Diplomatic Immunity

[mmj_uk]

It seems to be the case that Diplomatic Immunity is no longer the issue, it was basically just exploited to allow her to flee the country. Like I said before the issue now is the US never extradites its citizens to foreign countries and rightly so imo, I'd be flying over to join the Hong Kong protests if the UK started handing people over China to face allegations. What is needed now is for the diplomat to act like an adult and accept personal responsibility for what she has done and hand herself in, after all nobody is arguing that it wasn't an accident and knowing our justice system she'll get a few months community service that she can complete cleaning the floor at the US embassy.

 

[MartinPrince]

That seems to differ with the opines in the press from some lawyers - I mean I saw one opinion along the lines of if she was considered by the US to have some immunity then she was on official business and the US could be sued.



It isn't irrelevant, I've provided a brief summary to show why above - as pointed out consular staff can be treated differently to embassy staff etc.. there can be a different scope to diplomatic immunity, sometimes it might be more narrow and only in relation to the line of work - arguably in this case it probably should have been. She wasn't necessarily formally given that status, the police/UK government initially reacted as though she had it and then she was bundled back to the US ASAP. That is something that can certainly be reviewed.

What I am referring to is the way D.I. is dealt with by the U.S. There are no differing ways or levels to how the U.S. applies diplomatic immunity, you either have it or not, no matter what your position. It is just as simple as that. Other countries/organisations have their own way of implementing it which broadly follows the 1961 Vienna Convention. What you are referring to is the way the United Nations handles D.I. here is the full context and quote:

The United Nations system (including its agencies, which comprise the most recognizable international bodies such as the World Bank and many others) has a relatively standardized form of limited immunities for staff traveling on U.N. laissez-passer; diplomatic immunity is often granted to the highest-ranking officials of these agencies. Consular officials (that do not have concurrent diplomatic accreditation) formally have a more limited form of immunity, generally limited to their official duties. Diplomatic technical and administrative staff also have more limited immunity under the Vienna Convention; for this reason, some countries may accredit a member of technical or administrative staff as an attaché.

Normally under the Vienna convention D.I. would not apply to civil actions pertaining to vehicular accidents, but the way the U.S apply it is that you are initially covered for everything you do while on foreign soil then they will decide what, if any punishment should be given (normally back on home soil) or if immunity should be waived if the person is still in the foreign country.

While the U.S would be extremely reticent to allow Mrs Sacoolas to be prosecuted in the U.K they could have quite easily chosen to prosecute her in the U.S. This decision would have to be made at government level and already seems unlikely.

I've already mentioned the Georgian diplomat and the last time the U.S themselves waived immunity though I'll give some further examples of how the U.S has dealt with similar incidents involving their citizens who have had D.I.

"On 3 December 2004, in Bucharest, Romania, Christopher Van Goethem, an American Marine serving his embassy, ran a red traffic signal, collided with a taxi, and killed popular Romanian musician Teo Peter. The Romanian government requested the American government to lift his immunity, which it refused to do. In a court-martial, he was acquitted of manslaughter and adultery (which is still a court martial offence) but was convicted of obstruction of justice and making false statements."

"In July 2013, Joshua Walde, an American diplomat in Nairobi, Kenya, crashed into a mini-bus, killing one man and seriously injuring eight others, who were left with no financial assistance to pay for hospital bills. United States embassy officials took the diplomat and his family out of Kenya the following day. Walde gave a statement to police, but was not detained due to his diplomatic immunity. Kenyan police say the case remains under investigation."

"On 27 October 1998, in Vladivostok, Russia, Douglas Kent, the American Consul General to Russia, was involved in a car accident that left a young man, Alexander Kashin, disabled. Kent was not prosecuted in a U.S. court. Under the Vienna Convention, diplomatic immunity does not apply to civil actions relating to vehicular accidents, but in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that, since he was using his vehicle for consular purposes, Kent could not be sued civilly."

I understand the Dunn family trying to find a semblance of justice no matter how remote the chances.

