Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't argue against that, but that's not how things work in any country when an offender with diplomatic immunity breaks the law. The correct recourse for such people if they host nation is adamant about things is to expel the offender.
Still, diplomatic immunity is very important in many ways, too, in order to prevent other countries from targeting diplomats just out doing their jobs. You'll get some unpopular calls with immunity place, but I think the overall goal of immunity is a good one, even if I would support certain changes.
If a British diplomat did what Sacoolas did and there was an understanding in place that the diplomat was immune from prosecution, I personally would not be calling for a changing of the rules after the fact. I will add that if this happened the reverse, this wouldn't be a big deal in the states; the media would have long moved on
Firstly immunities are not mandatory, and it is normal practice to waiver immunities especially if that is what you had promised to do in such circumstances rather than try and use loopholes and technicalities.
Secondly immunity should only be claimed in exceptional circumstances, , such as to protect staff from hostile action from host authorities, and this is UK policy, and the US knew this when engaging in negotiations in relation to Croughton, and in relation to US assurances regarding automatic waivers.
Thirdly immunities in such circumstances should not be claimed by democratic allies like the US and UK in order to evade the law, and the Vienna Convention makes it clear that those with immunity should follow the law, and that immunity is meant as a political protection rather than a licence to flout another nations laws.
The British were unhappy about allowing some US personnel at Croughton to be granted immunity and mentioned driving offences and other such issues, and the US promised that this would not be a problem and that immunity would be waived in such circumstances.
The US therefore told blatant lies, and even went so far as to use loopholes and technicalities which have now been closed.
This is far from automatically waving immunity as promised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Court - London
24. On 6 July 1994, the US Embassy sent a letter to the FCO asking that a certain number of US personnel based at the relay facility at RAF Croughton be “included on the Diplomatic and Administrative and Technical lists”.
25. The FCO acknowledged receipt of the US Embassy’s letter on 20 July 1994, and on 3 August 1994 requested certain further information to assist in considering this request. In particular, the FCO requested information about the number of staff based at RAF Croughton, and inquired as to their rank and functional role, and why they would require immunities.
27. In a Ministerial Submission dated 23 May 1995, an official in the Protocol Department of the FCO recommended that the relevant minister agree to the US Embassy’s request “if the US Government agrees to waive the immunity from criminal jurisdiction in respect of acts performed outside the course of their duties of staff at Croughton who have only A & T status”.
The submission records that the FCO was initially cautious and indeed sceptical about the US Embassy’s request. It seems that one of the main reasons for the FCO’s caution was its concern about the number of the staff and their lack of proximity to the US Embassy in London.
It is also noteworthy (given the events that were subsequently to transpire) that the following was said by the FCO:
“…We remain less than happy at increasing, albeit temporarily, the number of privileged staff accredited by the US Government and that these staff will be based some 60 miles from the Embassy itself. There is perhaps a greater risk of such staff becoming involved in incidents (eg. drunk driving, speeding, parking etc) in such an isolated area than there would be in London and this focussing public attention on the facility and its special status.
Nevertheless, the staff at Croughton will be State, rather than Defense Department personnel; [REDACTED] On balance, in these circumstances, we believe that it is now not unreasonable to regard the staff at Croughton as diplomatic/A&T staff”.
28. In due course (and following the receipt of further information from the US), the Protocol Department recommended that the UK agree to the US request, subject to the “US Government agree[ing] in advance to waive the immunity from criminal jurisdiction in respect of acts performed outside the course of their duties of the …
Administrative and Technical Staff to be based there”. The recommendation was accepted by Tony Baldry MP, then a Minister at the FCO. We should record that Tony
Baldry (now Sir Tony) has provided a witness statement on behalf of the Claimants concerning his understanding of the US request, but it does not seem to us, with respect to him, that his evidence can assist us in resolving the issues of law in this claim.
