Doesn't really matter that we don't know her exact reasons the overall reason is simply avoiding justice and that is pretty scummy of her.
Again, you have made an assertion that she "willfully and maliciously" evaded justice. With the information on hand, this can't be proven either way.
I'd disagree there - it seems pretty obvious it was invoked early on tbh.. given that she wasn't arrested.
Unless you were the attenting Police or have access to the report files relating to this case which shows you what transpired and who did what, and when or who brought up the DI, and whether the Police Unit let them head back because they knew about the base or for other reasons. It's all rather speculative. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but lack of proof to back your view up is still suposition only. Granted it's the most likely outcome, but still suposition, so needs facts and information to back up, to which we don't have.
It is, that is what it comes down to - she chose to flee, she lacked the moral courage to stay. She didn't have to follow the advise of the US embassy after they provided and easy escape for her.
You have eqauted to her departure as to her "fleeing" (willfully and consciously decided to in an attempt to evade the UK Justice System), which is easy to say. But hard to prove. Again, I'm not rubbishing your claim, since that's the same conclusion I would come to with available information, but at no point will I make that known and stand behind it unless I have more solid evidence that would point to that. To which we do not.
That doesn't make much sense - the reason for having some level of immunity is likely due to the nature of his work possibly involving breaking laws etc... as motioned earlier it was rather over zealous of the US not to waiver it in this instance and/or possibly rather weak of the UK to go along with agreeing she had immunity. A high ranking US military officer wouldn't necessarily enjoy the same immunity nor his spouse.
A high ranking military officer doesn't necessarily have access to the vast myriad of information and tools on how the backbone of the US Intelligence networks function. Or that this agent may actually be running a high security clearance operation that impacts all aspects of the US defence network as well as its allies, thereby the US Gov needing to pull a runner like this over allowing them to be further explored. This is all speculation so that's all it really is, but with regards to the US being rather over zealous, and the UK not doing enough. That's how these two parties roll unfortunately. People tend to forget how "non-freedomlike" our govs are actually like (worse than the so called "bad" countries we hear of, like China or Russia, etc) when it comes down to certain parts of them (secrecy, intelligence and security) and think the person can "lone-wolf" it and use the moral guidance to guide them to do the right thing. Again, Snowden comes to mind (who has also done a runner and also decided they had the right "moral courage"). You don't want to get on the bad side of the dark side of the "Free Western World"; it's just as scary if not more so.
There isn't any more info required to make the assertions I've made or to hold the opinion I've given - I don't doubt that something like this does put a strain on things, affect family life, affect someone's career - that applies to anyone who kills someone on the road - it isn't a legit excuse for running away. just because she can. IMHO she has a lack of moral courage and has done something rather **** that she should be utterly ashamed of on top of being a complete idiot in the first place by driving on the wrong side of the road - I don't need loads more specific details to draw that conclusion, we have enough information about the case already to make that conclusion. The facts speak for themselves, she killed someone in an accident that was quite blatantly her fault then ran away after saying she had no plans to leave, there isn't really anything that can excuse that.
You keep bringing up moral courage, but again, moral courage is entirely perspective based. It may be that to her, the moral courage to accept that she'd face this backlack forever more so that she has the moral courage to keep the US and its operations safe that guard and protect the lives of (the unknowing number of) thousands that would otherwise be lost if she stayed and exploration into her husbands work is exposed. That is also moral courage to "do the right thing", through doing a "bad act" (of legging it) to get a "better outcome". Who decides this moral courage is the right one? Snowden is an example of having "moral courage" to do what is right, but is isn't all seen this way either by everyone.
Also, you keep jumping back to the death itself, to which "no one" is arguing against, not even them (the woman, the husband or the US Gov). That issue is separate to calling them something which you have no solid proof to back up on and THAT is what I am calling for calm over. There's plenty of time in the future to call her whatever if proven true or enough information comes out, but if there isn't, you may be calling someone who actually has the most "moral courage" by leaving (and living with consequences), something they may not don't deserve to be name called over just because they are looking at the big picture. (Again Snowden, right or wrong for having the "moral courage" to do what was right?)
Anyway, I'm not tredding on anything new now (and just repeating quite a bit) so I'll excuse myself from this thread until something relevant to the situation comes up.
