It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One way special relationship? The disgusting behaviour of the US government!

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Do please put "in my opinion" for this ridiculous infantile condescending tirade. Its not for you to ask rhetorical questions as to what she should be charged with before displaying your opinion, that is not how the justice system works! We do not let murderers off based on an individual's opinions reached based on 500word news articles, not bank robbers for the same reason. She SHOULD HAVE been charged with whatever relevant charge was warranted based on evidence and police investigation , THAT is how justice works! would you really have the audacity to make such a condescending comments if the parents were sat in front of you? Smh! Some ppl really should not be allowed a soapbox!




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Midnite247
a reply to: Boadicea

Do please put "in my opinion" for this ridiculous infantile condescending tirade. Its not for you to ask rhetorical questions as to what she should be charged with before displaying your opinion, that is not how the justice system works! We do not let murderers off based on an individual's opinions reached based on 500word news articles, not bank robbers for the same reason.


Indeed.


She SHOULD HAVE been charged with whatever relevant charge was warranted based on evidence and police investigation...


And what the hell are those??? How can you even pretend to cry about justice when you have no freaking idea what -- if any -- crime was committed? You don't even know that a crime was committed!!! But somehow you know that she "SHOULD HAVE" been charged with a crime... And you think your faux outrage equals justice???

Why the hell isn't anyone screaming at the British government??? Why is no one demanding a complete and thorough investigation? Why is no one demanding full public disclosure of the results of a complete and thorough investigation? Why is no one demanding that any and all appropriate charges be filed? Why is no one demanding that the proper authorities make a formal request/demand for extradition? Why is no one demanding reform of diplomatic immunity that makes this the law?


THAT is how justice works! would you really have the audacity to make such a condescending comments if the parents were sat in front of you? Smh!


If I were given the opportunity, I would AGREE WITH THEM with all my heart that their government officials had let them down terribly, and then our government let them down terribly, and I would suggest to them that they take full advantage of their voice and their platform to DEMAND of their government exactly what I listed above. I would tell them that BOTH our governments suck, and that their best bet for what little justice they can hope for would be via the civil courts for a wrongful death. And I would encourage them to find a way to honor and memorialize their son that has nothing to do with his death and this #show, because their son deserves to be remembered and memorialized for his life -- for himself -- NOT his death, much less the craptastic mess others have made of it.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot


The point being she has used diplomatic immunity to avoid any proper investigation or potential trial.


I have already stated that I don't like how this has been and is being handled. Including that this woman is being vilified for unspecified "crimes".

How has her departure impeded a proper investigation? She has already spoken to authorities, so at least seemingly cooperating with authorities. If necessary, and if consented to, they could have additional conversations via phone. (Or she may invoke her right to say nothing at all) Her flight in no way affects the scene of the accident. Unless she took the vehicle with her, she has not prevented inspection of the vehicle. I have not heard that any/all witnesses were also spirited out with her.

As far as a potential trial, for what? What crime have authorities determined she committed? The presumption is that she is guilty of some crime... or at least that there is reasonable suspicion warranting a trial... but for what? Why are the authorities in England not making the legal and criminal points crystal clear?


If a genuine accident fair enough, if she has been driving in dangerous manner then then she be tried just as anyone else would be.


And it's the "if" that's the problem for me at this point. No one has even asserted that a crime has been committed, or any criminal liability at all!!! If authorities had determined she was criminally liable, then I would expect that we would be hearing exactly that. But we're not.

Nor do I see any reasonable or legal argument for why the longstanding rules and protocols of diplomatic immunity should be waived in this particular situation. I seriously doubt this is the first such accident to ever take place; how were previous such accidents handled? Is the handling of this accident setting a new precedent? Or is this the standard procedure? Beyond Boris Johnson's rabble rousing, have the appropriate officials made a formal request for her to return? The victim's family certainly isn't happy with the way British authorities have handled it either.

Trump has stated that he will try to facilitate a meeting between the two families. I would strongly suggest that the victim's family find a good civil lawyer and sue her in civil court. I'm pretty sure that's the best "justice" they can hope for in their situation.


What she is or is not guilty of is largely irrelevant at this point.

What is relevant is that she has used, or been made to use, diplomatic immunity to avoid the legal process that any normal person would go through.

Despite the claims made in this thread diplomatic immunity is rarely abused for serious crimes and certainly not between long standing allies.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Midnite247
a reply to: Boadicea

Do please put "in my opinion" for this ridiculous infantile condescending tirade. Its not for you to ask rhetorical questions as to what she should be charged with before displaying your opinion, that is not how the justice system works! We do not let murderers off based on an individual's opinions reached based on 500word news articles, not bank robbers for the same reason.


Indeed.


She SHOULD HAVE been charged with whatever relevant charge was warranted based on evidence and police investigation...