29. On 12 June 1995, the FCO sent the US Embassy a letter indicating that the FCO was in principle willing to grant the request in the Embassy’s letter of 6 July 1994, subject to the advance waiver referred to above. The FCO indicated that it would require thisadvance waiver to be done “in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the United States Ambassador and a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister”.
This process, leading to the Exchange of Notes, was followed. So, on 15 August 1995, Sir Nicholas Bonsor MP (then a Minister at the FCO) sent to the US Ambassador a
letter which indicated they would accept US personnel as A&T staff with the privileges and immunities accorded to such staff pursuant to Article 37(2) VCDR. The full terms of his letter are important (our underlined emphasis):
“I have the honour to refer to the Embassy’s Note No 68 of 6 July 1994 requesting that the [REDACTED] American personnel working at the Department of State’s diplomatic communications relay facility at RAF Croughton be included on the Diplomatic and Administrative and Technical (A&T) lists.
As a result of discussions between the Protocol Department and the Embassy of the United States of America, I now have the
honour to propose the following: -
The Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America have discussed the status of American personnel working at the Department of State’s diplomatic communications relay facilities at RAF Croughton.
Of the [REDACTED] persons which it is proposed will be based there, the Government of the United Kingdom are prepared to accept [REDACTED] persons as members of the diplomatic staff of the US mission with the privileges and immunities accorded to such staff under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).
However, since a large number of non-diplomatic staff are to be based a considerable distance from the Embassy itself, the Government of the United Kingdom
are only willing to accept the remaining [REDACTED] persons as members of the A&T staff of the United States Embassy in London with the privileges and immunities accorded to such staff pursuant to the provisions of Article 37.2 of the VCDR, on the understanding that the United States Government, by its reply to this letter waives the immunity from criminal jurisdiction of these employees in respect of acts performed outside the course of their duties.
Furthermore, it is a condition of these arrangements that all the US personnel working at RAF Croughton (diplomatic and A&T staff), will like the members of the US mission in London, be under Your Excellency’s control and responsibility.
This arrangement will This arrangement will be of indefinite duration”.
31. On 17 August 1995, the US Ambassador replied to Sir Nicholas and said: “We do accept the conditions regarding criminal immunity for the… members of the Croughton facility who will have A&T status”. His letter further stated: “It is also the understanding of the United States Government that the relay station will be considered an office forming part of the Embassy pursuant to Article 12 of the [VCDR]”.
Surely as a diplomats spouse she would have been well informed of how the UK works? It all comes back on her husband surely?
What the US did was claim that yes staff who would be involved in incidents off base would have their immunity automatically waived, however the UK forgot to mention dependants.
So the US stated that because of this omission Anne Sacoolas had immunity off base.
Which is fairly underhanded.
A representative of the UK Government stated in Parliament, that the US would not be given permission to carry out any further works or upgrades at Croughton, and the US was made to sign a new agreement stating clearly that no dependants or family have any immunity whatsoever off base.
The US also requested numerous times that Croughton be expanded, however despite reservations Britain granted the requests, having been assured that immunity would be waived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Court
35 The main points arising out of that correspondence may be summarised as follows:
(1) On 26 June 2000, an official at the US Embassy wrote to the FCO to request a meeting to discuss various matters, including a US proposal to increase the number
of staff based at RAF Croughton. The requested meeting took place on 27 July 2000, and there was further correspondence about the proposal over the following
months.
(2) On 8 May 2001, the US Embassy wrote to the Secretary of State formally to request that the United States be allowed to base a number of additional personnel at RAF Croughton.
They asked that the additional personnel be accepted “as members of the Administrative and Technical Staff of the U.S. Embassy in London, with the privileges and immunities accorded to such staff pursuant to Article 37.2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”. The request confirmed “that the U.S. Government is content to waive the immunity from the UK’s criminal jurisdiction of all of these extra staff members in respect of acts performed outside the course of their duties”. We note here the use of the term “staff members” while the Exchange of Notes had referred to “employees” at Croughton.
Nothing however turns on this.
(3) On 13 July 2001, the FCO replied to the US Embassy and indicated that the proposal.