 

[dowie]

What I am referring to is the way D.I. is dealt with by the U.S. There are no differing ways or levels to how the U.S. applies diplomatic immunity, you either have it or not, no matter what your position. It is just as simple as that. Other countries/organisations have their own way of implementing it which broadly follows the 1961 Vienna Convention. What you are referring to is the way the United Nations handles D.I. here is the full context and quote:

That isn't correct like I said it varies depending on the position of the person - it is more down the the UK courts here though it is a bit moot given that she's now fled.

If you want a recent US example then take a look at this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade_incident

Devyani Khobragade, then the Deputy Consul General of the Consulate General of India in New York City, was charged by U.S. authorities with committing visa fraud and providing false statements in order to gain entry to the United States for Sangeeta Richard,[1] a woman of Indian nationality, for employment as a domestic worker for Khobragade in New York.[2] She was additionally charged with failing to pay the domestic worker a minimum wage.[3] Khobragade was arrested the next day by U.S. federal law enforcement authorities,[4] subjected to a "strip search", presented to a judge and released the same day.[5][6] Her arrest and treatment have received much media attention particularly in India, and have led to a major diplomatic standoff between India and the United States.[7][8]

One week later, Khobragade was transferred by the government of India to the UN mission in New York, subject to clearance from the United States Department of State, which would entitle her to full diplomatic immunity.[9] Her former post only entitled her to consular immunity.

That was an Indian diplomat working in their consulate... she had a different level of immunity as she worked in the consulate - she got full diplomatic immunity after the transfer.

The point is that it is dubious for this NSA/CIA employee to have it when stationed on some US base in the UK and even more dubious for his wife to be granted it... he's not a diplomat at the US embassy or even at a consulate, I'd wager he's not got a diplomatic passport.

Yes you're correct in highlighting that the US is going to be aggressive in protecting their people etc.. but my point is in relation to the UK government and how this really ought not to be so broad.

 

[MartinPrince]

@dowie You've actually made my point for me in bringing up two things. Your example quotes Indian officials, yet I am talking about the U.S. and how they deal with their officials and you've highlighted consular immunity and diplomatic immunity. The two things are not the same.

Once the U.S. has said, as in this case, that someone has diplomatic immunity then that is it. You will not find an example of a U.S official having a varying level of diplomatic immunity that then allows them to be treated slightly different. It simply does not exist. The only way that the U.K can deal with people who have been given that status is thus:

Without a waiver of immunity from the sending State, London based staff and dependents who are inviolable, may only be detained as a last resort (such as being in danger of harming others or themselves). Staff at consular missions based outside of London and who are inviolable, may only be detained in the case of a grave crime (as detailed above) or as a last resort.

The FCO may request a waiver of a person's diplomatic immunity in order to arrest, interview under caution and, if appropriate, bring charges. A diplomat cannot waive his or her own immunity. Waivers can only be granted by the sending State. The FCO requests a waiver of immunity through the diplomatic mission concerned.

However, where the Police consider that there is sufficient evidence to justify court proceedings against an individual but the Head of Mission concerned does not agree to a waiver, the FCO may ask for the withdrawal of the individual and their family or declare them personae non gratae. Even if immunity is not waived, any other persons implicated as secondary parties to the diplomat's offence may still be prosecuted.

Waivers of immunity must also be sought, where applicable, for civil or administrative jurisdiction.

We may both speculate as to whether Mrs Sacoolas or her husband really had diplomatic immunity at the time of the accident though I maintain, from first hand knowledge, that the U.S. does not give its citizens varying degrees of diplomatic immunity. You can easily derive that from the 3 examples I gave in my last post.

 

[dowie]

I’m not really - That isn’t really down to the US, (see the faff about their contractor in Pakistan too, he was initially declared to be consular staff and they had to buy their way out as permitted by the Pakistani legal system) it isn’t like India got to make up the rules in the US either, if it was just down to them making an assertion then they could have just asserted that their consular official had full immunity instead of giving her a new job which did carry it.

Likewise the US has consulate offices in the UK etc...

If this woman had stayed then you might well have found the British government changing its stance - I guess that depends on the actual status of the husband. There is no reason why this can’t be reviewed going forwards or why family members etc.. of people like him need immunity any more than say the family members of military personnel.

