- Joined
- 13 Feb 21
- Moves
- 659
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThat's what I bet at the bookies.
Was that a verdict given in a court of law?
(Rhetorical).
Big Tony says he wants to talk to you 😮
You're in trouble 😏
- Joined
- 13 Feb 21
- Moves
- 659
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe UK blew up the story so much no jury over there would be unbiased.
Was that a verdict given in a court of law?
(Rhetorical).
@phil-a-dork saidThe point remains that if a relative of yours was run over and killed by somebody driving on the wrong side of the road you'd expect them to face a day in court.
The UK blew up the story so much no jury over there would be unbiased.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedAppreciate that (no really) but if somebody doesn't try to do something🤷♂️ I've two boys (14 & 12) [edit] IF, that happened to mine... Governments playing with lives and the U.S.A. are supposed to be are closest allies. Not on that level, let's just drop bombs, shift some sand and carry on😒 King media, Orwell Twa.'.
Can't hold the tide with a broom - more navel gazing on both sides.
@phil-a-dork saidWhat a lame reason !!!!
Allies?
Y'all allowed Assange to avoid US prosecution.
Ya two faced clowns.
Your judges ruling was "the USA can't prevent Assange from taking his own life in US custody"
What a lame reason 🙄
So don't get mad when the USA let's Sacoolas go free.
Almost as lame as Mitch McConnell trying to explain away his not guilty verdict in the Senate.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe decision has to whether she had diplomatic immunity regarding the criminal charges was made by the US embassy, not Mrs. Sacoolas, and they were surely aware what position she held at the base:
"On 28 August this year, the US embassy notified us that the spouse of a member of staff at RAF Croughton had been involved in an accident. On 30 August, the US asserted that the spouse was covered by immunity, so a waiver was needed. To enable the police investigation to follow its proper course, on 5 September the Foreign and Commonwealth Office formally requested the US embassy to waive immunity. Given the seriousness of the incident, our view was—and remains—that justice needs to be done.
If the suspect’s immunity had been waived, Northamptonshire police would then have been able to compel her to co-operate fully with their investigation. However, on 13 September the FCO was informed by the US embassy that it would not waive immunity ....."
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-10-21/debates/0147E5F7-092E-4D39-97BD-CAE48237D635/HarryDunn
The idea that Mrs. Sacoolas engaged in some sort of deception to increase her chances of being granted immunity is unsupported by the facts.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedDisinterested party or not, it is the US embassy which makes such decisions under international law. Not Mrs. Sacoolas. Your backpedaling doesn't change what you wrote:
Duchy: "It was easier for Anne Sacoolas to claim diplomatic immunity by pretending to be only a hapless housewife than by admitting that she was working for US intelligence."
Such a claim exhibits confusion over the actual facts of the case and applicable legal procedure involved.