USA ambassador to Iceland wants a gun

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.

Victor

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If I sit on you, your under arrest

Actually no. Someone isn't under arrest until they are told they are under arrest. Up to that point, they have merely been detained.

En example of detention is when a garda stops someone an prevents them from leaving until they fulfill certain conditions, e.g. identifying themselves.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Actually no. Someone isn't under arrest until they are told they are under arrest. Up to that point, they have merely been detained.

En example of detention is when a garda stops someone an prevents them from leaving until they fulfill certain conditions, e.g. identifying themselves.

I don't sit on you to do that ffs!

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Right so, I have done some more digging and it seems that the immunity only kicks in when invoked by the home nation.

Thus an arrest may happen but charges cannot. I did some googling and see plenty of cases that backs this view. I'll just post two here as it's from the US and be Zealand for fairly serious crimes; https://nypost.com/2006/11/12/abuse-envoy-freed-he-beat-son-cops/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11556563


Digging also shows interesting ways around it. Crimes where there's financial gain prosecuted as commercial enterprises.

I can't find anything in writing saying they can be arrested and add you say, it's in the agreement but it clearly happens. Now it will be on my head into I get back to work and find the directive again and it's from a few years ago.

goose2005

corner of hells wrote: »

Maybe hes mixing up Iceland the country with Iceland the shop.
The Iceland shop in Finglas can be a bit hairy on late night shopping.

I didn't know Iceland was in Ireland! Seem to be 27 or so of them, none near me though

Manic Moran

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Thus an arrest may happen but charges cannot. I did some googling and see plenty of cases that backs this view. I'll just post two here as it's from the US and be Zealand for fairly serious crimes; https://nypost.com/2006/11/12/abuse-envoy-freed-he-beat-son-cops/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11556563

The arrest may happen as a matter of practical effect (How is the arresting officer to know the man he just nailed for burglary/rape is a diplomat?) but that doesn't make it authorised. The error must be remedied as soon as possible.

I'm afraid that the cases you link to do not support the assertion that the diplomat may be arrested. I can't find anything on the American case beyond that police showed and didn't know who they were arresting, but because of the balls-up by the New Zealand government, an official inquiry was conducted. You may read it here.

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/OIA/Ministerial-Enquiry-Whitehead-Report.pdf

Section 3.2.3. My bold.
Diplomatic agent is the term for an Ambassador and other diplomatic officers who generally have the function of dealing directly with host country officials. Family members forming part of the household of diplomatic agents enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the sponsoring diplomatic agent. Diplomatic agents have the highest degree of privileges and immunities. They have complete personal inviolability which means they may not be arrested or detained and neither their property nor residences may be entered or searched. Diplomatic agents have complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country’s courts and they cannot be prosecuted no matter how serious the offence unless the immunity is waived by the sending state.

What made the case get as far in NZ as it did was the fact that the diplomat in question (Defense Attache) failed to say that he had immunity. See the timeline in section 1.2.1. He was arrested on the 9th, it wasn't until the 10th before it was identified that he had immunity. He was immediately released.

With respect to this line
Right so, I have done some more digging and it seems that the immunity only kicks in when invoked by the home nation., this is also incorrect. I say this both as a former holder of diplomatic agent immunities, and because the same New Zealand report specifically says in section 3.2.1
Immunity is an automatic right held by the sending state and therefore doesn’t need to be claimed or asserted.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

The arrest may happen as a matter of practical effect (How is the arresting officer to know the man he just nailed for burglary/rape is a diplomat?) but that doesn't make it authorised. The error must be remedied as soon as possible.

I'm afraid that the cases you link to do not support the assertion that the diplomat may be arrested. I can't find anything on the American case beyond that police showed and didn't know who they were arresting, but because of the balls-up by the New Zealand government, an official inquiry was conducted. You may read it here.

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/OIA/Ministerial-Enquiry-Whitehead-Report.pdf

Section 3.2.3. My bold.
Diplomatic agent is the term for an Ambassador and other diplomatic officers who generally have the function of dealing directly with host country officials. Family members forming part of the household of diplomatic agents enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the sponsoring diplomatic agent. Diplomatic agents have the highest degree of privileges and immunities. They have complete personal inviolability which means they may not be arrested or detained and neither their property nor residences may be entered or searched. Diplomatic agents have complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country’s courts and they cannot be prosecuted no matter how serious the offence unless the immunity is waived by the sending state.

What made the case get as far in NZ as it did was the fact that the diplomat in question (Defense Attache) failed to say that he had immunity. See the timeline in section 1.2.1. He was arrested on the 9th, it wasn't until the 10th before it was identified that he had immunity. He was immediately released.

With respect to this line
Right so, I have done some more digging and it seems that the immunity only kicks in when invoked by the home nation., this is also incorrect. I say this both as a former holder of diplomatic agent immunities, and because the same New Zealand report specifically says in section 3.2.1
Immunity is an automatic right held by the sending state and therefore doesn’t need to be claimed or asserted.

They were just two cases. There's hundreds. There's the Italian case. Gambian cigarette smugglers. Hundreds.

Like I said, it clearly happens. I'll revert when I have found the document. I'm honest, if the document doesn't back me, I'll hold the hands up and consider myself educated.

Manic Moran

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They were just two cases. There's hundreds. There's the Italian case. Gambian cigarette smugglers. Hundreds.

Like I said, it clearly happens. I'll revert when I have found the document. I'm honest, if the document doesn't back me, I'll hold the hands up and consider myself educated.

As with the New Zealand case, immunity had to be waived by Gambia.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30383204 . It is not unusual for such waivers to be granted, after all, the existence of the system depends on the trust that it shall not be abused.

I’m not sure the Italian case to which you refer.

85603

the whole story is bullsht imo.

its just the media milking clicks and going ' oh haw haw look at the american being a gun nut, oh how hilariously typical'.

when in reality he's got a high profile job, and would make a good target for plenty of criminals and extremists. whether he's a bit of an eccentric or not is beside the point.
its still a reasonable request for a vip level position.

embassy mail room worker - no.
ambassador of one of the most conflict embroiled countries on the planet - yes.

i say that as someone who know u.s. gun policy to be ridiculous, failed, and outdated, so im far away from one of those 'types'.

its just i see the shnakey-ness of the media on this.

perhaps he could just carry a pistol in a diplomatic bag and rely on local police and embassy staff for the rest. if he wants an armored limo then its just a budget question, why not, makes no difference.

Lovely long answer typed and at the end I find something that could have saved me much time. I'm a big boy, I'll accept I was wrong. Always happy to receive an education.

""Reasonable constraints, however, may be applied in emergency circumstances involving self-defense, public safety, or the prevention of serious criminal acts."

It's a PDF download here: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-DipConImm_v5_Web.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0q6mdpPHqAhXyURUIHetwBcgQFjAFegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3FGOYefUjiPhmFYx10yk6E&cshid=1595985249550

I assume the Irish version is similar and what I was thinking of

The Italian case was a diplomat that was ordered to not leave the country by a court in India.