 

[MartinPrince]

Once again, nothing you refer to indicates that the U.S. employs varying levels of diplomatic immunity. The example you just gave with the contractor and the conclusions you draw in effect state because he was 'only' consular staff that his diplomatic immunity level was not enough to cover his actions and therefore his freedom had to be bought. In reality this is not what happened and you are taking things out of their original context to fit your own narrative. Here are the full details of what happened:

"In January 2011 in Lahore, Pakistan, American embassy employee Raymond Allen Davis shot and killed two Pakistani civilians, while a third man was struck and killed by a U.S. consulate car responding to the shooting. According to Davis, they were about to rob him and he acted in self-defense. When detained by police, Davis claimed to be a consultant at the U.S. consulate in Lahore. He was formally arrested and remanded into custody. Further investigations revealed that he was working with the CIA as a contractor in Pakistan. U.S. State Department declared him a diplomat and repeatedly requested immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which Pakistan is a signatory. On March 16, 2011, Davis was released after the families of the two killed men were paid $2.4 million in diyya (a form of monetary compensation or blood money). Judges then acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan."

The real context to this is that in 2011 The U.S. and Pakistan had a very poor relationship. (you can check the history of U.S - Pakistan relations) Even though the U.S. asserted Mr Davis's normal diplomatic immunity Pakistan would not release him under any condition. This further soured the relationship between the two nations as the U.S saw Pakistan as totally ignoring and flouting the 1961 Vienna Convention. So basically, Pakistan held him hostage until a ransom was paid.

This would be the same as Mrs Sacoolas being held by the British after the accident and the U.K refusing to release her. Something that would just not happen in the U.K.

You have made and are making errors in this thread that you have not acknowledged. i.e. conflating consular immunity with diplomatic immunity, when in reality the two are separate things:

The fundamental distinction that exists between diplomatic representatives and consular officers is reflected most in the matter of their privileges and immunities. Whilst international law guarantees the observance of diplomatic immunities by all nations, consular privileges and immunities are based on provisions of treaties and practice of states. There has been a general reluctance on the part of states to accord diplomatic privileges to consular officers, and the extent of consular immunities and privileges has varied considerably depending on the terms of respective treaties and municipal legislation. In fact, of all the immunities and privileges a consul may claim, only two have been universally recognised, that is, the inviolability of consular archives and non-liability for acts performed in official capacity

It should be evidently clear that there are no varying degrees to diplomatic immunity. Especially with the way the U.S have use it for the past 58 years.
Unfortunately for the Dunn family and those that find themselves in a similar position I'm fairly sure neither will there be any review of the current ways that it is implemented. Though one can not fault them for trying to get them changed.

As I sense a little bit of intransigence or obtuseness that is all I will say on the subject.

 

[Werewolf]

Erm re the Davis case, if i'm reading it right your article is saying the US declared him a diplomat, IIRC under international law that normally has to be agreed before he arrives in the country or at least agreed with the host country, it's not something that can be unilaterally declared after something has happened.

 

[dowie]

Once again, nothing you refer to indicates that the U.S. employs varying levels of diplomatic immunity.

You seem to be taking the position that the US can just unilaterally make up the rules here - while they have a heck of a lot of power and influence there is a reason why they got this woman out of the country pretty quickly. This is covered by international treaties and I've already shown you that it is pretty clear for example that there are different levels of immunity for embassy staff compared to consular and technical staff and so on. That isn't something for the US to just unilaterally declare otherwise (as you seem to be asserting) but rather that ought to have been a matter for the CPS/UK Government and UK courts.

The example you just gave with the contractor and the conclusions you draw in effect state because he was 'only' consular staff that his diplomatic immunity level was not enough to cover his actions and therefore his freedom had to be bought. In reality this is not what happened and you are taking things out of their original context to fit your own narrative.

