Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Diplomatic immunity :(
While I am well aware of the origins of the diplomatic immunity concept in Europe's fairly dark nationalistic history the fact that these men will see no justice for what happened to them really distresses me. You have a tyrannical government in power using inhuman methods to extract information from suspects*. We are not talking of some plot to allow us to imprison the ambassador from a country we dislike. However it would set a dangerous precedent. I'm sure very few of us would like to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad putting Carmen Electra on trial for getting her kit off. That said we are all signatories of the UN charter of human rights, surely there is some legal standpoint from which to approach cases like these without the blanket clause of "diplomatic immunity". *and it's called the USA am i rite? |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Innocent British civilians have been tortured in a foreign country.
We've gone to war for less than that before :( |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
I was under the impression that diplomatic immunity didnt make you above all law, indeed you could still be held accountable under law from your original country, though i must admit i dont actually know (yahwe dont hurt me :().
At the very least, individuals with diplomatic immunity could be still be sent out of the country - countries always have that right. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
The problem isnt diplomatic immunity as such - it serves the purpose of allowing civilised countries to negotiate without fearing for their embassies. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is not a civilised country, and shouldn't be treated as if it were. Extendint diplomatic immunity to SA is wholly unnecessary.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of immunity anyway. A more reasonable solution would be to formally agree on a list of crimes officials can be held accountable for (murder, rape, etc) and make exceptions for these. I believe that this is often what happens in practice anyway, with some countries (eg) waiving immunity if theyre diplomat does something that's obviously stupid. But in any case, there is no justification for extending immunity to countries whose officials are likely to abuse it - if a country isnt relatively respectful of human rights domestically, there is no reason for believing its representatives will be either. The same considerations apply to the Geneva convention, and all other pieces of international law which were perhaps originally intended to be agreements between relative equals, but have since been extended to cover other countries regardless of their actual policies. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
This has nothing to do with Diplomatic Immunity :(
What it is about is whether this act http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/...s/rp04038.html contravenes this act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm (the house decided that it did not) I haven't read the judgement but I am not surprised at the decision. If any of you want to read the judgement it it is here http://www.publications.parliament.u...14/jones-1.htm EDIT: all 5 law lords were in agreement which is usually a pretty good indication that the decision was a good one |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
Good? Or 'correct'? I don't think there is much good in this judgement. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
The issue was a question of state immunity not of diplomatic immunity. Basicly the concept is that you can't sue the government without its permission. This concept is extended to agents of the state who are acting on the state's behalf.
The plaintiffs were denied the right to sue for money. There was never a question of any criminal liability. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Why can't they sue the state for money? Has nobody ever been wrongfully imprisoned and felt they deserved something for the wasted years of their life before?
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
It was a idea that was thought up by kings and it has to do with the concept of soverignty. It you sue in the name of the king it is difficult to sue the king. Most governments have enjoyed the concept so much that they have adopted it even though they were sans royalty (i.e. USA). However, the soverign can ALLOW you to sue if, when and under the conditions which it determines are fitting.
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
My proposition is that that way of thinking is outdated and rather immoral.
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
There is an international treaty which all (probably there are exceptions such as the 'republic of wallanificania' but essantially all) nations have signed saying that each nation's domestic courts will not entertain actions against other nation states. so the US courts will not allow US citizens to sue The United Kingdom, German courts will not allow Germans to sue China etc. etc. et al. Each signitary nation then enacts that treaty as part of it's domestic law. In the UK that is the 1978 State Immunity Act (the one I linked to) All of this is essential for diplomacy to thrive. this particular rather silly case was about whether the treaty (as enshrined in statute) was incompatible with the human rights act. Diplomacy is never out-dated. Morality is a luxury granted only to historians. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
We (UK) could have given them a decent package and still saved money against all those rulings. :confused:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
lawyers and diplomats are the reason that you can have morals. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
you should buy shares in it then
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
I'm sure you know best.
You certainly seem to think you do. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Dismissive sarcastic response #17.
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
The next time you need help understanding the law I'm sure i'll be very keen to spend my time helping you out
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
This thread made me want to shoot a South African.
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
insults using algorithyms, i like it.
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
PS. I didn't read much further than the 'bat revelation', but thought we might as well discuss. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
how curious. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
What do you disagree with? |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
|
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
my mistake was assuming that you bothered to try to understand the religion you belong to. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
More generally though, I'd say morality underpins all structures of human behaviour. So a law is developed over years, possibly from earlier customs or rituals or whatever. But at it's essence rules generally seem to reflect some idea of fairness or reasonableness - not just raw utility. We punish people who have done wrong not just to stop future wrong action but because justice, in some sense, demands it. In that sense, I don't really see what difference (to an outside observer) it would make whether our responses were "pre-programmed" (albeit in a staggeringly complicated way) or not to this conception of fairness. If the evo-psyches are right that (say) this "punishment reflex" is biologically common to all humans in some sense would that make any difference? On the earlier argument, I don't really see what the issue is. If we didn't have laws or diplomats (or society more generally) it's very possible that instability would reign to the point where pontification about morality would be meaningless. At the same time, our laws (and societal structure generally) reflects our morality in the first place. |
Re: Remember the South African guy in Lethal Weapon II?
Quote:
PS Also after dante's humbling last paragraph I'd like to offer my sincere apologies to yahwe! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018