USA ambassador to Iceland wants a gun

VinLieger

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are US Marines stationed at the US Embassy in Dublin, I'd be kinda shocked if they don't have guns. Or the Ambassador, for that matter.

It's what we've come to expect from Americans.

LOL great false equivalence,

Firstly the US embassy is american soil so they can have whatever guns they want there.

Secondly when outside the embassy they are still members of foreign armed forces so need special permission from our department of defence to even wear their own uniforms let alone posess and carry their own weapons.

Thirdly he's a civilian and theres no need for him to carry a gun on his person in a country like Iceland where gun crime is virtually non existent.

Odhinn

Grab All Association wrote: »

https://twitter.com/yesmarkvalley/status/1287457572371353600?s=21

So the US ambassador to Iceland wants special permission from the Icelandic Government to carry a weapon. One of the safest countries in the world with a population of just 360,000 people.

A genuine fear for his safety or is just compensation for something not measuring up in his trousers?

A virus might turn the icelanders into savage viking cannibals, led by the dark queen herself - Bjork. You can't deny a man a gun with that possibility hanging over him.

Irishman80

Grab All Association wrote: »

https://twitter.com/yesmarkvalley/status/1287457572371353600?s=21

So the US ambassador to Iceland wants special permission from the Icelandic Government to carry a weapon. One of the safest countries in the world with a population of just 360,000 people.

A genuine fear for his safety or is just compensation for something not measuring up in his trousers?

What? Really? I can’t believe this is happening.

The US ambassador to Iceland asked for increased security and a gun.

I’m literally shaken here with anger. I don’t know if I’ll be able to sleep for the next few nights.

Timberrrrrrrr

Irishman80 wrote: »

What? Really? I can’t believe this is happening.

The US ambassador to Iceland asked for increased security and a gun.

I’m literally shaken here with anger. I don’t know if I’ll be able to sleep for the next few nights.

Read your post a few times, sure you'll be out like a light

Manic Moran

VinLieger wrote: »

L
Firstly the US embassy is american soil so they can have whatever guns they want there.

No, it's Irish soil. Irish law applies, so any major crimes such as murder will be investigated by the Gardai, likely under US supervision, presuming the US approves the investigation. See Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for the legal descriptions, see the Iranian Embassy Siege in London of the practical example of host nation law enforcement action, prosecution, and imprisonment.

There is a difference between the embassy's status as inviolate and a transfer of sovereignty.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are US Marines stationed at the US Embassy in Dublin, I'd be kinda shocked if they don't have guns. Or the Ambassador, for that matter.

It's what we've come to expect from Americans.

The ambassador wouldn't but his security probable do with permission.

Diplomatic immunity isn't the all powerful cloak it's made out to be.

VinLieger

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, it's Irish soil. Irish law applies, so any major crimes such as murder will be investigated by the Gardai, likely under US supervision, presuming the US approves the investigation. See Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for the legal descriptions, see the Iranian Embassy Siege in London of the practical example of host nation law enforcement action, prosecution, and imprisonment.

There is a difference between the embassy's status as inviolate and a transfer of sovereignty.

True, the armed forces and security personnel in the embassy still have access to guns though, however they cannot leave the embassy with those guns without specific permissions same with wearing a uniform outside the embassy or shannon airport.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

If Gunter gets a gnu, I want a gnu, too.

When you're ambassador to Iceland, you can have a gnu.

Overheal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

When you're ambassador to Iceland, you can have a gnu.

The Antelope?

Rodney Bathgate

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what makes you think they are unarmed?

Nothing. They would be pointless if they were unarmed. Of course they are armed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Overheal wrote: »

The Antelope?

They prefer to be idenfied as wildebeast.

Victor

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Nothing. They would be pointless if they were unarmed. Of course they are armed.

With out-sized pencils?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Victor wrote: »

With out-sized pencils?

Not if the pencils are pointless. That would be even more, eh - pointless.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem is in detecting it. You can't go about searching an ambassador to see if he's carrying a gun without violating diplomatic immunity or at the very least, causing an international incident. Unless he publicly announced or showed that he was wearing a firearm, it would be an extremely courageous move to search him for evidence that he's in breach of the law, even if the only recourse is expulsion and not prosecution.

There's no issue in taking police action against a diplomat on a case by case basis. They are not above the normal rules.

