ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st December 2019, 09:56 AM   #121
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Good. There is lots of evidence she was not paying any attention when she drove out of the base. Driving on the wrong side of the road is clearly dangerous;
.....
What role would the question of intent have in the process? She's an American leaving an American base. If she reflexively reverted to her lifetime driving habits, would that mitigate her responsibility? If she has a clean driving record, would that make a difference?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2019, 11:31 AM   #122
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 23,582
In the UK the law says


A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 if the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

Intent doesn't come in to it but it does go towards sentencing. This can vary from points on the license and a fine, driving ban and a fine or a prison sentence, this depends on the circumstances and any mitigation.
Usually the minimum is a two year ban unless there are some serious special mitigating circumstances.

Nessie already covered this yesterday.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 21st December 2019 at 11:37 AM.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2019, 11:50 AM   #123
PursuedByABear
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
What I really don't understand is the US response to this, it's not like the UK is planning to lure Sacoolas into an embassy and dismember her. She will get due process and yet the US government seems intent on shielding her from the consequences of her actions regardless of the diplomatic consequences.
1. They care more about negative press coverage than diplomatic consequences.

2. They know Boris Johnson is so weak there won't be any diplomatic consequences anyway.
PursuedByABear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2019, 12:50 PM   #124
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by PursuedByABear View Post
1. They care more about negative press coverage than diplomatic consequences.
.....
I just note that not all Americans, at least the ones who know about this case, think she was right to flee. She herself is not a diplomat, she was not representing the government, and there's a real question about whether she and her hubby should be treated as diplomats at all. The U.S. has seen a number of cases, some pretty notorious, where foreign diplomats have done outrageous things in the U.S. and then gone home without consequences, and we like to think we're better.

I think you might find a lot of American support for sending her back to the UK to face the music.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2019, 01:03 PM   #125
PursuedByABear
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I just note that not all Americans, at least the ones who know about this case, think she was right to flee. She herself is not a diplomat, she was not representing the government, and there's a real question about whether she and her hubby should be treated as diplomats at all. The U.S. has seen a number of cases, some pretty notorious, where foreign diplomats have done outrageous things in the U.S. and then gone home without consequences, and we like to think we're better.

I think you might find a lot of American support for sending her back to the UK to face the music.
So?

The media outlets, in particular the media outlets that your current regime is concerned about, will just jingoistically spout nonsense and misinformation.

If you are going to concern yourself with what people who know about things think that's all very well, but you are misunderstanding the current political state of the world. It's not people who know about things who vote in governments. The people in power don't give a toss what they think.
PursuedByABear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2019, 03:08 PM   #126
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,229
I'm sorry, but what's with all the confusion about why "America" is protecting this woman? Which branch of government do you think her husband works for? This branch of the US government won't even let the judgments of its military courts stand.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2020, 04:42 AM   #127
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,340
The UK has formally requested extradition, and the the US has claimed it would be 'highly inappropriate'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-51075235


Quote:
A spokeswoman for the US State Department said: "It is the position of the United States government that a request to extradite an individual under these circumstances would be an abuse.

"The use of an extradition treaty to attempt to return the spouse of a former diplomat by force would establish an extraordinarily troubling precedent."
Oddly, they felt differently when a foreign diplomat (Georgian iirc) killed a US citizen in a car accident a few years back...
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2020, 04:45 AM   #128
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,560
I guess the UK will just have to wait until she travels somewhere by plane and then execute her?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2020, 02:50 AM   #129
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Film of another car on the wrong side of the wrong near the base.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-511...arry-dunn-died

Turns out a Northants Police vehicle was in a collision with a car also on the wrong side of the road back last October.

The Chief of Northants Police has asked to meet the base commander and hopefully a solution can be found to stop so many forgetting that in the UK, we drive on the left.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2020, 04:07 AM   #130
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 44,568
This is why, IIRC, I asked earlier what side of the road do they drive on within the airbase. If they're driving on the left within the airbase, why should it be so difficult to remember when they leave?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20

Last edited by zooterkin; 19th January 2020 at 04:08 AM.
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2020, 07:06 AM   #131
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
It is not difficult at all to watch out for reminders as to what side of the road to drive on.

There does appear to be an attitude problem with Americans at the base, as if they just do not care, possible because they get diplomatic immunity or will be flown back to the US and protected if they get it wrong.

