Warning: politics

"dogisbadob" (dogisbadob) 12/23/2013 at 22:04 • Filed to: None

0

13

sdfhgsdfgjksfdhjerjgdmfbvxzvfdsmngbdsfmbgjhsgbshdfgbsjsdfg

plaeholder text

OK, here we go

Can we get rid of diplomatic immunity already?

davedave1111 > dogisbadob 12/23/2013 at 22:07

0

No. Like other things which can be abused - the presumption of innocence, free speech, and so-on - it's an essential part of the system.

Manuél Ferrari > davedave1111 12/23/2013 at 22:12

0

Yeah. Our gov would not want to get rid of it. It sucks when foreign diplomats break laws over here. But our gov officials need protection when in other countries. Especially countries where the laws are sketchy or change frequently

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > dogisbadob 12/23/2013 at 22:14

0

There is good reason for these rules. However, these rules have been abused forever, but like I said, there is a purpose for them.

dogisbadob > Manuél Ferrari 12/23/2013 at 22:15

0

Too fucking bad.

NOBODY should be above the law, period.

When you're in the US, you're under US law. When you're in China, you're under Chinese law.

The whole kings that step outside their kingdom thing.

Manuél Ferrari > dogisbadob 12/23/2013 at 22:20

0

But how would you feel if one of our diplomats who did nothing wrong was put in jail in China as retaliation for something unrelated to that person? That's why the laws are there. The foreign country could make some BS up and arrest our diplomat on trumped up charges.

dogisbadob > Manuél Ferrari 12/23/2013 at 22:23

0

Well then maybe we shouldn't have diplomatic relations with those countries. If they do decide to change, or at least claim to do so, then they can meet on neutral territory.

And anyway, labor laws should NOT be subject to immunity anyway. There should be some heavy limits.

dogisbadob > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 12/23/2013 at 22:24

0

At the very minimum, we need strict limits. And it definitely shouldn't apply to labor/employment laws.

GhostZ > dogisbadob 12/23/2013 at 22:25

0

Kings that step outside of their kingdom bring an army with them. We've just made an agreement that lets us leave the army at home, but provides the same threat. That's all diplomatic immunity is, a way to cut down on troop transfer costs.

Manuél Ferrari > dogisbadob 12/23/2013 at 22:28

0

That would be ideal, if it was practical. But our government needs the ability to place diplomats in sketchy countries. The work they do in sketchy countries is really important, probably more important than the work in first world countries with democratic laws

Icemanmaybeirunoutofthetalents > dogisbadob 12/23/2013 at 23:14

0

Eh. It exists for a reason. As for this case? There's a ton of stuff that isn't being reported.

davedave1111 > dogisbadob 12/24/2013 at 07:05

0

Bear in mind that as long as the charges aren't trumped-up, any serious crime will see diplomatic immunity lifted - because otherwise it's not impossible that diplomatic relations will indeed be cut off.

It's really only parking fines and visa crap and other minor stuff that diplomats flout, and not even all of them do that. Is it ideal? No. Is it a price worth paying? Yes.

davedave1111 > Manuél Ferrari 12/24/2013 at 07:05

0

You have somewhat more faith than I do that the US has or would never abuse it.

Manuél Ferrari > davedave1111 12/24/2013 at 08:19

0

I don't really have faith that it wouldn't. I just can see why it wouldn't want to give diplomatic immunity up.