Recommended Posts

(edited)

Lets go another hypothetical route, supposing it had been a Brit who had just killed an American citizen, what would have been the average Americans reaction??

If she doesn't come back and answer for her crime, this won't cause any major storm, but it will have an affect on future diplomatic immunity for family members of Politicians/Ambassadors.

Not a new concept - CCR Fortunate Son etc, clear abuse of political powers.

Britain is supposed to have the "special relationship" with USA, it seems lately all bets are off and the US President is really taking extreme measures to isolate and cause himself problems, he should have sent her back on the same flight as the family he brought to the WH, this would have set an example, a damn good one.

As I have stated before I like Trump, but recently he is doing a lot to hurt himself within  the US National and International arena, something will have to give , he can't go on like this for another five years, the left either need to let him get on with his job so he can stop making the dumb calls and stop tweeting dung.

Edited by James Regan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Douglas- I would have probably got on the flight if I had been in but hole wherever and it had just happened, but she didn't run the same day, she ran weeks after being interviewed by the British Popo.

It was Britain not China or Iraq or KSA she was running away from.

This was a pre meditated flight from a crime.

Why didn’t the British ‘Popo’ detain her or flag this to the top of the diplomatic bureaucracy (or the responsible entity)? Surely they realized that she was a flight risk! (Maybe they did, I really do not know).

The thing is, the cops are used to dealing with ‘civilians’, not political entities with special privileges, they probably didn’t know the correct protocol in this situation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘It was Britain not China or Iraq or KSA she was running away from.’

Understood James, but you and I have worked all over the planet, and I’ll be honest with you, I don’t care where I am, if there is a chance of going to jail in ANY foreign country or ‘legally’ doing a runner and getting back home - I’m running!

Not that you or I would ever legally have that option...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Why didn’t the British ‘Popo’ detain her or flag this to the top of the diplomatic bureaucracy (or the responsible entity)? Surely they realized that she was a flight risk! (Maybe they did, I really do not know).

The thing is, the cops are used to dealing with ‘civilians’, not political entities with special privileges, they probably didn’t know the correct protocol in this situation. 

Maybe they just trusted her to the right thing as a human being and also being from an obviously educated and supposedly of good morals, they were wrong, she's was just another abuser of privilege from the political elite, also she would have been asked not to leave the country its protocol, she would not have needed a passport or permission if she was supported by the US authorities who assisted her in running from justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

‘It was Britain not China or Iraq or KSA she was running away from.’

Understood James, but you and I have worked all over the planet, and I’ll be honest with you, I don’t care where I am, if there is a chance of going to jail in ANY foreign country or ‘legally’ doing a runner and getting back home - I’m running!

Not that you or I would ever legally have that option...

I would be lying if I didn't agree with you, but the UK Vc Congo etc is another story, it sucks Doug that she has done this and in turn made the US people look bad, as we know it takes all sorts to make a race and we can't judge a whole country by a few bad apples.

But you're correct in some of the pits I have worked and if this had happened in Angola for example, I would have ran, weeks after, in fact I would have planned it thoroughly.

I think there's a huge difference in comparing a country where you know you would not get a fair hearing, but she made a choice to run which makes her Guilty regardless, she will go to Jail if she returns to the UK.

Edited by James Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Maybe they just trusted her to the right thing as a human being and also being from an obviously educated and supposedly of good morals, they were wrong, she's was just another abuser of privilege from the political elite, also she would have been asked not to leave the country its protocol, she would not have needed a passport or permission if she was supported by the US authorities who assisted her in running from justice. 

First, where else in the world can you be culpable of vehicular manslaughter, simply get questioned and be allowed to go on her merry way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, James Regan said:

I would be lying if I didn't agree with you, but the UK Vc Congo etc is another story, it sucks Doug that she has done this and in turn made the US people look bad, as we know it takes all sorts to make a race and we can't judge a whole country by a few bad apples.

But you're correct in some of the pits I have worked and if this had happened in Angola for example, I would have ran, weeks after, in fact I would have planned it thoroughly.

I think there's a huge difference in comparing a country where you know you would not get a fair hearing, but she made a choice to run which makes her Guilty regardless, she will go to Jail if she returns to the UK.

As an American citizen, it is almost guaranteed that you will be treated poorly in just about any other country on the planet these days. Rightly, or wrongly, whatever the reason for it, that is the reality I live with every day.

Granted, you EXPECT the rule of law to be followed in the UK...but we are talking serious jail time here. Given the opportunity to get back to the States...I’d have done the same.

That said, once back in the States I’d have turned myself in. This is much different than throwing yourself on the mercy of foreigners.

As I indicated when I proposed the question, it is hypothetical as most of us would never have had the option...the cops would have arrested US.

PS: Doing a runner makes you appear guilty, it is not an admission or proof of guilt.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

As an American citizen, it is almost guaranteed that you will be treated poorly in just about any other country on the planet these days. Rightly, or wrongly, whatever the reason for it, that is the reality I live with every day.

