Anger in Berlin after Saudi driver who killed cyclist claims diplomatic immunity - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52371696]It protects your diplomats there.[/QUOTE] From what, the law?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52371315]Diplomatic immunity has become one of those cases of 'this is why we can't have nice things'.[/QUOTE] We need more Danny Glovers in the world. All he'd need is a Smith & Wesson Model 19, a clear shot, and that classic one-liner [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwC_IaY3BmY"]"It's just been revoked"[/URL].

tbh its more a problem of Saudis than a problem of diplomatic immunity imo

[QUOTE=ironman17;52374413]We need more Danny Glovers in the world. All he'd need is a Smith & Wesson Model 19, a clear shot, and that classic one-liner [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwC_IaY3BmY"]"It's just been revoked"[/URL].[/QUOTE] I'm actually curious what kind of diplomatic strain would come from a police officer shooting and killing a saudi with immunity. The cop is totally going to end up locked away forever but how are the saudis going to take it aside from culling all business ties with that country?

[QUOTE=jason3232;52374522]tbh its more a problem of Saudis than a problem of diplomatic immunity imo[/QUOTE] IMO, the problem is that diplomats can commit high impact crimes like manslaughter and never face retribution.

I question whether the driver actually [I]has[/I] diplomatic immunity. Only actual, accredited diplomats have diplomatic immunity - support staff have only limited immunity, usually only protecting them for acts performed during their official duties. It is customary for the home country to waive diplomatic immunity in cases such as this, where the crime has no bearing on their actions as a diplomat. Saudi Arabia often bucks that norm but maybe they'll concede this time, especially if he's some relative nobody. Apparently there has to be charges filed before the waiver of diplomatic immunity, so this could take a day or two to sort out. [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Black Pete;52374539]IMO, the problem is that diplomats can commit high impact crimes like manslaughter and never face retribution.[/QUOTE] There are three ways diplomats with immunity can be punished: 1) The host country can declare them persona-non-grata, kicking them out of the country. This normally is the end of their career, since other countries likely wouldn't accept them as a diplomat either. 2) The home country can waive their diplomatic immunity, allowing the host country to prosecute. This is normally done for non-espionage cases, but there are no requirements for it. 3) The home country can prosecute the diplomat for the crime. This is sometimes done by countries that refuse to waive immunity but still want to maintain friendly relations. The reason for diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from false charges. It's most important during times of war - when you need some sort of guarantee that your diplomat won't be arrested as an enemy combatant. We adhere to immunity even in peacetime to assure that it will be followed during wartime. And diplomats are supposed to be very trustworthy, honorable people - they do, after all, represent an entire nation. It's very rare for diplomats to commit serious crimes (besides espionage - they do that one all the time).

[QUOTE=gman003-main;52374549] There are three ways diplomats with immunity can be punished: 1) The host country can declare them persona-non-grata, kicking them out of the country. This normally is the end of their career, since other countries likely wouldn't accept them as a diplomat either. 2) The home country can waive their diplomatic immunity, allowing the host country to prosecute. This is normally done for non-espionage cases, but there are no requirements for it. 3) The home country can prosecute the diplomat for the crime. This is sometimes done by countries that refuse to waive immunity but still want to maintain friendly relations. The reason for diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from false charges. It's most important during times of war - when you need some sort of guarantee that your diplomat won't be arrested as an enemy combatant. We adhere to immunity even in peacetime to assure that it will be followed during wartime. And diplomats are supposed to be very trustworthy, honorable people - they do, after all, represent an entire nation. It's very rare for diplomats to commit serious crimes (besides espionage - they do that one all the time).[/QUOTE] How precisely do diplomats just casually commit espionage? Or is it that what they do tends to be espionage on a technicality or something?

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52379675]How precisely do diplomats just casually commit espionage? Or is it that what they do tends to be espionage on a technicality or something?[/QUOTE] Spies often pose as low-level diplomats. They get diplomatic credentials and "work" at the embassy, but really focus on spying, mostly HUMINT. This is referred to as "having official cover" - the worst that can happen, if they get caught, is getting kicked out of the country. Not good for one's career but better than the alternatives. Spies who don't have diplomatic protection are referred to as having "non-official cover". They usually have more freedom - counter-intelligence agencies know the diplomat trick intimately, any diplomat will be monitored as though they were a spy - but they also don't have any protection. Some countries will do prisoner exchanges (America and Russia do), but you could just as easily wind up dead.

Can someone explain why we need diplomatic immunity at all?

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52374460]You asking what a diplomat in a foreign country would need protection about? Silly question. Yes, the "law". Especially espionage laws, and all laws in case of corrupt countries.[/QUOTE] Why would corrupt countries care about someone's diplomatic immunity?

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52381028]Why would corrupt countries care about someone's diplomatic immunity?[/QUOTE] Because if they ignore diplomatic immunity, their diplomats are equally exposed abroad. It goes both ways.

Couldn't host countries set a limit to the amount of "diplomats" that can work within their borders? My understanding is that the Saudi grant diplomatic status to more people than they ought to.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52381123]Couldn't host countries set a limit to the amount of "diplomats" that can work within their borders? My understanding is that the Saudi grant diplomatic status to more people than they ought to.[/QUOTE] Yes. Under Article 11 of the Vienna Convention: "In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission." Elsewhere, it requires the receiving state be notified of the arrival of any and all diplomats in the mission (and their family members, also granted immunity), and provides terms for the removal of specific diplomats or staff. What I believe actually happens is that Saudi non-diplomats falsely claim immunity, then flee the country while the police are still checking. That one case of a visiting Saudi princess springs to mind - you do not get diplomatic immunity simply for being related to the head of state.