US diplomat's wife flees home claiming diplomatic immunity after fatal collision

splinter65

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I presume its a matter of going through the motions. I can't see any indication of the UK pushing for her extradition so far and I can't see the US volunteering to hand her over either.

But, this is the path the family has chosen to go down - perpetual legal battles, talk shows, either run out of money or sell whatever they have to keep the fight going, probably set up a charity to fund the fight (I'm not suggesting they're doing any this for money or personal fame) people telling them they're dead right but nobody having the heart to tell them that it's almost certainly never going to have the result they want.

On the other hand, they're a couple of months after their son's death so this would be the point at which people have grieved and things would be getting back to normality.

It's very sad.

While I agree in totality with the first 2 paragraphs of this post I’m afraid that the last paragraph is one of the most misinformed comments I’ve ever read on boards.
If you think that any parent who has lost a child, particularly in such a sudden violent way, would be
“getting back to normality” after 2 months then you are completely out of touch with reality.
Not after 2 years never mind 2 months.
You never really get back to “normality” in fact.
Your “normality” in time, a very long time, will be a totally different normality to that that you knew before your child’s life was extinguished in a fleeting moment which changed your life forever.
I’ve heard so many bereaved people say that well meaning folk telling them in so many words that they should really be over it by now, or trying to pretend that it never happened, has just heaped more misery on them.
But for the rest your absolutely spot on and you see it so often. Currently I see the mother of a sqauddie in the UK who went missing in 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Corrie_McKeague
persisting in refusing to accept that her lovely boy got into a wheelie bin for a sleep during a rowdy night on the town, and that he was crushed to death in the bin lorry and his remains cannot now be recovered.
Instead of trying to deal with the tragedy, including the whole back story, she chooses to conduct a pointless baseless feud with the investigating police force and further aggravate the bitter relationship with the father of her son. Anything to avoid facing reality.

El_Duderino 09

splinter65 wrote: »

While I agree in totality with the first 2 paragraphs of this post I’m afraid that the last paragraph is one of the most misinformed comments I’ve ever read on boards.
If you think that any parent who has lost a child, particularly in such a sudden violent way, would be
“getting back to normality” after 2 months then you are completely out of touch with reality.
Not after 2 years never mind 2 months.
You never really get back to “normality” in fact.
Your “normality” in time, a very long time, will be a totally different normality to that that you knew before your child’s life was extinguished in a fleeting moment which changed your life forever.
I’ve heard so many bereaved people say that well meaning folk telling them in so many words that they should really be over it by now, or trying to pretend that it never happened, has just heaped more misery on them.
But for the rest your absolutely spot on and you see it so often. Currently I see the mother of a sqauddie in the UK who went missing in 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Corrie_McKeague
persisting in refusing to accept that her lovely boy got into a wheelie bin for a sleep during a rowdy night on the town, and that he was crushed to death in the bin lorry and his remains cannot now be recovered.
Instead of trying to deal with the tragedy, including the whole back story, she chooses to conduct a pointless baseless feud with the investigating police force and further aggravate the bitter relationship with the father of her son. Anything to avoid facing reality.

I mean they'd be beginning to come to terms with the new reality that their son is gone and life is going on regardless. Other people are going about their lives and life is going to continue.

The clinical definition of depression makes an exception for for bereavement for up to 3 months (I think). And up to that point the normal bereavement grieving process could look like depression. But life does go on. And people begin to get used to the new reality (not to say things go back to the way they were before but they would begin to find a new normality).

Very sad about that woman you mentioned too. The real question to ask is what they actually want from this process.

splinter65

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I mean they'd be beginning to come to terms with the new reality that their son is gone and life is going on regardless. Other people are going about their lives and life is going to continue.

The clinical definition of depression makes an exception for for bereavement for up to 3 months (I think). And up to that point the normal bereavement grieving process could look like depression. But life does go on. And people begin to get used to the new reality (not to say things go back to the way they were before but they would begin to find a new normality).

Very sad about that woman you mentioned too. The real question to ask is what they actually want from this process.

I think the squaddies mother knows that if she finally accepts that her son was so lacking in any self control that he had developed a habit of getting into wheelie bins when he was drunk (he’d done it before) , then she will have to then reflect on his whole childhood and teenage years which appears to have been ridden with marital strife and bitterness and resentment and much moving around.
It’s much easier to make the police the bogeyman who didn’t care enough about Corrie, and hint at skulduggery of all kinds, than accept that your child didn’t have a very happy childhood which may or may not have resulted in him developing coping mechanisms which led to him making very bad decisions.
Harry Dunn’s mother wants the woman that killed her son to suffer the same pain as she is suffering. She doesn’t realise that that will not make her pain one jot less.