Granted, you EXPECT the rule of law to be followed in the UK...but we are talking serious jail time here. Given the opportunity to get back to the States...I’d have done the same.

That said, once back in the States I’d have turned myself in. This is much different than throwing yourself on the mercy of foreigners.

As I indicated when I proposed the question, it is hypothetical as most of us would never have had the option...the cops would have arrested US.

PS: Doing a runner makes you appear guilty, it is not an admission or proof of guilt.

I can understand why she did what she did. What I cannot understand is Trump. he could he kept quiet and stayed out of it and that would have been it. 

As James said - imagine if it was the other way around. Anybody remember the british ambassador that was forced to resign essentially for doing his job? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

PS: Doing a runner makes you appear guilty, it is not an admission or proof of guilt.

Granted but its the next best thing especially weeks after the fact. If she had bolted immediately you could put it down to a myriad of things. When you put it all together she knew she was guilty, and the worse part Doug is not that she ran but she had the help from authorities, I mean what does that show and what kind of impression does it give.

Me and you would have been jailed for walking on the cracks in the pavement, we can't compare us to her, we are guilty (by appearance) of crimes against the oilfield and as soon as they set it up ill see you in the Hague, Herr Buckland.

Edited by James Regan
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I can understand why she did what she did. What I cannot understand is Trump. he could he kept quiet and stayed out of it and that would have been it. 

As James said - imagine if it was the other way around. Anybody remember the british ambassador that was forced to resign essentially for doing his job? 

True, this should have ended at the Secretary of State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

True, this should have ended at the Secretary of State.

I think during Trumps term in power we have really managed to see the full spectrum of what US politics is capable of. I fully believe that if Trump would have been left alone for at least a year to get on with business we would see a completely different view compared to what we are seeing now. The left have concentrated more on trying to take trumps legs away than doing what they are paid to do, which I think is either agree or disagree on laws for the betterment of the country, not party.

Trumps whole tenure has been a democratic election race, and now reaching its crescendo they have no credible runner who could seriously compete with Trump on stage or in Government, its sad that a party has to show how good they are by only bill boarding the apparent failures  (as they see fit) of the President in order to get some flunky elected, not a very powerful or credible mandate.

The Dems have lost the election so the next best thing is to lay down a bog of impeachment to dirty the next year, however the republican base is too strong, and the dems will have to impeach or just accept that they don't have a credible candidate to govern the USA at this point in time.

Judging by Ice Queen Clinton and her acid position she has just now on her own party shows what a band of dirty corrupt liars were in power during Obamas tenure, US politics is very TOXIC

Edited by James Regan
  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Why didn’t the British ‘Popo’ detain her or flag this to the top of the diplomatic bureaucracy (or the responsible entity)? Surely they realized that she was a flight risk! (Maybe they did, I really do not know).

The thing is, the cops are used to dealing with ‘civilians’, not political entities with special privileges, they probably didn’t know the correct protocol in this situation. 

 

Well to be fair they are extremely busy policing pronouns these days, they don't have time for trivialities

1571231132535.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, James Regan said:

Not saying I agree with his morale compass, just saying in his position at present, can you blame him for trying to get a happy bit of press.

I agree, she should be sent back to face her charges, we should be demanding she comes back, and face the music, but we always bend over for the yanks

Happy press?

I gather the majority of Americans want her to face justice.

If this was the other way round - British diplomats wife drives out of embassy on wrong side of road, drives for 100's metres and then kills someone and Johnsons response is? 

Oh well shit happens especially when driving on the other side of the road? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

Oh well shit happens especially when driving on the other side of the road? 

Exactly!! I'm sure Americans would be fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

In my opinion, diplomatic immunity has become so abused that it is laughable.

Since when does the spouse of a diplomat get immunity? If a diplomat commits a crime in another country (there may be shades of grey here, I am speaking of your usual definition of a crime), then that person should be tried in that country. I can see no rational excuse for this woman not being returned to the UK if she can be guaranteed a fair trial.

The UN in New York is probably the worst offender. Diplomats from all over take diplomatic immunity to cover things like parking violations, soliciting, shoplifting, etc...

Diplomats (not family members) need diplomatic immunity, but only as it applies to their job.

I remember a case of a Muslim diplomat who brought a servant (slave) and severely brutalized her. He was charged, and probably had his wrist slapped back home. I don't know if it went to trial. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Exactly!! I'm sure Americans would be fine with it.

I’m not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sarcasm
noun   :) 
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I remind readers of the saga of Uday Hussein, the charming elder son of Saddam Hussein, he who was eventually hung on New Year's Eve by the Shi'ites of the new govt of Iraq after capture in the spider hole by the U.S. Army  (remember him?).  Uday was a notorious murder, rapist, and all-around psychopath, check out his profile in this Guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg

So Uday was in Paris and invited the rather naive opera singer to his hotel, where he beat her up and raped her.   She went to the Paris police to complain of the rape, who shrugged their collective shoulders and said, "Well, he has diplomatic immunity, nothing we can do."  They didn't even bother to go investigate. 