And what the hell are those??? How can you even pretend to cry about justice when you have no freaking idea what -- if any -- crime was committed? You don't even know that a crime was committed!!! But somehow you know that she "SHOULD HAVE" been charged with a crime... And you think your faux outrage equals justice???

Why the hell isn't anyone screaming at the British government??? Why is no one demanding a complete and thorough investigation? Why is no one demanding full public disclosure of the results of a complete and thorough investigation? Why is no one demanding that any and all appropriate charges be filed? Why is no one demanding that the proper authorities make a formal request/demand for extradition? Why is no one demanding reform of diplomatic immunity that makes this the law?


THAT is how justice works! would you really have the audacity to make such a condescending comments if the parents were sat in front of you? Smh!


If I were given the opportunity, I would AGREE WITH THEM with all my heart that their government officials had let them down terribly, and then our government let them down terribly, and I would suggest to them that they take full advantage of their voice and their platform to DEMAND of their government exactly what I listed above. I would tell them that BOTH our governments suck, and that their best bet for what little justice they can hope for would be via the civil courts for a wrongful death. And I would encourage them to find a way to honor and memorialize their son that has nothing to do with his death and this #show, because their son deserves to be remembered and memorialized for his life -- for himself -- NOT his death, much less the craptastic mess others have made of it.


Nice rant but since the UK police and the UK government have requested that immunity was waived and the US government has refused this is entirely on the US.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


What she is or is not guilty of is largely irrelevant at this point.


To the extent that this is far more to do with government officials and their laws/policies/procedures, I definitely agree. And that is where the ire and outrage need to be focused.


What is relevant is that she has used, or been made to use, diplomatic immunity to avoid the legal process that any normal person would go through.


Then "she" is not relevant either. What is relevant is that diplomatic immunity has been used by a foreign government to avoid the legal process, possibly including criminal prosecution.

Except "she" is relevant to the extent that there should be some civil recourse available for the family. It is possible for her to be held civilly liable, but not criminally liable.

And maybe part of administering diplomatic immunity protocol should be some kind of victim compensation fund for exactly this kind of situation.


Despite the claims made in this thread diplomatic immunity is rarely abused for serious crimes and certainly not between long standing allies.


Then we need to see that data, specific cases, and the appropriate authorities need to account for why the special treatment in this case.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   
There is like what..a dozen threads on this subject already?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot


What she is or is not guilty of is largely irrelevant at this point.


To the extent that this is far more to do with government officials and their laws/policies/procedures, I definitely agree. And that is where the ire and outrage need to be focused.


What is relevant is that she has used, or been made to use, diplomatic immunity to avoid the legal process that any normal person would go through.


Then "she" is not relevant either. What is relevant is that diplomatic immunity has been used by a foreign government to avoid the legal process, possibly including criminal prosecution.

Except "she" is relevant to the extent that there should be some civil recourse available for the family. It is possible for her to be held civilly liable, but not criminally liable.

And maybe part of administering diplomatic immunity protocol should be some kind of victim compensation fund for exactly this kind of situation.


Despite the claims made in this thread diplomatic immunity is rarely abused for serious crimes and certainly not between long standing allies.


Then we need to see that data, specific cases, and the appropriate authorities need to account for why the special treatment in this case.


If she committed a criminal offence in the UK She should face criminal charges in the UK. The family should not have to go through the expense and inconvenience of a civil case on top of everything else.

The US government has the ability to waive the immunity, since this is fairly clearly not a case of an unfriendly government attempting coercion I see no valid reason not to.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


Nice rant but since the UK police and the UK government have requested that immunity was waived and the US government has refused this is entirely on the US.


As I understand it, there are specific people and channels to go through for a formal request to waive extradition, and the request of the police department is not considered a formal or official request. But I guess take it with a grain of salt. I don't remember where I read that now. I thought it was in a BBC article, but I'm not seeing it in there now.

If there was such an official request made, I have not seen any report of it. The family stated they were told by Raab that the US would probably not waive immunity, and the family felt like it was just a "publicity stunt." But no mention of an official request was made.

I suspect that the local police do have reason to believe there was criminal negligence, if not recklessness or worse -- in other words, some reasonable suspicion that she was criminally liable. I think that's why they pushed it, most likely without support or cooperation from higher levels. (I give them credit for that!)

Let the investigation continue, and make it public. I doubt she will ever face criminal prosecution for anything. But definitely give it all to the boy's family for civil litigation purposes!!!

We're being played by government and by the media. But it's all emotional manipulation at best, and emotional blackmail at worst.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
There is like what..a dozen threads on this subject already?



Which is far less than Trump Impeachment Threads.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot


Nice rant but since the UK police and the UK government have requested that immunity was waived and the US government has refused this is entirely on the US.


As I understand it, there are specific people and channels to go through for a formal request to waive extradition, and the request of the police department is not considered a formal or official request. But I guess take it with a grain of salt. I don't remember where I read that now. I thought it was in a BBC article, but I'm not seeing it in there now.

