Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Anne Sacoolas (Death of Harry Dunn) | CIA Agent Wrong Way Driving vs Diplomatic Immunity" video.

  1. Why did UK agree to the grant of immunity? They had to agree, at the highest levels; it is not something she grabbed.
    7
  2.  @Hollylivengood  For a negligent homicide? Then the law is insane.
    6
  3.  @joed1950  Well, a conscience would interfere with completing CIA assignments, one would think.
    6
  4. Why did UK agree to the grant of immunity? They had to agree to that, at the highest levels; it is not something she grabbed.
    5
  5. @Scruffy Topaz Exactly! This is the point.
    4
  6.  @Hollylivengood  You drive every day. A child comes out of nowhere and dashes in front of your car, and you are alert and driving below the speed limit. What should the sentence be? Please.
    4
  7. 4:52 She had immunity.
    3
  8. UK authorities agreed that she was entitled to immunity. That closes the case. The rest is public relations. Did ordinary citizens in the UK know about the fact that CIA agents were granted such privileges? Why was that the agreement? Dr. Grande said the law was changed after this case. No one sane who does not have to go to prison would ever go.
    3
  9. But you don't work as a spy in other countries, either, I'm guessing.
    3
  10.  @juicyfruit4378  Then why did the UK court collaborate in this lie by ruling that she did have immunity? I time-stamped that statement. If it is wrong, provide a reference.
    2
  11.  @juicyfruit4378  It would not surprise me in the least to find out that she, or any America, was driving drunk, or was a substance abuser generally. Where do you get the idea we are naive?
    2
  12.  @juicyfruit4378  But the court so ruled -- that is what was stated in this presentation, and I time stamped it. So, the high court is not independent? That fact is worse than this one crime.
    2
  13.  @juicyfruit4378  If you worked as an independent contractor for the CIA or DOD or DHS, you know all of this conversation is being reviewed. Hence you do not work as such. I worked for a federal court. American judges are sometimes quite ideological, but they do not take orders from bureaucrats. As in, never. Anyway, blocked.
    2
  14.  @davidtaylor4975  I don't understand why UK tolerates American spies in its country in the first place. British intelligence has an agreement to share all. I mean, let's take this issue all the way. I'm for that, no problem.
    2
  15.  @davidtaylor4975  Even though I'm technically American, my father and my mother's only brother were both veterans of the British Army, WWII, and I'll speak up! I totally agree with you. What nonsense, too, when what is SUPPOSED to be a stable, cordial agreement to cooperate, to a good purpose (like, prevent terrorism? Save lives? I seem to recall that), is subject to the whims of the latest travesty to occupy the White House. Enough is enough.
    2
  16.  @thomism1016  I agree that immunity for someone in her position should not exist. Well, I would scrutinize CIA in general. Maybe her job shouldn't exist, either.
    2
  17. @Abu Mohandes The reason they would respect is is the only reason anyone does: they want their diplomats to have the very same privileges abroad.
    2
  18.  @Hollylivengood  But that is much worse than negligent. Driving drunk is a serious crime. It's extremely selfish and reckless, and not killing anyone is pure luck.
    2
  19.  @Hollylivengood  My point is that no one should go to prison in a pure accident. Recklessness is no accident, or leaving the scene of the accident is no accident.
    2
  20.  @alimar0604  I think this is a great question. According to this video, the law has since changed.
    2
  21.  @firekind1980  Yup. The outrage needs to be directed at the UK. Apparently going forward people like her won't have immunity. Excellent.
    2
  22.  @polly6336  See 4:52
    2
  23.  @joed1950  US aren't all CIA! (With Facebook, etc., why would they need to be?)
    2
  24.  @chrism7969  Granting such immunity in the first place was obviously wrong, and apparently the rules were changed. Calling for actual incarceration on these facts puzzles me. Why? If she did not flee an injured person, or fail to report the accident and obtain aid as soon as she could, I see no crime meriting actual prison time. Maybe I am unclear on the details. Wanton, self-centered actions after an accident draw prison sentences; prison for pure negligence is vindictive.
    2
  25.  @chrism7969  I appreciate your first point and wholeheartedly agree. The terrible incident you describe in your second point was the result of a deliberate act. That is not an accident. I'm so sorry for your brother. No one can know what that is like if they never lived it.
    2
  26.  @lorree1  A higher court agreed later that she was entitled to immunity. Since then, the law has changed. THANK GOODNESS.
    2
  27.  @juicyfruit4378  Sorry, try Tinder, or whatever it is you people do for laughs.
    1
  28.  @juicyfruit4378  I'm in perfect shape. Organic semi-vegetarian (fish a few times a year, eggs even less), intermittent fasting. Coffee addict. Keeps you sharp.
    1
  29.  @juicyfruit4378 So you don't mind that all of this is going straight to your file? FISA is not an Article 3 court. And wow, you're old.
    1
  30. It could be based on what the diplomat is doing. It could be absolute on embassy grounds. It could be qualified when performing any diplomatic duties, in or outside of the embassy. It could be limited in all other cases.
    1
  31.  @juicyfruit4378  Why did the UK court agree that she had immunity, then? Can you point us to the text of the decision? What was the reasoning?
