USA ambassador to Iceland wants a gun

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.