The letter from the British Government to the US Government following the death of Harry Dunn was far different from previous correspondence in relation to it's tone and demeanor.
Arrangements regarding immunity were subsequently reviewed, and the US has had to adhere to this, whilst US bases are also under constant review.
The UK allowed the use of Croughton as a privileged favour, despite not being happy about the situation and despite meaningless US assurances.
RAF Croughton is not an Embassy and can be closed by Britain and diplomatic immunity withdrawn at any time, whilst future US requests will be considered in relation to differing relations following the Dunn case, and other countries have also taken note of the way the US has acted in the Dunn case, and the fact that the US clearly can not be trusted in relation to assurances.
The US already has an Embassy at Nine Elms in London and already has immunity for diplomats serving at the US Embassy in London.
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Court
Extracts from Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) letter to the US Government following the incident outside RAF Croughton
“The FCO notes the government of the United States’ decision to decline to waive the immunity of Mrs Anne Sacoolas and her [REDACTED], for any purpose, following Mrs Sacoolas’ involvement in a fatal road traffic accident on 27 August 2019.
The FCO further notes that the Sacoolas family was withdrawn from the UK on 15 September 2019.
The FCO wishes to place on record its grave disappointment at the decision of the government of the United States.
The UK and the US share common law traditions and have confidence in each others’ judicial and investigative processes.
Therefore the FCO does not believe the US action was justified or appropriate.
The FCO understands that, as part of its consideration process, the government of the United States looked at the matter of precedent.
In response, the FCO reminds the government of the United States that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that immunity should only be claimed in exceptional circumstances, such as to protect staff from hostile action from host authorities.
In line with this policy, the FCO is not aware of any occasions, since at least 2004, when the UK has refused to waive immunity for UK staff in the US when requested to do so by the government of the United States.
In light of the above, the FCO requests that the government of the United States immediately reconsiders its decision not to waive the immunity of Mrs Anne Sacoolas.
The FCO respectfully submits that provision of a waiver of Mrs Sacoolas’ immunity to, at the very least, allow her to be interviewed by Northamptonshire Police.
This would enable the police to be able to provide the Dunn family with a fuller account of the incident that led to Harry Dunn’s death.
The FCO also wishes to notify the government of the United States of its intention to review the existing arrangements for the US Embassy’s London Annex Croughton (LAC) Operation.
The review would include an examination of the immunities enjoyed by family members of those currently accepted as Administrative and Technical (A/T) Staff serving at RAF Croughton. The FCO will contact the Embassy of the United States about this matter in due course”.
Firstly immunities are not mandatory, and it is normal practice to waiver immunities especially if that is what you had promised to do in such circumstances rather than try and use loopholes and technicalities.
Secondly immunity should only be claimed in exceptional circumstances, , such as to protect staff from hostile action from host authorities, and this is UK policy, and the US knew this when engaging in negotiations in relation to Croughton, and in relation to US assurances regarding automatic waivers.
Thirdly immunities in such circumstances should not be claimed by democratic allies like the US and UK in order to evade the law, and the Vienna Convention makes it clear that those with immunity should follow the law, and that immunity is meant as a political protection rather than a licence to flout another nations laws.
The British were unhappy about allowing some US personnel at Croughton to be granted immunity and mentioned driving offences and other such issues, and the US promised that this would not be a problem and that immunity would be waived in such circumstances.
The US therefore told blatant lies, and even went so far as to use loopholes and technicalities which have now been closed.
This is far from automatically waving immunity as promised.
What's your point? The holder of immunity (via the country) is the one authorized to waive it. As for it being normal to waive immunities, what do you define as "normal" and what is your source? By that thought process, I'd also wager that it is normal to not waive immunity. And all loopholes and technicalities mean is that something is explicitly authorized by agreement or omission, which is why I don't get why some use those terms to make it seem like something is nefarious. I hear it a lot with folks discussing tax loopholes and corporations, as an example, but all they are telling me is that tax law is written in a way that allows for certain deductions (most of the time), etc.