Options are to ban all personnel from driving and they have to use UK drivers, or have an agreement to remove immunity for anyone caught on the wrong side of the road.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2020, 09:41 AM   #132
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 25,153
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
This is why, IIRC, I asked earlier what side of the road do they drive on within the airbase. If they're driving on the left within the airbase, why should it be so difficult to remember when they leave?
I'm guessing they drive on the right within the base, which is stupid. Of course, driving on the left is some sort of Commie Socialist Foreign thing, to Americans.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2020, 09:56 AM   #133
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,945
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
This is why, IIRC, I asked earlier what side of the road do they drive on within the airbase. If they're driving on the left within the airbase, why should it be so difficult to remember when they leave?
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I'm guessing they drive on the right within the base, which is stupid. Of course, driving on the left is some sort of Commie Socialist Foreign thing, to Americans.
The entrance and exit roads are normal 'drive on the left' style. That they might switch sides once inside is a bizarre idea, and also asking for trouble.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg raf.jpg (9.0 KB, 179 views)
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2020, 01:04 AM   #134
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 44,568
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The entrance and exit roads are normal 'drive on the left' style. That they might switch sides once inside is a bizarre idea, and also asking for trouble.
Well, there is trouble, which is why I was asking in the first place.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2020, 01:22 AM   #135
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,945
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Well, there is trouble, which is why I was asking in the first place.
Even more trouble if people are driving on the right inside the base and then exiting to the opposite. Also there must be plenty of Brits driving around the base, and expecting them to switch when they enter is added potential trouble. There is no good reason to drive on the right inside the base.

The markings at the junctions within the base are conclusive -
Attached Images
File Type: jpg road raf.jpg (54.9 KB, 25 views)
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 20th January 2020 at 01:34 AM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2020, 02:04 AM   #136
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 44,568
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Even more trouble if people are driving on the right inside the base and then exiting to the opposite. Also there must be plenty of Brits driving around the base, and expecting them to switch when they enter is added potential trouble. There is no good reason to drive on the right inside the base.

The markings at the junctions within the base are conclusive -
Yes, I think that was established when I first asked the question. It seemed a reasonable question to ask, however unlikely the chance that they’d do something so daft as to have American rules of the road inside the base. Given that they don’t, I’m slightly baffled as to why so many incidents of people driving on the wrong side of the road in the vicinity of the base occur.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2020, 02:19 AM   #137
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,945
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Yes, I think that was established when I first asked the question. It seemed a reasonable question to ask, however unlikely the chance that they’d do something so daft as to have American rules of the road inside the base. Given that they don’t, I’m slightly baffled as to why so many incidents of people driving on the wrong side of the road in the vicinity of the base occur.
Perhaps within the base they're constantly being reminded of which side to drive, but outside on the open road they switch off and revert to habit?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2020, 03:15 AM   #138
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
That Sacoolas must have been driving on the left inside the base, is even more evidence as to how careless her driving was.

I think that there should be an immediate ban on US personnel driving and they should have to use UK drivers to get about.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 02:08 AM   #139
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
The extradition request has been refused by the US;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-51228262

"A statement from the US State Department said: "At the time the accident occurred, and for the duration of her stay in the UK, the US citizen driver in this case had immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
"If the United States were to grant the UK's extradition request, it would render the invocation of diplomatic immunity a practical nullity and would set an extraordinarily troubling precedent."

Diplomatic immunity was to prevent mischievous prosecutions, not to protect the wife of a diplomat who accidentally kills someone due to her dangerous driving.

This means diplomats and their family who live in the USA can now cause the deaths of US citizens with impunity.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 03:19 AM   #140
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The extradition request has been refused by the US;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-51228262

"A statement from the US State Department said: "At the time the accident occurred, and for the duration of her stay in the UK, the US citizen driver in this case had immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
"If the United States were to grant the UK's extradition request, it would render the invocation of diplomatic immunity a practical nullity and would set an extraordinarily troubling precedent."

Diplomatic immunity was to prevent mischievous prosecutions, not to protect the wife of a diplomat who accidentally kills someone due to her dangerous driving.

This means diplomats and their family who live in the USA can now cause the deaths of US citizens with impunity.
It's also at the discretion of the person's home country as to whether or not it should be upheld. There is no dangerous precedent here, it's just the Trump administration and Mrs. Sacoolas being cowards and hiding behind the minutia of a convention that was never intended to protect people in a situation like this.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 10:06 AM   #141
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The extradition request has been refused by the US;
This is apparently the first time that the US has denied extradition to the UK in the history of our extradition agreement.

Originally Posted by UK US Embassy faq
What are the correct numbers of extraditions between the United States and the United Kingdom?