If there was such an official request made, I have not seen any report of it. The family stated they were told by Raab that the US would probably not waive immunity, and the family felt like it was just a "publicity stunt." But no mention of an official request was made.

I suspect that the local police do have reason to believe there was criminal negligence, if not recklessness or worse -- in other words, some reasonable suspicion that she was criminally liable. I think that's why they pushed it, most likely without support or cooperation from higher levels. (I give them credit for that!)

Let the investigation continue, and make it public. I doubt she will ever face criminal prosecution for anything. But definitely give it all to the boy's family for civil litigation purposes!!!

We're being played by government and by the media. But it's all emotional manipulation at best, and emotional blackmail at worst.


Both the foreign office and the police have requested that it be waived. I very much doubt There,i is any other process to followed but if you can show me there is I am happy to be corrected.

Yes, the media like to use emotional stories to sell. However on this case the facts don't seem to be in dispute. A person with diplomatic immunity has avoided possible prosecution in a case involving the death of a young man. Whether it was a genuine unavoidable accident, careless driving or dangerous driving we don't know. But as it stands we won't know as it can't go via the correct legal process.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

They can investigate and get the facts. Why would immunity be waived when they have no evidence of actual wrongdoing yet?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




they have no evidence of actual wrongdoing yet?


There is CCTV footage showing she was on the wrong side of the road.




'The police have the CCTV footage showing that she pulled out of the RAF base on to the wrong side of the road. Harry had no chance'. Mrs Charles told Sky News: 'She travelled on 350 to 400 yards on the wrong side of the road. It was a head-on collision - we later lost him in hospital


www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ScepticScot

They can investigate and get the facts. Why would immunity be waived when they have no evidence of actual wrongdoing yet?


Because under UK law ( similar to US) She would have to be formally interviewed under caution and potentially charged. This can not currently be done.

The point is she is getting to avoid the normal process that anyone else (UK or US citizen) would go through.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I really don't understand the problem here, a person died in suspicious circumstances and the person responsible left the country during a formal investigation. If I knocked someone down with cctv footage showing such and disappeared I would be a wanted suspect. I think anyone who doesn't get that or excuses thst is really just trolling



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Midnite247
a reply to: ScepticScot

I really don't understand the problem here, a person died in suspicious circumstances and the person responsible left the country during a formal investigation. If I knocked someone down with cctv footage showing such and disappeared I would be a wanted suspect. I think anyone who doesn't get that or excuses thst is really just trolling


Exactly. In these circumstances why should this person get such special protection that is not available to most people.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Midnite247
a reply to: ScepticScot

I really don't understand the problem here, a person died in suspicious circumstances and the person responsible left the country during a formal investigation. If I knocked someone down with cctv footage showing such and disappeared I would be a wanted suspect. I think anyone who doesn't get that or excuses thst is really just trolling

Diplomatic immunity. Do you have it? Do an investigation, show it was not an accident. I will be on board to ship her back.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ScepticScot

They can investigate and get the facts. Why would immunity be waived when they have no evidence of actual wrongdoing yet?


Because under UK law ( similar to US) She would have to be formally interviewed under caution and potentially charged. This can not currently be done.

The point is she is getting to avoid the normal process that anyone else (UK or US citizen) would go through.


That is the whole point of diplomatic immunity. She's not going to tell you jack either way, do an investigation. Don't tell me you can't do one, that's BS.

What can you do with her there not talking that you can't do with her here not talking, and why?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Per that article they won't let her be interviewed. Charge her. If they think they can get a conviction tell the US we want her to be charged, not interviewed. What point is an interview with her lawyer saying 'my client has no comment'.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Midnite247
a reply to: ScepticScot

I really don't understand the problem here, a person died in suspicious circumstances and the person responsible left the country during a formal investigation. If I knocked someone down with cctv footage showing such and disappeared I would be a wanted suspect. I think anyone who doesn't get that or excuses thst is really just trolling

Diplomatic immunity. Do you have it? Do an investigation, show it was not an accident. I will be on board to ship her back.


The police are investigating. If they asking for immunity to be waived there is very least enough to interview her under caution.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ScepticScot

They can investigate and get the facts. Why would immunity be waived when they have no evidence of actual wrongdoing yet?


Because under UK law ( similar to US) She would have to be formally interviewed under caution and potentially charged. This can not currently be done.

The point is she is getting to avoid the normal process that anyone else (UK or US citizen) would go through.


That is the whole point of diplomatic immunity. She's not going to tell you jack either way, do an investigation. Don't tell me you can't do one, that's BS.

What can you do with her there not talking that you can't do with her here not talking, and why?


Why should she get special treatment when the incident has absolutely nothing to with who she us married to?

If you did this you would not get to just walk away from any responsibilty.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join