The best that the host country can do is request that the offender be "withdrawn," i.e. ordered to leave the country.  Trump did that with the Russian diplomats posted to the Consulate in San Francisco that he order closed.  And in retaliation the Russians ordered a US Consulate to be closed and those diplomats ordered out.  

So the reality is that, even if the wife had not left  (and it is customary for US dependent personnel to fly on military transport planes, happens constantly, the US govt typically does not spend money on commercial airline tickets for personnel, just so you know), at most the UK authorities could have done was declare her persona non grata and request her removal from British soil.  That's the way it is, no diplomatic system is perfect and yes as in the case of Uday it gets badly abused, but governments have agreed of this protocol so that is the end of it. 

In case anyone is wondering why immunity is so carefully and zealously guarded, I invite you to scroll through the list of grotesque murder and torture undertaken by the Saddam regime, found here:

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-14.html

 

Edited by Jan van Eck
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

So the reality is that, even if the wife had not left  (and it is customary for US dependent personnel to fly on military transport planes, happens constantly, the US govt typically does not spend money on commercial airline tickets for personnel, just so you know), at most the UK authorities could have done was declare her persona non grata and request her removal from British soil.  That's the way it is, no diplomatic system is perfect and yes as in the case of Uday it gets badly abused, but governments have agreed of this protocol so that is the end of it. 

In case anyone is wondering why immunity is so carefully and zealously guarded, I invite you to scroll through the list of grotesque murder and torture undertaken by the Saddam regime, found here:

That still does not change that, this was exceptionally badly handled by Trump and shows a moral compass that is out of whack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

That still does not change that, this was exceptionally badly handled by Trump and shows a moral compass that is out of whack. 

Forget Trump for a minute and spare a thought for the family that have lost their son!

@Jan Van Eck The issue I believe here Jan is that said lady who committed manslaughter did not have valid diplomatic immunity in the first place but only claimed she had. This is a totally different scenario than the one you eloquently portrayed of Uday Hussein.

The subsequent fleeing when she claimed she wasn't going to and the fact this was arranged with both the US and GB authorities consent smacks of a stitch up to the family and the rest of the population in the UK.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 10/23/2019 at 8:49 AM, DayTrader said:

It added she had "fully co-operated with the police". "She spoke with authorities at the scene of the accident and met with the Northampton police at her home the following day. She will continue to co-operate with the investigation," the statement continued.

"Anne would like to meet with Mr Dunn's parents so that she can express her deepest sympathies and apologies for this tragic accident. "We have been in contact with the family's attorneys and look forward to hearing from them."

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab wrote to Mr Dunn's family on Saturday to explain both the British and US governments now considered Mrs Sacoolas' immunity irrelevant. The letter said: "We have pressed strongly for a waiver of immunity, so that justice can be done... Whilst the US government has steadfastly declined to give that waiver, that is not the end of the matter.

"We have looked at this very carefully... the UK government's position is that immunity, and therefore any question of waiver, is no longer relevant in Mrs Sacoolas's case, because she has returned home. "The US have now informed us that they too consider that immunity is no longer pertinent."

Mark Stephens, a lawyer for the Dunn family said: "She was allowed to, or encouraged to be spirited away on an American transport plane and effectively rendered a fugitive from British justice. "And now of course we find out that she's not entitled to diplomatic immunity, and in those circumstances she is in a foreign land a fugitive from British justice.

"We do hope she returns herself voluntarily and that this was just a bad piece of advice she received from the American authorities."

Exactly Rob, that's what the whole story is, the fact she did NOT but just left after a couple of statements when it clearly wasn't over.

Edited by DayTrader
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

@Jan Van Eck The issue I believe here Jan is that said lady who committed manslaughter did not have valid diplomatic immunity in the first place but only claimed she had.

Sorry, Rob, she is the wife of  diplomat, under the Rules she has immunity while in GB.  End of that part of the story.

And the reason is that, otherwise, the Saddams of the world would simply go pick up diplomat's wives and hold them as hostage to get whatever they wanted from some diplomat or country, whenever it suited them.  It is to restrain those bad impulses that you have this whole immunity concept.  You cannot seriously think that Uday had some official governmental capacity in Paris, now do you?  Even his own father, not exactly a saint, found him unsuitable for government, and groomed his brother Qusay  (again a bad boy, not not as bad as Uday) to succeed him.  The US Army (or Marines) killed them both.  They had it coming, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

That still does not change that, this was exceptionally badly handled by Trump and shows a moral compass that is out of whack. 

Handled by Trump?   Come on, he comes to the story long after the dust has settled.  The whole incident and removal part is long over.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I agree but his kinda 'shit happens' reaction in press conference I saw was pretty bad, kinda ''hey, you're in a foreign country, you drive on the wrong side, we've all done it'' almost defence of the incident

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
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.