No, I'm not, that is exactly what happened and that Pakistan were able to hold him and justify it. It was the fact that he was originally declared to be consular staff and therefore had a lower level of immunity that allowed him to be charged. Yes you can cite the poor relations between aspects of the Pakistani government and the US government as motivating factors here but the fact is their position wouldn't have held up had he always been say a fully fledged diplomat in the actual US Embassy - rather than the US retrospectively trying to claim it.

You have made and are making errors in this thread that you have not acknowledged. i.e. conflating consular immunity with diplomatic immunity, when in reality the two are separate things:

I'm not, I specifically introduced that to the thread in order to highlight a difference, I'm not conflating the two. I'm saying there are different levels of immunity afforded to diplomats and other officials when posted overseas and have mentioned consular immunity as an example of that and also more limited immunity granted under the Vienna convention to administrative and technical staff. This guy wasn't a diplomat, he was an intelligence officer and arguably he might well have only really have been entitled to more limited immunity let alone his wife getting diplomatic immunity! Ergo she was taken out of the country rather quickly!

As I sense a little bit of intransigence or obtuseness that is all I will say on the subject.

There is no obtuseness here - yes there is some intransigence (seems to be some from your side too) as I'm mainly pointing out factual information here - your position seems to be that the US can unilaterally assert this but this is governed by international treaties. The UK Foreign office might well have messed up here when initially responding to the local police (it isn't clear what the initial involvement was and at what level) and/or been under pressure to go along with the US's claims of immunity.

Though in regards to this the family's lawyers are pressing for more information here so we will perhaps find out what the situation ought to have been in future:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ial-review-over-diplomatic-immunity-of-driver

The family’s spokesman, Radd Seiger, told the Press Association that their lawyers, Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson QC, were prepared to launch a full investigation into the FCO over their involvement in the decision to grant immunity to Sacoolas.

Seiger said: “What Mark and I are going to do, is we are going to write to the FCO very shortly, explaining that we don’t want to do a judicial review, but to avoid that please let us have the following documents – all emails, messages, notes in relation to your advice to Northamptonshire police that this lady had it [diplomatic immunity].

“What we don’t know is whether somebody cocked up or whether they were put under pressure by the Americans to concede. We want to conduct an investigation into the FCO’s decision to advise Northamptonshire police that this lady had the benefit of diplomatic immunity.

“If we’re not satisfied, then we’ll go to a judicial review and ask a high court judge to review it all.”

Speaking at a press conference in New York on Monday, Tim Dunn said: “Somewhere, somebody has made a decision to give this lady immunity. She’s not entitled to immunity as it’s been said and we’ve known that from the start.

“They made a mistake, someone has made a mistake.”

I don't think it is a safe assumption at all that it was all correct/she definitely should have had diplomatic immunity just because the US said so.

Likewise well also find out how their chances of a civil case or settlement out of court pan out in due course too.

 

[MissChief]

America’s default position is to never send a citizen abroad for trial under any circumstances. That’s it. Treaties and extradition agreements they’ve signed or agreed are nearly always incredibly biased towards the US and even when they’re not the US rarely, if ever, sends their own citizens abroad for trial. It’s the American way. As seen on Trumps briefing notes the US has ZERO INTENTION of sending her back to face trial, regardless of her DI status or not now she’s in the US.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

And Trump has done what he said he'd try and do, and was able to get that meeting that the family wanted setup at the White House where the family were invited. But in the end the family refused apparently, wanting it done on UK soil instead.

Ah well. You can't win them all. A shame the family doesn't appear to want what they asked for: To meet the woman in person. I don't think they'll be given another chance at this...

 

[StriderX]

What's the point in meeting someone if you want justice for your dead boy and aren't going to get it?

You'd be standing there dying inside why she just gets to walk away.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

What's the point in meeting someone if you want justice for your dead boy and aren't going to get it?

You'd be standing there dying inside why she just gets to walk away.

It doesn't invalidate the point in a post I was replying to earlier that implied that Trump was just talking out of his rear end when he said he'd try and arrange a meeting (which incidentally was what the family originally asked for, a face to face), and the idea was poo-poo'd because a photograph of a note he was given said that the US will not give up the woman in question. To which they are still not. But they have arranged the meeting as promised (within the confines of what we know how America handles diplomacy regarding their own: On their terms only, so on US soil).

