Diplomatic immunity

[M-J-G]

For Anne Sacoolas

WTF?

 

[Qman]

People think she is a spook.

 

[M-J-G]

I find it odd that on their visit to the White House Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were told by Trump that Sacoolas was in the room next door if they wanted to go meet with her.

Normally when you smell a rat, it's because there's a rat.

 

[M-J-G]

People think she is a spook.

If she was a spook, wouldn't she have "died"?

 

[capfits]

Looks like Pane Raab let the cat out of the bag yesterday.

"The Foreign Office requested to waive her immunity "to enable the police investigation to follow its proper course", he told MPs.

But Mr Raab said on 13 September his office was told by the US "that they would not not waive immunity and that the individual would be leaving the country imminently, unless the UK had strong objections".

He said his office "duly and immediately objected in clear and strong terms" but when they spoke to US officials on 16 September they were told Mrs Sacoolas had left the UK the day before."

Harry Dunn: Government knew crash suspect would leave UK

The teenager's family said the statement from Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab "added insult to injury".

www.bbc.co.uk

Does seem to be unseemly treatment of the family by Foreign Secretary department.
A tragic event for all parties but now has a whiff of a cover up.

 

[Exfarmer]

I think before we get too hysterical, it should be remembered it would not be the first time that a British diplomat has been extricated in similar situations.
it was a tragic accident which sadly happens too frequently when driving on the wrong side.
I do feel sorry for the family who have lost a son, and I think the Americans have played a bad hand by taking this course of action.
I suspect the rule of automatic jail for manslaughter probably prompted it

 

[Danllan]

Looks like Pane Raab let the cat out of the bag yesterday.

"The Foreign Office requested to waive her immunity "to enable the police investigation to follow its proper course", he told MPs.

But Mr Raab said on 13 September his office was told by the US "that they would not not waive immunity and that the individual would be leaving the country imminently, unless the UK had strong objections".

He said his office "duly and immediately objected in clear and strong terms" but when they spoke to US officials on 16 September they were told Mrs Sacoolas had left the UK the day before."

Harry Dunn: Government knew crash suspect would leave UK

The teenager's family said the statement from Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab "added insult to injury".

www.bbc.co.uk

Does seem to be unseemly treatment of the family by Foreign Secretary department.
A tragic event for all parties but now has a whiff of a cover up.

There could be a cover up, but I doubt it; immunity is probably over extended in use - globally - but it is a practical necessity. And, if we have all the facts, I don't think that the FO's actions have been in any way unseemly.

None of this detracts from the tragedy of the case, nor from the very poor behaviour of the woman Sacoolas. We may have a finding of guilt over here and, where there was no immunity involved, that could and probably would lead to extradition. But there was immunity so, for the bereaved family, what is there to do? Other than private litigation in the US, nothing...

...unless they can publicly emotionally blackmail President Trump in to doing something; which is possible, but unlikely.

I think before we get too hysterical, it should be remembered it would not be the first time that a British diplomat has been extricated in similar situations.
it was a tragic accident which sadly happens too frequently when driving on the wrong side.
I do feel sorry for the family who have lost a son, and I think the Americans have played a bad hand by taking this course of action.
I suspect the rule of automatic jail for manslaughter probably prompted it

That was a point I considered making, but... to my recollection it has been our diplomats themselves in recent years, rather than family. But, then, which diplomat with a family would accept a posting if their family was not protected too?

 

[The Agrarian]

Protected from what though?

A respected western judicial process?

Any other American wouldn't be able to side step the British justice system. If she wasnt in the act of carrying out her government's work, then surely she was there as a regular citizen?

 

[Goweresque]

People think she is a spook.

She isn't, but her husband is. He's seconded from the NSA to GCHQ in the UK. The Uk and the US have this nice little number going on - both face restrictions on spying on their own citizens, and intercepting their communications, so each send staff to the other, to use the facilities in the other country, and then share any information found. So Sacoolas would have been listening in on (say) Muslim extremist's communications in the UK, sending that info back to the US, who would then formally share it with the UK, under the Five Eyes information sharing agreement between the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Thus the UK can say it has never spied on UK citizens, while getting all the information they need via the Americans.