You cannot arrest within prior approval or it was unavoidable. You can never prosecute without prior permission from the DPP for a criminal offense

Traffic is not considered Criminal for this purpose so tickets can be issued, directions given and so on and so forth. Usually if I've acts up, their diplomatic permission or invitation or whstever it's called, is revoked. I daresay the us and Russia have had a few 'diplomatic staff' expelled over the years.

In reality though, diplomats aren't generally South African drug barons

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

There's no issue in taking police action against a diplomat on a case by case basis. They are not above the normal rules.

You cannot arrest within prior approval or it was unavoidable. You can never prosecute without prior permission from the DPP for a criminal offense

Traffic is not considered Criminal for this purpose so tickets can be issued, directions given and so on and so forth. Usually if I've acts up, their diplomatic permission or invitation or whstever it's called, is revoked. I daresay the us and Russia have had a few 'diplomatic staff' expelled over the years.

In reality though, diplomats aren't generally South African drug barons

Diplomatic immunity is what's it's called - and yes, it does stop police taking action. The diplomat in question is simply recalled if accusations likely to be true are made. (Not sure if it includes serious crimes, but I think they'll be dealt with in the diplomat's hoem country - open to correction though.)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Diplomatic immunity is what's it's called - and yes, it does stop police taking action. The diplomat in question is simply recalled if accusations likely to be true are made. (Not sure if it includes serious crimes, but I think they'll be dealt with in the diplomat's hoem country - open to correction though.)

It's too late to argue but no, it does not. By that rationale the diplomat could drive down the road mowing down children and shooting grannies through the window.

Hell, the embassadors driver could assassinate the president!

SnazzyPig

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Why should anybody in Ireland, or, more specifically in After Hours, care?

This seems to be a thing on Boards lately; asking why people on an information sharing platform are asking questions about something.

I would like to think it's just confusion but I doubt it.

Manic Moran

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's too late to argue but no, it does not. By that rationale the diplomat could drive down the road mowing down children and shooting grannies through the window.

Hell, the embassadors driver could assassinate the president!

Depends on if the ambassador's driver were accredited staff. My dad was an ambassador, we had immunity. The driver was a local hire, he did not.

I'm afraid, Niner, that the text of the convention disagrees with you. I would remind you of the case of Anne Sacoolas this year who killed a man in the UK and was protected under diplomatic immunity.

Article 29: The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

Article 31: A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State

These may be waived by the sending state, in the interests of goodwill. (Or if blackmailed by the receiving state to do so)

This is why all the traffic tickets in the world can be issued, but whether or not the diplomatic staff wish to pay it is up to them or their nation's policies. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-un-fines-newyork/diplomats-owe-17-mln-in-new-york-parking-fines-idUSLNE78N00D20110924

New York City is owed nearly $17 million in parking tickets issued to diplomats, a hefty amount that may have grown this week as world leaders gathered for the U.N. General Assembly.

The city’s Department of Finance said unpaid tickets totalled $16.7 million through the end of July. Egypt topped the list with $1.9 million in tickets, followed by Nigeria with about $1 million and Indonesia with about $725,000.

Tony EH

Strumms wrote: »

If Gunter gets a gnu, I want a gnu, too.

This is how it starts.

You want a gnu, somebody else will want a gnu. Then you'll want a bigger gnu and someone else will want an even bigger gnu...

It'll never end.

Tony EH

YellowBucket wrote: »

Iceland's not all that gun-free 30.3 guns per 100 ppl vs 8.6 here and 6.6 in the UK, but nobody has been shot in something like 11 or 12 years.

I'd say that's because most of those guns are hunting rifles and not people walking around with glocks that get pulled out because they get into an argument in a carpark.

Mr. Karate

YellowBucket wrote: »

Iceland's not all that gun-free 30.3 guns per 100 ppl vs 8.6 here and 6.6 in the UK, but nobody has been shot in something like 11 or 12 years.

Gee. Criminals don't like the prospect of being shot. Who didn't see that coming. That's why gun ban cities like Chicago are like warzones and open carry/concealed carry cities are safer and peaceful.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on if the ambassador's driver were accredited staff. My dad was an ambassador, we had immunity. The driver was a local hire, he did not.

I'm afraid, Niner, that the text of the convention disagrees with you. I would remind you of the case of Anne Sacoolas this year who killed a man in the UK and was protected under diplomatic immunity.

