If you decide Diplomatic Immunity doesn’t exist for one person, then it doesn’t exist at all.
England just decided that public speech in support of Palestine is a crime. If a German diplomat stationed in England was opposed to the genocide in Gaza, would it be okay for them to imprison that diplomat?
Laws against pro-Palestinian speech in England have more legal authority than the ICC has in the US.
Yes, Putin is especially evil. He should be taken into custody and made to answer for his crimes. But that shouldn’t be done during a Diplomatic mission. If he doesn’t leave Russia for anything but Diplomacy, then the civilized world should take the necessary steps to remove him from Russia directly.
I personally am a fan of the complete embargo of countries that are out of control. The US, Russia, and Israel should not be allowed to trade with the civilized world until they step into line.
That’s not exactly how it works though. Diplomatic immunity doesn’t have to be extended to anyone you don’t wish to extend it to. Ambassadors are regularly made to leave countries when those countries have disagreements. Diplomatic immunity is a courtesy, not a requirement.
If Putin steps foot in most European countries he should, by law, be arrested. There is no diplomatic immunity for him. This only happened because America isn’t signed up to the ICC and doesn’t give a fuck about basic decency, human rights, or war crimes.
They extended an invite to a war criminal, to supposedly resolve a conflict, without inviting the other side of the conflict. That’s not how diplomacy works. That’s corruption.
Also, England didn’t do shit. The UK did. Westminster. I should know, I live here. And I don’t live in England.
And it isn’t pro-Palestine speech, it’s pro a very specific group. I disagree with it heavily and view it as authoritarian, but let’s make sure we’re not spreading misinformation here. Support of Palestine Action is banned, not Palestine.
You’re largely correct in how Diplomatic Immunity works. The requirement in diplomatic immunity is that it be extended to a diplomat from the time they enter the country under its protection until they leave the country or their country of origin rescends it.
Putin should be denied immunity by the US and forced to leave. But he can’t be arrested by the US until he’s been expelled from the country and either refuses to leave or returns to the US.
If you decide Diplomatic Immunity doesn’t exist for one person, then it doesn’t exist at all.
England just decided that public speech in support of Palestine is a crime. If a German diplomat stationed in England was opposed to the genocide in Gaza, would it be okay for them to imprison that diplomat?
Laws against pro-Palestinian speech in England have more legal authority than the ICC has in the US.
Yes, Putin is especially evil. He should be taken into custody and made to answer for his crimes. But that shouldn’t be done during a Diplomatic mission. If he doesn’t leave Russia for anything but Diplomacy, then the civilized world should take the necessary steps to remove him from Russia directly.
I personally am a fan of the complete embargo of countries that are out of control. The US, Russia, and Israel should not be allowed to trade with the civilized world until they step into line.
That’s not exactly how it works though. Diplomatic immunity doesn’t have to be extended to anyone you don’t wish to extend it to. Ambassadors are regularly made to leave countries when those countries have disagreements. Diplomatic immunity is a courtesy, not a requirement.
If Putin steps foot in most European countries he should, by law, be arrested. There is no diplomatic immunity for him. This only happened because America isn’t signed up to the ICC and doesn’t give a fuck about basic decency, human rights, or war crimes.
They extended an invite to a war criminal, to supposedly resolve a conflict, without inviting the other side of the conflict. That’s not how diplomacy works. That’s corruption.
Also, England didn’t do shit. The UK did. Westminster. I should know, I live here. And I don’t live in England.
And it isn’t pro-Palestine speech, it’s pro a very specific group. I disagree with it heavily and view it as authoritarian, but let’s make sure we’re not spreading misinformation here. Support of Palestine Action is banned, not Palestine.
You’re largely correct in how Diplomatic Immunity works. The requirement in diplomatic immunity is that it be extended to a diplomat from the time they enter the country under its protection until they leave the country or their country of origin rescends it.
Putin should be denied immunity by the US and forced to leave. But he can’t be arrested by the US until he’s been expelled from the country and either refuses to leave or returns to the US.