The whole thing is a stitch up, he was never a diplomat, he was never listed on the official lists of those with immunity (its available online). RAF Croughton is a GCHQ listening post, any US personnel working there are not diplomats, they're spies. The UK let her leave the country on the spurious grounds of diplomatic immunity because they didn't want what her husband did (effectively spying on UK citizens) to come to light.

This article explains the background to the whole affair:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...ce-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/

 

[The Agrarian]

Ooooooh. Proper conspiracy.

I can just hear Saul about to say,

'Previously on Homeland'

 

[Danllan]

She isn't, but her husband is. He's seconded from the NSA to GCHQ in the UK. The Uk and the US have this nice little number going on - both face restrictions on spying on their own citizens, and intercepting their communications, so each send staff to the other, to use the facilities in the other country, and then share any information found. So Sacoolas would have been listening in on (say) Muslim extremist's communications in the UK, sending that info back to the US, who would then formally share it with the UK, under the Five Eyes information sharing agreement between the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Thus the UK can say it has never spied on UK citizens, while getting all the information they need via the Americans.

The whole thing is a stitch up, he was never a diplomat, he was never listed on the official lists of those with immunity (its available online). RAF Croughton is a GCHQ listening post, any US personnel working there are not diplomats, they're spies. The UK let her leave the country on the spurious grounds of diplomatic immunity because they didn't want what her husband did (effectively spying on UK citizens) to come to light.

This article explains the background to the whole affair:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...ce-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/

If that speculation is true, the alternatives are that our politicians garner sufficient moral courage to state openly that we have to spy on our own people, or that it doesn't happen at all. The latter would be madness and the former is unlikely; so we are where we are...

 

[Mr Jones]

People think she is a spook.

Husband was by all accounts, allegedly worked for the NSA

 

[Scribus]

If that speculation is true, the alternatives are that our politicians garner sufficient moral courage to state openly that we have to spy on our own people, or that it doesn't happen at all. The latter would be madness and the former is unlikely; so we are where we are...

The UK population is under thorough surveillence already, from police cctv to little tricks like having to use your credit card on public transport, you are trailed wherever you go, certainly in the towns and cities.

 

[Mr Jones]

If that speculation is true, the alternatives are that our politicians garner sufficient moral courage to state openly that we have to spy on our own people, or that it doesn't happen at all. The latter would be madness and the former is unlikely; so we are where we are...

www.craigmurray.org.uk

Has plenty to say on the matter, and the lamestream media silence.

 

[Danllan]

The UK population is under thorough surveillence already, from police cctv to little tricks like having to use your credit card on public transport, you are trailed wherever you go, certainly in the towns and cities.

All too true, and yet we seem to survive it well enough. I find myself on the horns of a dilemma in this matter; many times I have seen 'state surveillance' be of the greatest benefit to the general public, in terms of security and of combating crime.

But, but, but... the State's ever growing power and intrusive reach instinctively jars me, I don't like it, my gut tells me it goes too far. Very, very few of us (even in NI) ever have or will suffer as a direct result of terrorism, but many of us are afraid of it and are ready to accept a great many things to help defeat it.

The current 'balance' is far from my ideal, but that it is workable. What alternative would you suggest?

 

[Scribus]

All too true, and yet we seem to survive it well enough. I find myself on the horns of a dilemma in this matter; many times I have seen 'state surveillance' be of the greatest benefit to the general public, in terms of security and of combating crime.

But, but, but... the State's ever growing power and intrusive reach instinctively jars me, I don't like it, my gut tells me it goes too far. Very, very few of us (even in NI) ever have or will suffer as a direct result of terrorism, but many of us are afraid of it and are ready to accept a great many things to help defeat it.

The current 'balance' is far from my ideal, but that it is workable. What alternative would you suggest?

But where is the proof that surveillance beats terrorism? The IRA were brought to their heels through infiltration at the highest levels, the various middle east terrorist groups weaponise cars instead and being identified is hardly the first concern of those on a suicide mission. It may be argued that all is OK in a benign state but should there be another EU referendum can you be sure that intelligence gained through surveillance will not be used to sway the vote? I doubt that Cambridge Analytics are totally alone in their shady practices.