22 Feb 11
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIf I went to Pakistan and shot two people in the street, I'd expect to be tried in a Pakistani court.
YOU go to Pakistan, get accused of a crime, then get back to us on their due process.
I'm sure if a Pakistani national shot two Americans on any street in the US, you'd be screaming your lungs out if the Pakistani government insisted he be given diplomatic immunity.
22 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76Countries the U.S. is enemies of? The U.S. is an ally of Pakistan and has supported the latter's nuclear weapons programme. Countries that are officially or unofficially "enemies" of the U.S. - such as North Korea, Cuba and Iran - do not have U.S. ambassadors sent to them, so your point is unclear. That aside, what about the Raymond Davis case?
Don't you think that promoting a system whereby countries are willing to send ambassadors to the countries they are enemies of makes sense?
23 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI wasn't referring to this specific case.
Countries the U.S. is enemies of? The U.S. is an ally of Pakistan and has supported the latter's nuclear weapons programme. Countries that are officially or unofficially "enemies" of the U.S. - such as North Korea, Cuba and Iran - do not have U.S. ambassadors sent to them, so your point is unclear. That aside, what about the Raymond Davis case?
In general, of course people who commit crimes while diplomats in other countries need to face prosecution. But the process needs to allow the home country of the diplomat to have some way to protect its diplomat from false charges. Maybe the trial can happen in the courts of the diplomat's home country. I don't know.
But to simply do away with diplomatic immunity is a very dangerous step.
As for Raymond Davis, I don't know. Maybe a US fact finding panel should be shown the evidence and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to have him stand trial. Maybe the trial should be held under US jurisdiction.
What if he really is innocent? Why should he have to trust Pakistani courts to make that determination when he was there merely as an agent of the US government?
23 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76What if he really is innocent of what?
What if he really is innocent?
Why should he have to trust Pakistani courts to make that determination when he was there merely as an agent of the US government?
You are suggesting that he killed two Pakistani men - in Pakistan - on behalf of the U.S. government and that, if that is so, it shouldn't be under Pakistani jurisdiction?
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFIt's not I that's suggesting so. It's the age old concept of diplomatic immunity.
What if he really is innocent of what?
[b]Why should he have to trust Pakistani courts to make that determination when he was there merely as an agent of the US government?
You are suggesting that he killed two Pakistani men - in Pakistan - on behalf of the U.S. government and that, if that is so, it shouldn't be under Pakistani jurisdiction?[/b]
In New York City, they can't even give parking tickets and tow cars that belong to diplomats. The UN diplomats simply park wherever they want and city officials can't do a think about it.
I was unaware of any allegation that this was done "on behalf of the U.S. government." If the US government ordered its diplomat to shoot someone down on a Pakistani street without the complicity of the Pakistani government, that's practically an act of war and has much larger ramifications than the fate of this one guy; the situation has to be worked out by the governments of the two countries.
Either way, the concept of diplomatic immunity either does exist or does not. If not, then diplomacy itself will likely die a quick death. If so, then it has to be dealt with in all cases; not just cases in which the host country doesn't mind it.
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76What would happen if one shot two New Yorkers dead - with an unauthorised firearm? They would be escorted to the airport, you think?
In New York City, they can't even give parking tickets and tow cars that belong to diplomats. The UN diplomats simply park wherever they want and city officials can't do a think about it.
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76Well, you said "Why should he have to trust Pakistani courts to make that determination when he was there merely as an agent of the US government?" So you were tying the thing that the Pakistani courts need to make the determination about to the thing that he did and to the thing that he was supposed to be doing as an agent of the US government. If he didn't do it on behalf of the U.S. government, then we should let the Pakistani courts make that determination, right?
I was unaware of any allegation that this was done "on behalf of the U.S. government."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76My reading of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations suggests to me the sending country has to notify the receiving country of the name of those it sends to the diplomatic mission in the diplomatic corps. This is at least strongly implied by the fact that the receiving state can declare such a person persona non grata, even before arrival, so it would be violative to withhold this information. Certainly any such arriving person would be queried under pain of perjury during passport clearance, as to what business he or she was about and the authorities would then decide whether to let him into the country. This has always happened to me. It should be clear to those in the know, whether this notification was done in this case. Has this simple fact been reported?
It's not I that's suggesting so. It's the age old concept of diplomatic immunity.
In New York City, they can't even give parking tickets and tow cars that belong to diplomats. The UN diplomats simply park wherever they want and city officials can't do a think about it.
I was unaware of any allegation that this was done "on behalf of the U.S. government." ...[text shortened]... o be dealt with in all cases; not just cases in which the host country doesn't mind it.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/21/accused-killer-raymond-davis-us-diplomat-in-pakistan-or-cia-spy/
Also regarding parking in NYC, I've read that the more corrupt the sending country, the more parking violations are ignored by their diplomats.
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFI meant "merely there" as a diplomat, as in merely in the country as an agent of the US government. I did not mean doing the shooting on behalf of the US government.
Well, you said "Why should he have to trust Pakistani courts to make that determination when he was there merely as an agent of the US government?" So you were tying the thing that the Pakistani courts need to make the determination about to the thing that he did and to the thing that he was supposed to be doing as an agent of the US government. If he didn't do ...[text shortened]... the U.S. government, then we should let the Pakistani courts make that determination, right?
Honestly, I've lost track regarding what exactly we're arguing about here.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76Seriously how many times does a "diplomat" shoot down people in the street? The US should waive its claim which seems legally dubious anyway (there's a slight difference between parking tickets and murder in most penal codes).
I wasn't referring to this specific case.
In general, of course people who commit crimes while diplomats in other countries need to face prosecution. But the process needs to allow the home country of the diplomat to have some way to protect its diplomat from false charges. Maybe the trial can happen in the courts of the diplomat's home country. I don't know ...[text shortened]... courts to make that determination when he was there merely as an agent of the US government?
24 Feb 11
2 edits
Our policy when "diplomats" commit crimes on our soil in straightforward:
The U.S. Department of State will request a waiver of immunity in every case in which the prosecutor advises that he or she would prosecute but for
immunity.
u.S. department of state
Diplomatic and
Consular immunity
Guidance for Law Enforcement
and Judicial Authorities
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf
As explained by the State Department:
International law requires that law enforcement authorities of the United States extend certain privileges and immunities to members of foreign diplomatic missions and consular posts. The purpose of these privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient and effective performance of their official missions on behalf of their governments. Most of these privileges and immunities are not absolute, and law enforcement officers retain their fundamental responsibility to protect and police the orderly conduct of persons in the United States.
http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9118.htm
In 1997, a Georgian "diplomat" while drunk hit and killed an American teenager in the US. Our government rightly insisted that the Georgian government waive any claim of diplomatic immunity and the person was charged and eventually pled guilty to manslaughter. I see no reason for the US to vary from the principles it insists other governments abide by regarding their "diplomats".
EDIT: Here's the Georgian drunk driving case; their second highest ranking diplomat got 7 to 21 years in prison.http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/20/news/mn-531