Article 29: The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

Article 31: A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State

These may be waived by the sending state, in the interests of goodwill. (Or if blackmailed by the receiving state to do so)

This is why all the traffic tickets in the world can be issued, but whether or not the diplomatic staff wish to pay it is up to them or their nation's policies. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-un-fines-newyork/diplomats-owe-17-mln-in-new-york-parking-fines-idUSLNE78N00D20110924

New York City is owed nearly $17 million in parking tickets issued to diplomats, a hefty amount that may have grown this week as world leaders gathered for the U.N. General Assembly.

The city’s Department of Finance said unpaid tickets totalled $16.7 million through the end of July. Egypt topped the list with $1.9 million in tickets, followed by Nigeria with about $1 million and Indonesia with about $725,000.

Ah, i see my typo. I meant the embassador himself. It was late.

I'm not really too worried about the UK and it's agreements. Ireland isn't a signatory of the un agreement by the way. Not that many countries actually are. I'm only referring to Ireland in this. As I said, that would mean the diplomat could go on a killing rampage while police watched. I know the UK have had a fair few issues with diplomatic staff over the years. Enough in my mind to change the whole system. Good only knows how much more isn't known.

Diplomatic immunity is against prosecution in Ireland. I can repeat it but it won't change. Prosecutions happen after investigations. Investigations may or may not involve arresting someone. That arrest may or may not require sanction and that sanction may or may not be given.

I'm not suggesting that it's common and I'm not suggesting that the dpp on reaching a decision won't need to consult with the home country. My entire point is that immunity does not have the absolute immunity that people think it does. I'm also not going to puff out my chest on the subject. If I stop a diplomat, he's going home unless it's absolutely out of my hands.

I also never said the tickets would be paid, I said they can be issued. The fact that they have been issued in new York shows that the police can in fact take action. The tickets in your article, while not paid, were still in force. Again, the idea that immunity is a complete blanket.

My limited experience is also where someone finds themselves in bother, they are called back before the bother becomes a situation but I'm not referring to anything really serious and let's be honest, it's not really in the interests of the embassy to be butting heads with the local police in the first place.

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Dimplomatic immunity only protects you from prosecution it doesn't allow you to go around on a crime spree with impunity which effectivley is what carrying a firearm would be, i.e. being constantly in breach of the law.

I think you’ll find that’s diplomatic immunity (always spoken with a South African accent btw)

Dimplomatic immunity means your offspring will never have chins like Cary Grant.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not if the pencils are pointless. That would be even more, eh - pointless.

Pencils with sharp points need to cum with rubbers for added protection

antix80

Grab All Association wrote: »

A genuine fear for his safety or is just compensation for something not measuring up in his trousers?

^^ Comments like this are absolute cringe.

Grow up.

Manic Moran

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm not really too worried about the UK and it's agreements. Ireland isn't a signatory of the un agreement by the way. Not that many countries actually are. I'm only referring to Ireland in this. As I said, that would mean the diplomat could go on a killing rampage while police watched. I know the UK have had a fair few issues with diplomatic staff over the years. Enough in my mind to change the whole system. Good only knows how much more isn't known.

I don’t know to which UN treaty you are referencing, but I was extracting from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Ireland was one of the first countries to sign, in 1961, and it was ratified by the Dail in 1967.

I would not expect a policeman to stand by while a diplomat goes on a killing spree. Stopping him, however, is a different matter to arrest and taking into legal custody. The Convention is clear and direct, he may not be arrested. You can sit on him if you have to, but can’t arrest him. I don’t know if Ireland’s domestic system makes a distinction between being detained and being arrested (such a distinction exists for police here in the US, for example). If not, then technically, if your paragraph following is correct, Ireland’s policies would be breach of the convention. Precedent internationally seems to be that nobody seems to hold arresting officers at fault for arresting a diplomat under an honest belief, as long as suitable apologies and an immediate release follow. That does not, however, bootstrap the initial arrest to legitimacy.

Diplomatic immunity is against prosecution in Ireland. I can repeat it but it won't change. Prosecutions happen after investigations. Investigations may or may not involve arresting someone. That arrest may or may not require sanction and that sanction may or may not be given.

I also never said the tickets would be paid, I said they can be issued. The fact that they have been issued in new York shows that the police can in fact take action. The tickets in your article, while not paid, were still in force. Again, the idea that immunity is a complete blanket.

