Replying to Diplomatic Immunity

i think that diplomatic immunity is bullshit my point is that if a diplomat goes to another country he should learn about laws in those countries and there is not only diplomats that have that immunity but also soldiers that kill innocent people and don't get any blame even if there's proofs of a murder

Immunity prevents dictators from randomly arresting diplomats from countries they don't like, but as Mohammad Mossadeq once said, "The life of an Iranian is not worth less than the life of a dog."

i agree that diplomatic immunity should only be used as originally intended, to protect the person from a harmless ignorant mistake, not as it's used now, mostly to get people out of parking tickets and giving them a license to steal, kill, and rape if they choose.    this situation in pakistan is tough, because the state dept is making matters worse by not cooperating at all with pakistan, including not saying what type of job this person has that affords him diplomatic immunity. on the other side, because america has been such a shit country in the past decade it's highly unlikely that an american would get a fair trial. tough call on what to do or what side to be on.

Haha, awesome signature ^

Floyd, on 13 February 2011 - 10:29 PM, said:

Hey Look! I am the only one online right now!

STAY POSI!

I agree. It's bullshit.

Diplomatic immunity should only apply to laws that are accidentally broken out of ignorance of the countries laws or culture. I believe this was the original intent, in case a diplomat accidentally offends someone in a place that takes that sort of thing seriously. Letting someone get away with murder, theft etc goes beyond the original intent.

Lethal Weapon II