Whether immunity should be claimed in exceptional circumstances is neither here nor there to this debate as it is within the right of a party to an immunity agreement to always claim it. Period. That the other party to the agreement is upset with things does not change the reality of the situation.
You keep using "should," but that denotes subjective opinion. I care about what the status of an agreement actual confers for the purpose of this debate. Countries exercise options within legal agreements all of the time and as authorized by those agreements. If countries want there to be no wiggle room for certain things, then they need to put that within the agreement.
What's your point? The holder of immunity (via the country) is the one authorized to waive it. As for it being normal to waive immunities, what do you define as "normal" and what is your source? By that thought process, I'd also wager that it is normal to not waive immunity. And all loopholes and technicalities mean is that something is explicitly authorized by agreement or omission, which is why I don't get why some use those terms to make it seem like something is nefarious. I hear it a lot with folks discussing tax loopholes and corporations, as an example, but all they are telling me is that tax law is written in a way that allows for certain deductions (most of the time), etc.
Whether immunity should be claimed in exceptional circumstances is neither here nor there to this debate as it is within the right of a party to an immunity agreement to always claim it. Period. That the other party to the agreement is upset with things does not change the reality of the situation.
You keep using "should," but that denotes subjective opinion. I care about what the status of an agreement actual confers for the purpose of this debate. Countries exercise options within legal agreements all of the time and as authorized by those agreements. If countries want there to be no wiggle room for certain things, then they need to put that within the agreement.
My point being that the US came cap in hand to the UK and stated we want to have diplomatic immunity for staff at Croughton.
The UK replied stating it's reservations, how unhappy it was, and even stated it was sceptical about the US Embassy’s request and therefore did not want to grant immunity.
The UK mentioned problems relating to road accidents and other issues over which it had concerns.
The US came back and basically said, you have nothing to worry about, as immunity will only apply whilst on base and in terms of anything off base we would just waiver the immunity.
The UK reluctantly agreed with the understanding that anyone off base would be dealt with under British law.
The US then comes back again a number of times cap in hand, and states please to expand Croughton, again the UK has reservations, however we are once again reassured.
Anne Sacoolas is involved in a road traffic accident that kills a British teen.
Sacoolas is off base and claims immunity before being smuggled out of the country via a plane from the US base at Mildenhall.
The UK says hang on a minute, you were going to waive immunity in relation to off base incidents at Croughton, and we now have a dead British citizen.
The US says, hang on a minute that immunity deal was only for staff and you forgot to mention dependants.
The British Minister who signed the letters of exchange, says hang on you made it clear that there would be no diplomatic immunity off base.
The US says tough, you forgot to mention dependants.
The UK writes a letter to the US condemning it's actions and launching a review in to Croughton and US Diplomatic Immunity.
The US still drags it's feet and a Minister has to stand before Parliament and tell the US that no new planning applications will granted in relation to the use of Croughton by the US.
The UK demands the US sign a new deal making it crystal clear that under no circumstances is immunity afforded to dependants at Croughton, and this was never meant to be case.
The UK is now unlikely to be sympathetic to future US requests regarding such immunity in the UK, and grating immunity as a favour in relation to Croughton is now seen as a massive mistake.
The UK is under no obligation whatsoever in relation to allow the US to use Croughton, and is under no obligation in terms of immunity beyond the US Embassy at Nine Elms, and I am sure closing Croughton was an option on the table for the UK Government.
The UK made it clear that didn't want to make it in the first place, and the best thing to do would be to just say 'no' you can't have diplomatic immunity at Croughton full stop, this would have stopped any so called wiggle room or other such nonsense in the first place.
In hindsight allowing the US such immunity was the wrong thing to do, and any similar future requests from the US are now likely to be met with a resounding 'no'.
You reap what you sow, and fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
Last edited by Brave New World; 06-17-2022 at 06:23 AM..
I will stop when the US stops feeling so exceptional and entitled that it feels it's citizens are more worthy than those of other countries.