El_Duderino 09

splinter65 wrote: »

I think the squaddies mother knows that if she finally accepts that her son was so lacking in any self control that he had developed a habit of getting into wheelie bins when he was drunk (he’d done it before) , then she will have to then reflect on his whole childhood and teenage years which appears to have been ridden with marital strife and bitterness and resentment and much moving around.
It’s much easier to make the police the bogeyman who didn’t care enough about Corrie, and hint at skulduggery of all kinds, than accept that your child didn’t have a very happy childhood which may or may not have resulted in him developing coping mechanisms which led to him making very bad decisions.
Harry Dunn’s mother wants the woman that killed her son to suffer the same pain as she is suffering. She doesn’t realise that that will not make her pain one jot less.

I don't claim to know anything about that squaddies mother. But I really doubt either her or the Dunn parents know what they want from the process. I imagine they want “justice” but I doubt they would be able to be any more precise than that. In truth I imagine they’re hiding from the normal grieving process.

Borris Johnson is on a PR trip visiting British troops in Estonia and he said he’ll petition the US government to have her sent to Britain to face trial. It doesn’t sound like she has to go to the uk and there’s absolutely no way Johnson will seriously ask. He has a trade deal to negotiate and asking trump for a Haas I’ve concession would mean the uk would have to make a massive concession somewhere else - like the trade deal. So the UK government has absolutely no intention to even ask for yer wan to be extradited. It's all a pantomime.

Here's a story about the Dunn family being "baffled" by yer wan's lawyer. They may get used to being baffled because the lawyer's job is to deflect from reality and make sure she never goes to the UK.

https://news.sky.com/story/harry-dunn-family-say-comments-by-anne-sacoolass-lawyer-deeply-disturbing-11892116

osarusan

Extradition request for Anne Sacoolas is rejected.

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo turned down the extradition request in an email to the UK Government on Thursday evening.

Washington said granting the request would "render the invocation of diplomatic immunity a practical nullity".

splinter65

Does anyone else think that the BBC have somewhat hijacked this tragedy to an extent in order to further their clear agenda against the Trump administration ? Are they paying for the American solicitor the Dunns have engaged? This morning on Breakfast he managed to turn this very predictable latest turn of events into a deliberate attempt by Trump to scupper the relationship between UK and US.
As if Trump could do anything about it.
This story is going nowhere and I’m afraid Mrs Dunn in particular is going to be very disappointed when all the efforts end in failure.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

Does anyone else think that the BBC have somewhat hijacked this tragedy to an extent in order to further their clear agenda against the Trump administration ? Are they paying for the American solicitor the Dunns have engaged? This morning on Breakfast he managed to turn this very predictable latest turn of events into a deliberate attempt by Trump to scupper the relationship between UK and US.
As if Trump could do anything about it.
This story is going nowhere and I’m afraid Mrs Dunn in particular is going to be very disappointed when all the efforts end in failure.

you mean there is nothing he can do about it? he is powerless?

Billy Mays

Well he did try to set up that "Surprise Surprise" moment when he had Sacoolas waiting in the next room to meet the young lad's parents

El_Duderino 09

osarusan wrote: »

Extradition request for Anne Sacoolas is rejected.

Yeah that's the template. The UK asks as it's entitled to do and the US rejects as it's entitled to do.

Even if the woman volunteered to go and face the charges, the US would do whatever it can to prevent her from doing so. The precedent would undermine the whole principle of diplomatic Immunity.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean there is nothing he can do about it? he is powerless?

Do you think that the POTUS can just overturn laws and statutes etc?!? Just like that?!

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

Does anyone else think that the BBC have somewhat hijacked this tragedy to an extent in order to further their clear agenda against the Trump administration ?

Paranoia alert...

Are they paying for the American solicitor the Dunns have engaged?

Ludicrous, conspiracy theory nonsense.

splinter65 wrote: »

Do you think that the POTUS can just overturn laws and statutes etc?!? Just like that?!

Nothing to do with overturning laws, Sec of State has discretion and can be instructed to use it - or not.

Tom Mann Centuria

Harry's family UK legal team want the UK government to ask interpol to put her on the red list, so if she travelled outside the US she could be arrested and extradition sought from there. Not going to happen (she won't leave the US again, and government probably won't request it) but I'm glad they are keeping the pressure up.

