SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 10-06-19, 05:58 AM

Diplomatic immunity should include diplomats not needing to give witness confessions beforee the hosts court in national law enforcement cases, should be imune to getting arrested and interviewed about their own nations internal affairs, means and carriers of data and messages between the diplomat and his government must be included in immunity. All this is okay and necessary, but obvious offending of the hosting nations laws, speeding in the traffic and causing accidents (BIG problem in many capitols! Foreign staff often thinks the streets are their personal racetracks and parking lots), criminal charges like rape and so on - these things should not be falling under diplomatic immuniy. That they get usually covered by these as well I can only explain by the risk that foreign diplomats get interrogated and pressed under charges of criminal law - and the opportunity then beign exploited to also interrogate them on own internal political stuff that should be covered by immunity.

Maybe it would be simler if one would consider more carefull with whom one forms ties and whom one lets gain diplomatic status in one's own capitol. In other words: be more chosey in accepting your guests. Its not as if these days envoys and ambassadors in place are really necessary. in case of wanted personal contact, on could arrnage a meeting between representatives in a third country, and silently and unnoticed form the public. A day's trip, and you are done.

Finally, I have a principle issue with the concept of maintaining a strong own security force in another country. The protection of a foreign ambassador is in the hosts own best interest, and it shoukld be the host caring for it, and doing so alone. ending your envoy with a strong presence of body guards, marines and so forth, in princ9ple is no dipllatic mission, but an invasion. If the sendign nation thinks they cannot count on the security of the nation they want to send somebody to, then maybe they just should not send somebody. This way, the reputation of s hosting nation and its credibility in guaranteeing diplloatic protection, is in hands of the hosting nation.

Most of it is just höfisches Gehabe: courtly, affected behaviour. To me, it just is stage thunder and mumbojumbo. As the peasant would even care for what foreign ambassadors and envoys are residing in their own capitol. Like film stars celebrate themselves when rewardingf ilm prizes, so does the creme de la creme of political high life. Maybe I am too Vulcan for this kind of stuff, but it means nothign to me. Poltical decisions should not be formed on grounds of someboy'S elses smile or polsiuhed manners, but becasue of facts, content, data, messages's core information. The bringer of the message is irrelevant.

Envoys and ambassadors, representatives of foreign nations should know that they are being held liable for their behaviour and acts. Then they can alter their behaviour accordingly so not to collide with local laws and not causing any drama by their own impertinence.

The fleeing mother told the police she would not leave, but did. I am strongly biased against her now. Immunity should not cover this incident.

10-06-19, 05:58 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,538 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Diplomatic immunity should include diplomats not needing to give witness confessions beforee the hosts court in national law enforcement cases, should be imune to getting arrested and interviewed about their own nations internal affairs, means and carriers of data and messages between the diplomat and his government must be included in immunity. All this is okay and necessary, but obvious offending of the hosting nations laws, speeding in the traffic and causing accidents (BIG problem in many capitols! Foreign staff often thinks the streets are their personal racetracks and parking lots), criminal charges like rape and so on - these things should not be falling under diplomatic immuniy. That they get usually covered by these as well I can only explain by the risk that foreign diplomats get interrogated and pressed under charges of criminal law - and the opportunity then beign exploited to also interrogate them on own internal political stuff that should be covered by immunity. Maybe it would be simler if one would consider more carefull with whom one forms ties and whom one lets gain diplomatic status in one's own capitol. In other words: be more chosey in accepting your guests. Its not as if these days envoys and ambassadors in place are really necessary. in case of wanted personal contact, on could arrnage a meeting between representatives in a third country, and silently and unnoticed form the public. A day's trip, and you are done. Finally, I have a principle issue with the concept of maintaining a strong own security force in another country. The protection of a foreign ambassador is in the hosts own best interest, and it shoukld be the host caring for it, and doing so alone. ending your envoy with a strong presence of body guards, marines and so forth, in princ9ple is no dipllatic mission, but an invasion. If the sendign nation thinks they cannot count on the security of the nation they want to send somebody to, then maybe they just should not send somebody. This way, the reputation of s hosting nation and its credibility in guaranteeing diplloatic protection, is in hands of the hosting nation. Most of it is just höfisches Gehabe: courtly, affected behaviour. To me, it just is stage thunder and mumbojumbo. As the peasant would even care for what foreign ambassadors and envoys are residing in their own capitol. Like film stars celebrate themselves when rewardingf ilm prizes, so does the creme de la creme of political high life. Maybe I am too Vulcan for this kind of stuff, but it means nothign to me. Poltical decisions should not be formed on grounds of someboy'S elses smile or polsiuhed manners, but becasue of facts, content, data, messages's core information. The bringer of the message is irrelevant. Envoys and ambassadors, representatives of foreign nations should know that they are being held liable for their behaviour and acts. Then they can alter their behaviour accordingly so not to collide with local laws and not causing any drama by their own impertinence. The fleeing mother told the police she would not leave, but did. I am strongly biased against her now. Immunity should not cover this incident. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 10-06-19 at 06:14 AM.