their nation's citizens. That's why investigations should be had to see if the diplomat is guilty of any crimes as their home country's law would see it - because if there aren't investigations and the offended country sees no action taken on the Diplomat's actions, that's going to cost you in your relationship with that country and it'll cost you dearly if its something like a murder. If Russian diplomats kept breaking US law, the US would be fully justified in kicking out all Russian diplomats until Russia got its diplomats in line on what they can and can't do in the US. And expelling diplomats is a big thing - without state diplomats it's hard to find unconventional political approaches that both countries can be brought to agree on. But, vice-versa, said diplomats would not feel comfortable representing their own country if they were forced to respect the laws of every nation they went to - because those laws could be changed in a hostile manner to specifically target them. So, shortly, yeah they should. It's a really bad idea for them not to be brought to justice if they've committed what most nations would see as a crime - but keeping a 'bubble of immunity' around them is critical to their ability to do their job. If this incident happened and the US refuses to investigate and/or refuse to hold the Diplomat accountable, you're going to see frost forming quick with our relationship to Pakistan - and possibly other countries who will look to our diplomats with a harsher eye, wondering if they too are going to break the laws and not be held accountable for it.
He's been allowed to go home. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-diplomat-involved-in-fatal-traffic-accident-is-allowed-to-leave-pakistan/2018/05/14/53e55aa2-57dd-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html
I remember Erdogan's guards kicking and beating the crap out of protestors in Washington DC and getting off scot-free. Nothing was done about it - of course, partly in thanks to Trump. Rather than demand Erdogan pay restitution for the actions of his bodyguards for spoiling some of the country's goodwill towards his country and making his job tougher, instead Trump apologized for Erdogan's bodyguards' actions. You only have to pay when the other nation cares. I don't think it'd be the weapon deals that'd press down politically on that so much as the prospect of losing some of our oil imports - which would be economically devastating. Countries can always ask those nations to strip their citizens of their diplomatic immunity - but that's a big ask - so most countries instead tell them 'we're kicking this dude out and we better not see him do anything like this again' to the host country. Germany, recently, had to eat crow of the very same variety as in the original article. A foreign Saudi diplomat didn't check oncoming traffic, opened his car door, and caused the death of a cyclist. There were calls and demands for justice but prosecutors were forced to close the case when Saudi Arabia declined to do so and instead expressed their condolences. For reference, in regards to an article about that same incident: "According to foreign ministry figures, police recorded 22,880 traffic violations by diplomats last year alone."
Honestly like what? I can't think of a time that a politician would need to break laws in another country to do their job.
If you were a gay diplomat in a country where it's illegal to be gay.
Any time wherein representing a particular point of view is illegal in the state in question. Forgetting or not knowing particular religious observations/rules in a society where ignoring/forgetting those things is illegal. Et cetera. It's not just there to allow them to move around, it's to give them flexibility and to protect them from a state enacting or enforcing laws in order to jail them to force the home country to a negotiating table where they will only return the diplomat if their demands aren't satisfied. In countries like Germany and Sweden I wouldn't imagine diplomatic immunity would be very necessary or used often. In countries within North Africa not only would it be necessary, it's a practical requirement to even get your figurative 'foot in the door' since you're likely negotiating with a dictatorship - which can make up any laws it feels like on the spot.
Touche :v
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.