You current posts' issue is an entirely separate matter. For one, the family never said they wanted the meeting in the UK; To which Trumps hands would have been automatically tied anyway - it simply wouldn't happen (not even the current situation). However, arranging such a meeting on US soil is another matter entirely (since this situation had leeway that didn't break the need to keep the woman there in the US, and allowed the family to meet her). To then add other stipulations, when clearly the US historically would never bow towards, would simply mean you NEVER have ANY chance to meet the person in question.

So whatever injustice you may feel this situation would have yielded, is separate to the injustice you have done for your own family for not getting the closure that however pathetically poor attempt it is (by getting non-legal justice in the end on the woman), you will never get another chance at that meet up ever again. Again, looking over history, the US wiil NOT allow the woman back to the UK or anywhere else where the UK could potentially claim her. So in short, the family will NEVER get any answers of any kind, which is basically the same situation they are in now. So they might as well go home then. Again, you need to pick the right types of fights, and meeting her on British Soil would do nothing more than allow the woman to be arrested in the UK, and likely given all that we know (the issue of Diplomatic Immunity will be ignored, since no one ANYWHERE has said how ordered her out the country, so we can't put any legal blame on her for that, considering the US is known to pull people out in such situations) all that she'll face is some points on her drivers license, and walk away free. AND you won't get a chance to get fired up at her personally and get any response back.

There are probably some who are reading this and saying I'm a cold hearted git with no compassion, or regard for the law, etc. That's far beyond the truth, I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation: That this was a workaround that allowed them to meet the woman. No other way will it even be considered most likely. So by forgoing this opportunity, they likely are forgoing it all (since it most likely won't be made possible to them again).

 

[Oxide™]

Really feel for the family who lost their son in all of this - they must be distraught over their senseless loss and feel like the country has let them down.

Why doesn't the culprit just do the right thing and fess up to negligence and take the punishment like a decent human being

 

[Roar87]

Really feel for the family who lost their son in all of this - they must be distraught over their senseless loss and feel like the country has let them down.

Why doesn't the culprit just do the right thing and fess up to negligence and take the punishment like a decent human being

To them the UK is a foreign country, would you want to go potentially get locked up abroad, over what you basically believe to be an unfortunate accident, when you actually don't have to?

 

[Oxide™]

To them the UK is a foreign country, would you want to go potentially get locked up abroad, over what you basically believe to be an unfortunate accident, when you actually don't have to?

There's two sides here as I see it...

1: An innocent killed not doing anything wrong, minding his business and getting on with his hopes and dreams. His distraught family!

2: A foreigner ignorant to the local rules of the road, kills an innocent, runs and hides under DI, scott free and carries on with life not a care in the world

I know where my feels are going (1)

If she wasn't American all this wouldn't be happening. Maybe I live in cloud cuckoo land (and would possibly do the same in her situation) but maybe everyone should stop and think 'hang on, this isn't right. Let's handle this justly for both sides'

To me this is black and white, there's no grey area

Sidenote: I was watching some new 'British prisons' reality documentary last night and was getting wound up as prisoners would be interviewed and bitch about their privileges etc. being taken away and how guards bend backwards to make life easier for the prisoners/prevent riots. I told my wife 'well they shouldn't have done crime in the first place, tough teetahs'. If it was up to me I'd let them riot and cull each other.
Also just as black and white

 

[adam cool dude]

To them the UK is a foreign country, would you want to go potentially get locked up abroad, over what you basically believe to be an unfortunate accident, when you actually don't have to?

I don't think even the boys family want that. From what I gathered they just want justice to be served. Even a suspended sentence. She will have that on her record for life and have to live the fact she was guilty for the rest of her life. If she doesn't fess up she is basically stuck in the US for the rest of her life anyway. I just hope people spot her in the street and make her life hell.