The issuance of tickets is not prohibited by the convention. It requires no violation of the diplomat’s person, no searches, no arrests. There is, however, a complete lack of enforcement capability to ensure they are paid because of the immunity, in effect the actions are meaningless. (An interesting issue would be clamping. I don’t know if that has been tested anywhere). In the case of New York‘s parking tickets, the State Department had to extort payment from the sending nations by making a matter of national policy to withhold trade agreements and international aid pending payment of the fines. Even at that, the money was paid by the government, not the offending diplomat, and the money received went to the US treasury, not the jurisdiction which issued the tickets.

let's be honest, it's not really in the interests of the embassy to be butting heads with the local police in the first place.

This I agree with. Most countries send responsible, professional ambassadors, though even Ireland has seen issues, such as the 2009 claim by the South African ambassador to immunity on the matter of violation of Irish labor laws.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don’t know to which UN treaty you are referencing, but I was extracting from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Ireland was one of the first countries to sign, in 1961, and it was ratified by the Dail in 1967.

I would not expect a policeman to stand by while a diplomat goes on a killing spree. Stopping him, however, is a different matter to arrest and taking into legal custody. The Convention is clear and direct, he may not be arrested. You can sit on him if you have to, but can’t arrest him. I don’t know if Ireland’s domestic system makes a distinction between being detained and being arrested (such a distinction exists for police here in the US, for example). If not, then technically, if your paragraph following is correct, Ireland’s policies would be breach of the convention. Precedent internationally seems to be that nobody seems to hold arresting officers at fault for arresting a diplomat under an honest belief, as long as suitable apologies and an immediate release follow. That does not, however, bootstrap the initial arrest to legitimacy.





The issuance of tickets is not prohibited by the convention. It requires no violation of the diplomat’s person, no searches, no arrests. There is, however, a complete lack of enforcement capability to ensure they are paid because of the immunity, in effect the actions are meaningless. (An interesting issue would be clamping. I don’t know if that has been tested anywhere). In the case of New York‘s parking tickets, the State Department had to extort payment from the sending nations by making a matter of national policy to withhold trade agreements and international aid pending payment of the fines. Even at that, the money was paid by the government, not the offending diplomat, and the money received went to the US treasury, not the jurisdiction which issued the tickets.



This I agree with. Most countries send responsible, professional ambassadors, though even Ireland has seen issues, such as the 2009 claim by the South African ambassador to immunity on the matter of violation of Irish labor laws.

If I sit on you, your under arrest and a few kilos! I can't stop a murderer and not arrest him. Of course that separate from a traffic stop.


"Ireland is not a party to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property" (https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/international-priorities/international-law/privileges-and-immunities/)

Geneva is old, very old and long since updated and replaced. Again I can only work on the directive we have but I'm confident that if the embassador kills the Irish president and is arrested, it shall not be the arresting officer that apologising.

Again however, my comments were more in reply to those that considered immunity to be a complete and total immunity from all police actions. It's not is my basic point.

Cars have been clamped in Ireland. I can't say who the driver was though

expectationlost

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least he asked. I figure that with diplomatic immunity, they couldn’t do much about it.

The use of ambassadorial positions as a reward to political allies, friends, and donors is one of the most consistent embarrassments about the US government structure. One rarely ends up with someone particularly competent in charge.

or physically able...

Manic Moran

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

"Ireland is not a party to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property" (https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/international-priorities/international-law/privileges-and-immunities/)

Geneva is old, very old and long since updated and replaced. Again I can only work on the directive we have but I'm confident that if the embassador kills the Irish president and is arrested, it shall not be the arresting officer that apologising.

OK, I see where you are going wrong. You are confusing the UN convention covering the immunities or otherwise of states in their national capacities with the Vienna convention covering diplomatic missions and the individual persons accredited to them. Ireland’s non-signatory status is irrelevant to diplomatic missions.

Not only is the Vienna convention still in force, to avoid such confusions the UN convention you reference specifically states in Articles 3 and 11 that the immunities enjoyed by diplomatic representatives under the Vienna Convention are not affected by the UN convention, so even if Ireland had signed it, it still wouldn’t change matters. (Geneva conventions are irrelevant to this, I’m assuming a slip of the keyboard)

Edited to add. I just looked up the Irish legislation referenced in the DFA website, pursuant to Section 5 of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act of 1967 (As amended 1976, 2006) he Vienna Convention has force of law in Ireland.

Wompa1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are US Marines stationed at the US Embassy in Dublin, I'd be kinda shocked if they don't have guns. Or the Ambassador, for that matter.

It's what we've come to expect from Americans.

The embassy is considered US soil, I believe.