Based on the numbers provided to Sir Scott Baker’s panel, under this treaty, 130 extradition REQUESTS were submitted from the U.S. to the UK. Of those 130 requests, the UK has refused 10. Of the remaining 120, 77 individuals were extradited from the UK to the U.S.; the other 43 cases remained pending in the UK system, or the individuals returned to the U.S. on their own, or other circumstances made the extradition no longer necessary.

During the same time period, the UK submitted 54 extradition REQUESTS to the US, of which none have been refused. Of those 54 requests, 38 resulted in extradition of an individual from the U.S. to the UK. In the remaining 16 cases, the individuals either returned to the UK on their own or other circumstances made extradition from the U.S. to the UK no longer necessary.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 10:32 AM   #142
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The extradition request has been refused by the US;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-51228262

"A statement from the US State Department said: "At the time the accident occurred, and for the duration of her stay in the UK, the US citizen driver in this case had immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
"If the United States were to grant the UK's extradition request, it would render the invocation of diplomatic immunity a practical nullity and would set an extraordinarily troubling precedent."

Diplomatic immunity was to prevent mischievous prosecutions, not to protect the wife of a diplomat who accidentally kills someone due to her dangerous driving.

This means diplomats and their family who live in the USA can now cause the deaths of US citizens with impunity.
Exactly! And as far as I understand it, waving of diplomatic immunity is common in simple criminal cases with countries having recognized and fair judicial systems. It is an extraordinary lie that granting the UK's request would nullify the real purpose of diplomatic immunity - prevention of mischievous prosecution.

I can only assume that Sacoolas has some incredible "in" with powerful parts of the USA government. Or even better, with Putin.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:06 AM   #143
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,726
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
She fled to the US, can't we charge her here
No. She didn't violate US law.

Quote:
and/or honor a UK extradition?
Yes, we can, and we might. Countries can and do withdraw diplomatic immunity in order to allow the host nation to charge someone with a crime. The process of doing so may be slow, though.

Quote:
I see no reason the US shouldn't prosecute
We shouldn't prosecute because it wasn't our laws and it wasn't our jurisdiction.

Quote:
and wave diplomatic immunity.
I don't see any reason to either. And we may well do so.

Quote:
It would set a decent example for cases where we object to foreign diplomats claiming diplomatic immunity after serious crimes like this.
Sure. I remember an example from a few years ago, where a Georgian diplomat killed a girl in a drunk driving accident:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-6e6f3f683e45/
Georgia waved his diplomatic immunity, but it took 6 weeks to happen. That case is a bit simpler in that he was clearly drunk, which made the crash unambiguously criminal. It sounds like in this case, there wasn't any alcohol involved, just a tragic mistake. I don't know what kind of liability she has under UK law, though.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:11 AM   #144
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,726
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
"A statement from the US State Department said: "At the time the accident occurred, and for the duration of her stay in the UK, the US citizen driver in this case had immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
"If the United States were to grant the UK's extradition request, it would render the invocation of diplomatic immunity a practical nullity and would set an extraordinarily troubling precedent."

Diplomatic immunity was to prevent mischievous prosecutions, not to protect the wife of a diplomat who accidentally kills someone due to her dangerous driving.
Denying the extradition request was correct. The State Department should never extradite someone who has diplomatic immunity in the country requesting extradition.

What needs to happen before extradition is the revocation of that diplomatic immunity. That can be done without creating a troubling precedent, and would then allow for normal extradition.

Quote:
This means diplomats and their family who live in the USA can now cause the deaths of US citizens with impunity.
That's... not how diplomatic immunity works. A US ambassador to another country has no immunity whatsoever within the United States.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:14 AM   #145
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

That's... not how diplomatic immunity works. A US ambassador to another country has no immunity whatsoever within the United States.
I believe that Nessie was sarcastically noting that diplomats (ETA - and their spouses / families) from other countries can now kill US citizens with impunity while they are here, and flee prosecution based on their diplomatic immunity.