If she had stayed. Been charged with a suspended sentence, banned from driving and community service I think that would have been correct as she obviously didn't intend to kill him. The fact she has ran away from it all has made matters even worse.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

Maybe I didn't read an article somewhere, but, there's a lot of heated emotional postings about how the woman "ran". And there is currently no solid evidence that she ran. Note, that she has left the country, via a US base in the UK. But, of known facts we do have:

1. She said she wasn't going to leave. We have no reason not to believe her despite the situation that has developed.
2. She is the wife of someone who the US and the UK granted DI to (allegedly). We have no confirmed reports that she was the one who dropped DI into the mix, it could have been the Husband or the US government who decided on her behalf instead. We have no idea at this time from what I can tell. And however you feel about DI, the situation has happened, so complaining about DI about a past situation is pointless.
3. The womans ID has been exposed, but likely the Husband not directly yet. The US wants to protect that asset still. Which leads into...
4. The US always pulls their people out in such situations if it suits them better. Which makes it more likely they are the ones who got it all together and pulled her out of the UK after learning about it. Which puts the blame on the current situation (but not the accident) on the US government rather than her.

So any comments about her being a coward and all, and that she should face justice; The problem is that it became political very quickly, and not only that, because of her husbands work, even had she had zero intention of leaving initially, her husbands employers may have other ideas. Until we have more and better information, to just throw a claim that shes being a coward for running, is completely uncalled for. Yes, it all looks bad, but correlation does not imply causation (with regards to her "legging it").

 

[dowie]

Maybe I didn't read an article somewhere, but, there's a lot of heated emotional postings about how the woman "ran". And there is currently no solid evidence that she ran.

1. She said she wasn't going to leave. We have no reason not to believe her despite the situation that has developed.

I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything whether at some point in the past she was genuinely prepared to stay. She decided to leave in the end and that is what people have referred to as her running away - that shouldn't really be in dispute.

2. She is the wife of someone who the US and the UK granted DI to (allegedly). We have no confirmed reports that she was the one who dropped DI into the mix, it could have been the Husband or the US government who decided on her behalf instead. We have no idea at this time from what I can tell. And however you feel about DI, the situation has happened, so complaining about DI about a past situation is pointless.

It isn't pointless it is a valid thing to be concerned about and the family have valid questions about it that they'd like to have answered - it would also be good if this stuff was treated differently in future, especially if she wasn't necessarily entitled to diplomatic immunity.

As for who brought up the immunity - well indirectly we know she wasn't arrested and taken away and she had time to go back to the car etc.. while a passerby started assisting - she may have called her husband/the base then... either way wouldn't the police normally arrest someone when a death has occurred - AFAIK they would, in this case they talked to her at the scene then later interviewed her in her home on the base - that does strongly suggest that she invoked some claim of immunity from the start. We'll probably find out more at a subsequent enquiry - the family certainly aren't dropping this.

3. The womans ID has been exposed, but likely the Husband not directly yet. The US wants to protect that asset still. Which leads into...

Yes he has, given people know them then as soon as she was exposed he was too - his name is apparently Jonathan Sacoolas. He's not an "asset" an "asset" or agent is an informant/source of information they don't really want to be discovered, generally a foreign national - he's a US citizen and apparently either an NSA or CIA officer.

4. The US always pulls their people out in such situations if it suits them better. Which makes it more likely they are the ones who got it all together and pulled her out of the UK after learning about it. Which puts the blame on the current situation (but not the accident) on the US government rather than her.

Because she's a grown adult, of course there is likely some heated discussion with the US over this but they can't force someone against their will and/or she's perfectly free to do the right thing and voluntarily come back here too. All they've done is advise her to leave and provide an easy means for her to do so - they can't kidnap her or force her to leave, she could have exercised some moral courage and stayed but instead she chose the easier route and fled the country.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything whether at some point in the past she was genuinely prepared to stay. She decided to leave in the end and that is what people have referred to as her running away - that shouldn't really be in dispute.

And as I've said, this was never in question. Only certain parts I am highlighting that people are getting worked up over before we have enough information to say things without question. I am merely pointing that out. It's the same with the incident of that alleged gang rape incident lately in cyprus, before it was found out the girl had a severe case of regret and fabricated certain parts of it up. Many people began hurling names and calling the men scum, before enough information was available to conclude without a doubt they deserve that name/title. We can only say without a doubt she left, but as we are in the dark over certain aspects of it, we have no idea what lead her to make the decision to leave.