This drunken moron wasn't a diplomat, he worked for the Peace Corps and he should be forced to go back ad face Justice for what he did.
What is a "high-ranking" Peace Corps employee doing, going around carousing like that, anyway? The Peace Corps is supposed to be a goodwill organization. As members of a high-profile US government program, they need to be mindful of their behavior, so they represent their country properly. I've spent a lot of time in Guatemala, and there, the Peace Corps volunteers are known for being consumers of illegal drugs. When the Peace Corps moves into an area, the locals say, "There goes the neighborhood!"
OTOH, there have been scandals involving international aid workers from other countries as well, and even UN peacekeepers. There were major issues with UN peacekeepers in central Africa years ago. It was revealed that the men were abusing their authority, behaving in a predatory fashion with the local women.
I suppose some people don't care what impression they make on the local people. That's not at all the attitude to have, when you're in a position to represent your country or an important international organization whose purpose is to provide aid.
My point being that the US came cap in hand to the UK and stated we want to have diplomatic immunity for staff at Croughton.
The UK replied stating it's reservations, how unhappy it was, and even stated it was sceptical about the US Embassy’s request and therefore did not want to grant immunity.
The UK mentioned problems relating to road accidents and other issues over which it had concerns.
The US came back and basically said, you have nothing to worry about, as immunity will only apply whilst on base and in terms of anything off base we would just waiver the immunity.
The UK reluctantly agreed with the understanding that anyone off base would be dealt with under British law.
The US then comes back again a number of times cap in hand, and states please to expand Croughton, again the UK has reservations, however we are once again reassured.
Anne Sacoolas is involved in a road traffic accident that kills a British teen.
Sacoolas is off base and claims immunity before being smuggled out of the country via a plane from the US base at Mildenhall.
The UK says hang on a minute, you were going to waive immunity in relation to off base incidents at Croughton, and we now have a dead British citizen.
The US says, hang on a minute that immunity deal was only for staff and you forgot to mention dependants.
The British Minister who signed the letters of exchange, says hang on you made it clear that there would be no diplomatic immunity off base.
The US says tough, you forgot to mention dependants.
The UK writes a letter to the US condemning it's actions and launching a review in to Croughton and US Diplomatic Immunity.
The US still drags it's feet and a Minister has to stand before Parliament and tell the US that no new planning applications will granted in relation to the use of Croughton by the US.
The UK demands the US sign a new deal making it crystal clear that under no circumstances is immunity afforded to dependants at Croughton, and this was never meant to be case.
The UK is now unlikely to be sympathetic to future US requests regarding such immunity in the UK, and grating immunity as a favour in relation to Croughton is now seen as a massive mistake.
The UK is under no obligation whatsoever in relation to allow the US to use Croughton, and is under no obligation in terms of immunity beyond the US Embassy at Nine Elms, and I am sure closing Croughton was an option on the table for the UK Government.
The UK made it clear that didn't want to make it in the first place, and the best thing to do would be to just say 'no' you can't have diplomatic immunity at Croughton full stop, this would have stopped any so called wiggle room or other such nonsense in the first place.
In hindsight allowing the US such immunity was the wrong thing to do, and any similar future requests from the US are now likely to be met with a resounding 'no'.
You reap what you sow, and fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
*shrugs*
The US is in the right here as a matter of law. The foreign ministry and a court of law have both agreed with the US assertion of diplomatic immunity. That you and some others don't like this is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
The base agreement has been modified to stipulate that such personnel are no longer covered by immunity. But such is not retroactive so has no bearing on this immediate case.
We can have a conversation all day long about what diplomatic immunity "should" look like, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
In terms of what the UK will or won't do in as a result of the Sacoolas situation, quite frankly I don't care. I do note that recently the home secretary approved the extradition of Assange to the US the other day, so things seem to be going along just swimmingly. https://www.foxnews.com/world/julian...ish-government
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 06-17-2022 at 07:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
