Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_mitchymo, Jul 19, 2009.
Enlighten me please.
It allows me to do stuff that I would usually get arrested for....
Nah... I guess it makes their job easier...wouldn't know precisely how though.
As I understand it, it enables diplomats to go about their duties abroad without the hindrances of airport luggage security processes (because they carry sensitive documents etc), to meet up with nefarious characters (for legal purposes or as a representative of their country) without falling foul of conspiracy laws, and to prevent their cars getting stopped and searched and stuff like that.
Do you think that if they carry out a crime that they actually do get away with it or is that just stuff of movies?
They will not get charged by the host country, unless the sending country concurs.
More often, the sending country, in the case of serious crime, will recall the diplomat and try him in domestic courts (assuming the sending country has a law against the alleged crime).
What the host country can do is expel the diplomat.
Thx Senor R
I have no problem with diplomatic immunity. But it should not extend to traffic infractions. I see no reason why consular vehicles should not be punished locally for parking violations.
In short terms, the purpose of diplomatic immunity is to prevent cultural differences from causing political fiasco.
For example, if a diplomat from a nation where striking a woman is traditional and cultural is in a country where it is a felony to do so, and he does so, diplomatic immunity prevents the diplomat from being charged with the crime unless agreed upon by the parent country.
Consulates and embassies do engage in spying. Diplomats may, or may not, be privy to information damaging to their host country. If you are introduced to someone who is a military attache, you're likely meeting a spook of some sort. It goes along with the territory of having diplomatic relations.
Immunity goes back centuries to the idea of royal hostages. It used to be that treaties were backed with royal blood. If King Gloob made a peace treaty with King Adamatum, they would send one of their younger sons or daughters as a hostage to the foreign court where they would live well, but not freely. Of course, if one side broke the peace than the other would be free to kill the hostage. While this worked well in theory, in practice the hostage would frequently be a spy to the court where he or she was being held hostage. Upon freedom, they would return home to report or, if still a hostage, report to visiting family.
Immunity is essentially an extension of the autonomous status afforded an embassy or consulate. Embassies are foreign soil. They are subject to the laws of the country to which the embassy belongs. When you step into an embassy, you're in their territory and subject to their laws. Break them and the staff can arrest you and toss you in the basement. Embassies don't usually do that. It looks bad. You're more likely to be tossed out. For diplomacy to work, secret communications between an embassy and home have to be established. Electronics, diplomatic pouches which are (legally) immune to seizure or inspection, and people are the best ways to maintain this communication. All have to be respected by the host country or else diplomacy ceases to function, diplomats are sent home, and embassies closed. That's why ambassadors and their staff have peculiar immunity to laws of their host countries. As representatives of soverign nations, they have the rights of their nation extended to them.
Neither do I. That has always pissed me off.
Yeah, that ain't right either. :irked:
Never said it was, just a good example.
A better idea might be an agreed upon list of what you can't do as a diplomat instead of just blanket immunity, and a set of procedures if something on said list was broken. Like I think the host country should be able to prosecute for murder (With reasonable evidence ), though where they are sent to, if convicted, would be up for debate.
I think it would provide less outs so to speak, since depending on the country, diplomat, and crime, even if the original company agrees to prosecute/punish, it may just be a slap on the wrist. Though that is more of a movie scenario (I hope), but still possible.
Just a thought though, who knows how well it would really work.
If a diplomat breaks the law of the host country in which he/she serves, he/she is usually declared persona non grata and expelled.
I heard members of the European Parliament and Europol are immune from being prosecuted for anything that occurs during the course of their official duties.
Not sure if it's true, though - haven't been able to verify it - but it would be worrying with Europol. I don't think police-type bodies should be immune as it could lead to all sorts of unacceptable behaviour going unpunished.
The purpose is for that ersatz Saudi prince mofo to double-park with impunity and block me in when i lived UWS in NYC.
It's a scam to legally ditch parking tickets.