It isn't pointless it is a valid thing to be concerned about and the family have valid questions about it that they'd like to have answered - it would also be good if this stuff was treated differently in future, especially if she wasn't necessarily entitled to diplomatic immunity.

I meant it's pointless because she is no longer in the country. Not about discussing future uses of DI, to which again, I have not said was pointless, merely about the current situation as it has already passed (and no amount of raging would change over).

As for who brought up the immunity - well indirectly we know she wasn't arrested and taken away and she had time to go back to the car etc.. while a passerby started assisting - she may have called her husband/the base then... either way wouldn't the police normally arrest someone when a death has occurred - AFAIK they would, in this case they talked to her at the scene then later interviewed her in her home on the base - that does strongly suggest that she invoked some claim of immunity from the start. We'll probably find out more at a subsequent enquiry - the family certainly aren't dropping this.

That is indeed a strong suggestion and I am not disputing what that leads towards. Only that without evidence to confirm it otherwise, would be a bit too soon to jump on it as irrefutable evidence and so free reign for us to dog pile onto.

Yes he has, given people know them then as soon as she was exposed he was too - his name is apparently Jonathan Sacoolas. He's not an "asset" an "asset" or agent is an informant/source of information they don't really want to be discovered, generally a foreign national - he's a US citizen and apparently either an NSA or CIA officer.

Well, he's basically one of their secret services people who would have remained anon until this incident largely. Unlike the wife, the husbands picture is not plastered all over the place. And likely currently under observation for tagged removal if any are found in the open. So, in my opinion, probably still viable for future foreign deployments.

Because she's a grown adult, of course there is likely some heated discussion with the US over this but they can't force someone against their will and/or she's perfectly free to do the right thing and voluntarily come back here too. All they've done is advise her to leave and provide an easy means for her to do so - they can't kidnap her or force her to leave, she could have exercised some moral courage and stayed but instead she chose the easier route and fled the country.

If this was a person employed not by the secret/security services, this I can definitely agree with. Being moralistic over the matter is more of your own choice. But as the husband is employed by the US secret services, it's not a simple matter of being moral. We have a "moral" Snowden, but all that did was expose the assets of the US and some of their allies (including our own), as well as make it tougher for agencies to snoop on groups more easily. As an active officer, the husband could do just as much damage; Either because he feels the US government didn't help him enough over his wifes situation, or because the wife becomes compromised and thereby compromising the officer themselves (either case is possible). Neither situation is desirable for the US, on the intelligence front, or any military front either.

And of course, whilst its all very easy to say the ideal moral person should do the "right" thing. We all know we are all different in reality. Every situation is different. Every moment is experienced differently. For all we know, the decision to leave is the hardest and worst decision they had to make, but they made it because of so many factors that rely on them doing so, even if its a crappy one. I mean, really? No one has had to make a crappy decision before where its obviously in the "wrong", but you had to because so much more was depending on you as well? Not everyone can make that call. And this woman might have made that call, before she had children maybe, so her mind is not clouded with their future, or the husbands job and how it impacts on them as she wasn't as patriotic before meeting him, etc. The thing I'm saying is: It's very easy to say what we will/should do, but it's very different when the time comes itself to make that call. How many of us have changed over the last 15 years? Granted, some hardly change (if at all) but they're not all that common. But would some of us really do what we thought we'd do 15 years ago today now? How the week before? Before a family member died, causing you to change views on what is important?

In short, wait for more info before throwing names, labels and claiming how they lack of courage or moral, etc. This is of course, over the situation that she's not in the UK, not the accident itself, to which again I say is not in question and not unfair to comment on. Only the rest afterwards where its all vague that we should hold off from dog piling onto for now, as we could be just as unfair as how we are perceiving them to be.

 

[StriderX]

We can't wait for more information because she ****** off and prejudiced the investigation. I'm glad that it's established that i or anyone can just run away from crimes now when it suits.

All the family has left is revenge and it's her bloody fault for forcing that.