Hotblack Desiato

It's pretty depressing how the religious types stand behind Trump even though he's a thoroughly reprehensible human being. Faith before morals.

El_Duderino 09

The Dunne family in the news every few days with the same story over and over.

This time it’s the state department refusing to meet with them.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7963377/US-state-department-lawyers-refuse-meet-Harry-Dunns-parents.html

Poor divils. This is their life for the foreseeable future. Desperately sad. Anyone egging them on to continue this futile fight is really not their friend.

Yurt2

To my knowledge, Irish diplomats are pretty well behaved and have never got in any major scrapes. You'd wonder how the Irish government would react in a situation like this

Weepsie

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah that's the template. The UK asks as it's entitled to do and the US rejects as it's entitled to do.

Even if the woman volunteered to go and face the charges, the US would do whatever it can to prevent her from doing so. The precedent would undermine the whole principle of diplomatic Immunity.

They deserve to be undermined. Whatever about when doing official duties or doing certain cultural practices, but when going about civilian activity, one should not be immune,

El_Duderino 09

Weepsie wrote: »

They deserve to be undermined. Whatever about when doing official duties or doing certain cultural practices, but when going about civilian activity, one should not be immune,

That may be true but it’s not the view governments take. And nothing is going to happen on the Dunn incident because there’s absolutely no will to undermine the convention by either the US or UK.

To be fair though, for a spy/diplomat, there is no difference between official duties and private life. Treating work and private life differently would instantly undermine the whole convention.

Hotblack Desiato

I wonder if you'd have been telling the families of 14 victims in Derry that their search for justice was pointless, too.

El_Duderino 09

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I wonder if you'd have been telling the families of 14 victims in Derry that their search for justice was pointless, too.

Fair question but obviously very different circumstances.

This is one diplomat who has completely legitimate immunity from prosecution (that applies whether you like the idea of diplomat immunity or not)

There’s no need for any kind of cover up in this case. She’s entitled to avoid the uk law abd she’s doing it. Soldiers don’t have any such immunity so it’s not actually a close analogy.

Interpol have issued a Red Notice

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1259881425966333952?s=21

What is a red notice?

A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. It contains two main types of information: ... Information related to the crime they are wanted for, which can typically be murder, rape, child abuse or armed robbery

Donald Trump

Weepsie wrote: »

They deserve to be undermined. Whatever about when doing official duties or doing certain cultural practices, but when going about civilian activity, one should not be immune,

Diplomatic immunity should not be abused. But for it to mean anything, it has to be absolute unless and until revoked by the nation whose citizen is availing of it while representing them. It has to be that way in order for it to serve it's purpose



The problem in this case is that the US appear to be, as they say in diplomatic circles, acting the cunt.

El_Duderino 09

Donald Trump wrote: »

Diplomatic immunity should not be abused. But for it to mean anything, it has to be absolute unless and until revoked by the nation whose citizen is availing of it while representing them. It has to be that way in order for it to serve it's purpose



The problem in this case is that the US appear to be, as they say in diplomatic circles, acting the cunt.

That's what any normal person would think. But diplomatic immunity wouldn't work if they revoked it and allowed one of their people to face justice in the host country. Whether she was actually a spy or if they just made her a spy after the event to confer diplomatic immunity, is irrelevant.

The precedent of revoking diplomatic immunity is just too big a step to even seriously consider. And that's one reason why nobody has even suggested they're considering it.

Donald Trump

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's what any normal person would think. But diplomatic immunity wouldn't work if they revoked it and allowed one of their people to face justice in the host country. Whether she was actually a spy or if they just made her a spy after the event to confer diplomatic immunity, is irrelevant.

The precedent of revoking diplomatic immunity is just too big a step to even seriously consider. And that's one reason why nobody has even suggested they're considering it.

Revoking/waiving diplomatic immunity is not without precedent in general. It might be for the US though!

Thelonious Monk

How did she turn into Ricky Gervais in that picture?

wildeside

It's unlikely you'll see this covered very much in mainstream news media but the person is question is a CIA agent. That is why she will not be extradited.

https://youtu.be/E6N-BzyhU3U

Edward Snowden was a "diplomatic attaché" in Europe while working with the NSA.

This type of cover is pretty standard and not some whackjob conspiracy theory (I mean you're hardly gonna write CIA/NSA operative on your business card are you? )

Quotations

wildeside wrote: »

(I mean you're hardly gonna write CIA/NSA operative on your business card are you? )

I don't know..........the donald probably would and he's el presidente.