    1
  32.  @mmondrag25  A lot of people are calling for jail time. I do not agree with the law that allowed her to assert immunity. I was surprised she could assert immunity. At the same time, no sane person who can avoid prison through legal means would fail to use those means to avoid prison. It's that simple. I stand by that. Americans commenting here should learn about what prison is, given that the US has the world's largest carceral state by far.
    1
  33. No one who does not have to go to jail will ever go to jail, if they are marginally sane. According to this video, UK agreed she had immunity, and afterwards the law was changed. That's a good outcome at least.
    1
  34.  @simonw1313  Then you do not know what PRISON is, despite the US being the world's largest carceral state.
    1
  35.  @simonw1313  Why am I not surprised?
    1
  36.  @simonw1313  How many people have you saved from prison, at serious financial harm to yourself?
    1
  37.  @simonw1313  Are you serious? Persuade YOU? I have no interesting in speaking further with a moralizing hypocrite. My aren't we full of ourselves. Blocked.
    1
  38.  @simonw1313  It was two questions, neither one rhetorical, BTW.
    1
  39.  @simonw1313  OH WELL THEN. Your insipid moral posturing was pure non sequitur. Here I thought we were actually talking about going to actual prison! Well, if there was no risk of that, then of course the balance tips in favor of waiving immunity.
    1
  40.  @simonw1313  I'm against going to prison when it can be legally prevented. See, this is what you somehow continue to miss. Accountability and prison are not the same thing. Well, to some small minds they may be, but . . . A gent like you knows better I am sure. We are supposed to trust whom, exactly? The world's largest carceral state, or the one that continues to hold Julian Assange? Gimme a hint.
    1
  41.  @simonw1313  But I'm still puzzled. Why did you mention that she was at no risk of being imprisoned in the US? That was relevant? How?
    1
  42.  @simonw1313  I'm leaving the Anglophone world, deadline 2025. I know why.
    1
  43.  @simonw1313  But the jailer would be the same as Assange's, would it not? A system one can believe in.
    1
  44.  @simonw1313  Is "leaving" the same as "fleeing?" Or is the latter a rather overly emotional take?
    1
  45.  @simonw1313  Accountability and prison are not the same thing.
    1
  46. @Tronald Dump UK acknowledged that she could assert diplomatic immunity at the time. Apparently the law has changed, THANK GOODNESS.
    1
  47. @Tronald Dump I don't support a carceral state anywhere.
    1
  48. 4:52 She was undercover.
    1
  49.  @sc9160  Why? She didn't commit any crime in this jurisdiction.
    1
  50.  @sc9160  Right, but for the courts to have jurisdiction, you have to have committed the crime within that very jurisdiction. If you commit a crime in one state and go to a different state, you must be extradited. In a civil case, there are choices concerning where to file suit; you could even be sued in federal court under diversity, depending on your residency and the amount you are being sued for.
    1
  51.  @sc9160  Well, but that involves RICO and similar offenses.
    1
  52.  @jilltrevail2616  It must have been a shock to the average person in the UK to learn that there are CIA agents operating undercover in the UK. If CIA is not working with UK's own intelligence services, you have to ask what they are doing undercover on the soil of their most trusted ally.
    1
  53.  @sc9160  I did not say it was the only crime. I suggest you research it.
    1
  54.  @sc9160  Undercover from the general public, or also hidden from the knowledge of the equivalent of the State Department in the countries of close allies (which will be treated as highly classified by those countries, of course)? Only the former. I won't be wasting more time with you, thanks.
    1
  55. I didn't say they didn't. I said the very top at state departments of close allies know about it.
    1
  56.  @sc9160  Is marijuana legal in your state?
    1
  57.  @sc9160  In the future, the US has to notify UK in advance concerning which US citizens on UK soil intend to avail themselves of diplomatic immunity. ERGO, someone at the top in the UK already knows about the EXISTENCE of these individuals. Now, they need to know about their claimed status with respect to immunity as well. I thought this was clear. "LOL"
    1
  58.  @polly6336  Of course it wasn't put in place for this incident. If she had been extradited, her attorney would have asserted immunity, and the court would have granted it.
    1
  59.  @chrism7969  I'm not a utilitarian, so a pure accident that results in death is not morally worse than a reckless act that simply injures someone. The recklessness is worse. Accidents are tragedies. My life would be changed forever if a suicidal person jumped in front of my car, or a child raced after a ball and there was no way to avoid hitting them -- even if they recovered. But whether or not they died, I would not be culpable. I'd be the physically intact and thoroughly traumatized victim.
    1
  60.  @chrism7969  I was so scared of hitting a kid when I first started driving that I developed a sixth sense about what a kid might do, or where a kid I didn't see might be coming from. I can't even tell you all the accidents I've avoided. It's uncanny. I avoid small animals, too. It's called luck, at least in part.
    1
  61.  @chrism7969  I think you're right about what is a true "accident," actually. Brakes failing when you always maintained your vehicle properly is a good example. I'd have to think through the rest. Recklessness is a different state of mind than negligence, and gives rise to very different charges. I think that's right. But brakes failing unexpectedly is not even negligence. Maybe it is only not-even-negligence that merits no criminal punishment. I have to agree with that. Anyway, as I said, that someone like her cannot get immunity in the future is a very good thing. The family's shock must be horrible.
    1
  62. @Tronald Dump Immunity was reinstated on appeal.
    1
  63.  @aarondavis8943  They shouldn't have, but . . . Anyway. The claim is that the law has been changed.
    1