Last edited by carlitos; 24th January 2020 at 11:16 AM.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:14 AM   #146
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,726
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
It is an extraordinary lie that granting the UK's request would nullify the real purpose of diplomatic immunity - prevention of mischievous prosecution.
It's not a lie, but it is incomplete. Extradition without revoking diplomatic immunity WOULD undermine the purpose of diplomatic immunity. That part is true. What's missing is that the revocation of diplomatic immunity to a particular person does not nullify the purpose of diplomatic immunity, and extradition after revocation would not be a problem either.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:15 AM   #147
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,726
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I believe that Nessie was sarcastically noting that diplomats from other countries can now kill US citizens with impunity while they are here, and flee prosecution based on their diplomatic immunity.
That's already the case. That's always been the case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:22 AM   #148
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,280
Cool, thanks.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:43 AM   #149
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,847
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Exactly! And as far as I understand it, waving of diplomatic immunity is common in simple criminal cases with countries having recognized and fair judicial systems. It is an extraordinary lie that granting the UK's request would nullify the real purpose of diplomatic immunity - prevention of mischievous prosecution.

I can only assume that Sacoolas has some incredible "in" with powerful parts of the USA government. Or even better, with Putin.
No.

I think people are forgetting something, Trump had arranged a surprise meeting at the Whitehouse between the parents of the man killed and his killer. They refused. Do you really think Trump wouldn't have his revenge on them?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:45 AM   #150
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,847
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. She didn't violate US law.



Yes, we can, and we might. Countries can and do withdraw diplomatic immunity in order to allow the host nation to charge someone with a crime. The process of doing so may be slow, though.



We shouldn't prosecute because it wasn't our laws and it wasn't our jurisdiction.



I don't see any reason to either. And we may well do so.



Sure. I remember an example from a few years ago, where a Georgian diplomat killed a girl in a drunk driving accident:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-6e6f3f683e45/
Georgia waved his diplomatic immunity, but it took 6 weeks to happen. That case is a bit simpler in that he was clearly drunk, which made the crash unambiguously criminal. It sounds like in this case, there wasn't any alcohol involved, just a tragic mistake. I don't know what kind of liability she has under UK law, though.
The extradition is not happening, there is no slow ongoing legal process that will take 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years, the USA has simply decided to deny the request.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 11:55 AM   #151
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,726
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The extradition is not happening, there is no slow ongoing legal process that will take 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years, the USA has simply decided to deny the request.
An extradition request should be denied as long as diplomatic immunity is in place, which it still is for now. Processing an extradition request is different than revoking diplomatic immunity.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 12:22 PM   #152
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,280
No one is doing that either.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 02:27 PM   #153
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,847
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
An extradition request should be denied as long as diplomatic immunity is in place, which it still is for now. Processing an extradition request is different than revoking diplomatic immunity.
A difference without practical meaning. The USA has stated she will not be extradited to stand trail for her killing someone. That is it.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 05:35 PM   #154
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 44,568
Wasn’t there some doubt at one point about whether she did actually qualify for diplomatic immunity?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 02:20 AM   #155
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Wasn’t there some doubt at one point about whether she did actually qualify for diplomatic immunity?
Also, I am sure there were reports any immunity she had, had been removed.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 07:12 AM   #156
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,654
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
This is apparently the first time that the US has denied extradition to the UK in the history of our extradition agreement.
So now, the U.K. has denied ten times as many extradition requests as the USA?

Maybe more outrage should be directed at the UK?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 08:24 AM   #157
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 44,568
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
So now, the U.K. has denied ten times as many extradition requests as the USA?

Maybe more outrage should be directed at the UK?
It's most likely (without looking at the details) because there's a disparity regarding the use of the death penalty, as well as some other differences in penal sentences. I think the principle is that the UK won't extradite if there's a risk of a penalty more severe than would be applied in the UK, but I could well be mistaken. I'm not sure I see that as a reason for outrage.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 10:23 AM   #158
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,229
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It's most likely (without looking at the details) because there's a disparity regarding the use of the death penalty, as well as some other differences in penal sentences. I think the principle is that the UK won't extradite if there's a risk of a penalty more severe than would be applied in the UK, but I could well be mistaken. I'm not sure I see that as a reason for outrage.
Yep. The death penalty and draconian sentencing guidelines are what tend to trip up extraditions to the US from its allies. In the case of the former, it's totally understandable. There's being civilized and being uncivilized, and when it comes to the death penalty we're backward savages.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:49 AM   #159
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,847
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
So now, the U.K. has denied ten times as many extradition requests as the USA?



Maybe more outrage should be directed at the UK?
Perhaps the USA sends extradition requests that aren't as solid as the UK ones?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 04:50 PM   #160
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,569
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
This is apparently the first time that the US has denied extradition to the UK in the history of our extradition agreement.
This is certainly untrue. a number of Irish 'terrorists' were resident in the US and extradition requested and refused.
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cg...ive_law_review
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.