"Jonathan Sacoolas Is Not, and Has Never Been, a Diplomat"

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting take from Craig Murray on the Harry Dunn case

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/jonathan-sacoolas-is-not-and-has-never-been-a-diplomat/

[Nearly Sane]

Raab is an obvious waste of memory but not entirely sure what he was going to be able to do here. The bigger question is whether this is actually a case of diplomatic immunity - see OP.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-49986700

[jeremyp]

Interesting take from Craig Murray on the Harry Dunn case

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/jonathan-sacoolas-is-not-and-has-never-been-a-diplomat/

Yeah, I already knew that. He is an intelligence officer and he has immunity through an agreement about the operation of that RAF station. I thought it was common knowledge.

[Nearly Sane]

Baffled by the idea that by being in the U.S. the  immunity is gone, particularly as it effectively now doesn't matter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50030750

[jeremyp]

Baffled by the idea that by being in the U.S. the  immunity is gone, particularly as it effectively now doesn't matter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50030750

i don't understand that either. It means diplomatic immunity isn't worth anything because the country seeking to prosecute can just with until the diplomat goes home and then extradite them (assuming an extradition agreement exists).

Maybe it means that Mrs Sacoolas can still be prosecuted or sued in the USA.

[Roses]

Just because the woman's husband has diplomatic immunity shouldn't mean his wife has it also. I hope the US does the decent thing and allow her to be extradited to the UK to answer the charges against her.

[jeremyp]

Just because the woman's husband has diplomatic immunity shouldn't mean his wife has it also.

That's true. But she has it because, under the agreement about Americans at the airbase where he worked, immediate family also got diplomatic immunity.

As an aside, does anybody else hear Joss Ackland's voice when they read the words "diplomatic immunity"?

[Harrowby Hall]

Just because the woman's husband has diplomatic immunity shouldn't mean his wife has it also. I hope the US does the decent thing and allow her to be extradited to the UK to answer the charges against her.

Now, my memory may be suspect - buy I do recollect hearing some time ago (certainly pre-Trump and possibly pre-Obama) that the USA did not permit its citizens to be extradited by foreign governments. It may be that my recollection is incorrect. But I recall thinking that it was unfair that British citizens were extradited to the USA for acts which were not unlawful in their home country ,,,

[jeremyp]

Now, my memory may be suspect - buy I do recollect hearing some time ago (certainly pre-Trump and possibly pre-Obama) that the USA did not permit its citizens to be extradited by foreign governments. It may be that my recollection is incorrect.

It is incorrect. We have extradited US citizens since the current treaty came into effect.

But I recall thinking that it was unfair that British citizens were extradited to the USA for acts which were not unlawful in their home country ,,,

I don't think that can be the case. It's a general principle that you can't extradite people for doing things that are not crimes in their own country.

[Harrowby Hall]

I have been doing a little research. You are quite right, my recollection was incorrect.

I suspect I may have been confusing the USA with countries like France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan which do not permit the extradition of their own citizens.

[Harrowby Hall]

There is a new variation on this story going around. According to accounts on Quora, Anne Sacoolas "has been widely reported" as being an employee of the National Security Agency working undercover. To permit her to appear in court would blow her cover and so she was ordered to return to the USA.

Fake news?   Conspiracy theory?   True?


A variation on this is that her husband was working under cover.

UPDATE

We now know that Trump himself has stated that she will not be extradited. The parents of the dead boy have been invited to White House and subjected to a charm offensive by the charmless failure of humanity occupying the Oval Office. It would appear from comments made by the parents' lawyer that the incident had been planned as a photo opportunity - presumably for Trump's benefit.

Perhaps the story isn't fake news. Or, if it is, this incident shows the depths Trump will go to get publicity.

[Roses]

There is a new variation on this story going around. According to accounts on Quora, Anne Sacoolas "has been widely reported" as being an employee of the National Security Agency working undercover. To permit her to appear in court would blow her cover and so she was ordered to return to the USA.

Fake news?   Conspiracy theory?   True?


A variation on this is that her husband was working under cover.

UPDATE

We now know that Trump himself has stated that she will not be extradited. The parents of the dead boy have been invited to White House and subjected to a charm offensive by the charmless failure of humanity occupying the Oval Office. It would appear from comments made by the parents' lawyer that the incident had been planned as a photo opportunity - presumably for Trump's benefit.

Perhaps the story isn't fake news. Or, if it is, this incident shows the depths Trump will go to get publicity.

I heard that on the news earlier. I wonder what Trump is up to now?

[Nearly Sane]

Quite incredible




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50064595

[jeremyp]

Quite incredible




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50064595

It's like the Jerry Springer show. You know, they have somebody on who had her boyfriend stolen by her bet friend and the big reveal is that the best friend is brought in to argue it out... and then the boyfriend.

