posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:21 AM
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Hence the reason they are granted qualified immunity from their actions (Judge, Prosecutor or member of government). If they break the law there are
mechanisms in place to deal with it and it usually requires the person to be removed from their position before criminal action can be taken.
As for Diplomatic immunity there are differing levels of it, depending on position and classification. While the general thought it Diplomats have
immunity, which they do, its not absolute. Diplomatic Immunity does not grant the person the right to break the laws of the country they are in.
Diplomatic Immunity can be waived by the diplomats home country for local prosecution.
Depending on the crime committed a Diplomat can be held by law enforcement and requires immediate notice to the State Department.
As an example if our government did not have certain immunities then we would most likely see the opposing party forcing an agenda via lawsuits.
In this particular thread immunity gives way to not individuals, but different branches of government going at each other. Congress trying to exercise
its Congressional oversight and the Executive with its authority to execute the laws / prosecute for it.
I am still lost as to why Obama thinks he can invoke EP on documents the courts already ordered released.