[jeremyp]

There is a new variation on this story going around. According to accounts on Quora, Anne Sacoolas "has been widely reported" as being an employee of the National Security Agency working undercover. To permit her to appear in court would blow her cover and so she was ordered to return to the USA.

Fake news?   Conspiracy theory?   True?


A variation on this is that her husband was working under cover.

Her husband is an intelligence agent working in the UK. I think he does work for the NSA. He's not under cover though.

We now know that Trump himself has stated that she will not be extradited.

I'd have thought that is a matter for the courts. Of course, after that fiasco with the rapper in Sweden, we know Trump has no understanding of the concept of judicial independence.

[Roses]

Trump doesn't seem to have much understanding about anything. His GIGANTIC ego blinds him to the reality of life.

[ippy]

Now, my memory may be suspect - buy I do recollect hearing some time ago (certainly pre-Trump and possibly pre-Obama) that the USA did not permit its citizens to be extradited by foreign governments. It may be that my recollection is incorrect. But I recall thinking that it was unfair that British citizens were extradited to the USA for acts which were not unlawful in their home country ,,,

Yes I think you're right H H, I think this came to light because they wanted to extradite a young lad, I think came from Essex, that had hacked into their computer systems at the Pentagon and their policy of not allowing their citizens to be extradited anywhere was mentioned somewhere at that time.

Although admittedly I may not be quite correct with all of the details but it, I'm sure, it was something like that.

What I particularly dislike is that firstly it's a civil matter, not political and it's not as though we're some silly little tin pot country that has a very dubious legal system incapable of giving any citizen a fair trial.

Regards, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

Now, my memory may be suspect - buy I do recollect hearing some time ago (certainly pre-Trump and possibly pre-Obama) that the USA did not permit its citizens to be extradited by foreign governments. It may be that my recollection is incorrect. But I recall thinking that it was unfair that British citizens were extradited to the USA for acts which were not unlawful in their home country ,,,

The US has had extradition treaties for a long time so not sure what it is that is in your memory. There are certainly countries it doesn't have treaties with.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure that someone in this position has much right to be 'Disappointed'.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50070481

[jeremyp]

Yes I think you're right H H, I think this came to light because they wanted to extradite a young lad, I think came from Essex, that had hacked into their computer systems at the Pentagon and their policy of not allowing their citizens to be extradited anywhere was mentioned somewhere at that time.

It is not true.

In fact, since the current extradition treaty has been implemented several US citizens have been extradited to the UK.

What I particularly dislike is that firstly it's a civil matter,

It's certainly a judicial matter and in any sane country (i.e. not tin pot) is not something politicians can get involved in.

[ippy]

It is not true.

In fact, since the current extradition treaty has been implemented several US citizens have been extradited to the UK.

It's certainly a judicial matter and in any sane country (i.e. not tin pot) is not something politicians can get involved in.

Your post seems to be a contentious rebuttal of my previous post, if this is so why?

I ask why because I thought I'd made it abundantly plain that I wasn't 100% sure of the details of anything I had included in that post of mine purely because I wasn't, which makes me wonder about the tenor of the whole of this post of yours, almost intimating that I was attempting to make something up?

A puzzling post of yours, regardless of any other post of yours.

Regards, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

Your post seems to be a contentious rebuttal of my previous post, if this is so why?

I ask why because I thought I'd made it abundantly plain that I wasn't 100% sure of the details of anything I had included in that post of mine purely because I wasn't, which makes me wonder about the tenor of the whole of this post of yours, almost intimating that I was attempting to make something up?

A puzzling post of yours, regardless of any other post of yours.

Regards, ippy.

And yet he was right. How do you suggest jeremyp might have phrased his post pointing out that without puzzling you?

[Harrowby Hall]

Her husband is an intelligence agent working in the UK. I think he does work for the NSA. He's not under cover though.

I think that you may be missing the point ... the suggestion is that it is she who is the spook - his status is a deliberate distraction.

[jeremyp]

Your post seems to be a contentious rebuttal of my previous post, if this is so why?

There's nothing contentious about it. US citizens have been extradited to the UK. Your previous post asserted a commonly held but false myth.

I ask why because I thought I'd made it abundantly plain that I wasn't 100% sure of the details of anything

And I had already made the same statement in response to somebody else's post. You either failed to read it or ignored it because it didn't fit with your preconceptions.

[jeremyp]

I think that you may be missing the point ... the suggestion is that it is she who is the spook - his status is a deliberate distraction.

I know what the contention is. I was just saying there is a very small kernel of truth in it. Or, if you like, it would be extremely stupid to be an under cover NSA agent when your husband is an overt NSA agent and what does it achieve anyway? The Americans are joint operators of that RAF base. Why would they need to spy on it?