America shouldn't be allowed to extradite and prosecute people who have not committed crimes in America. They'd never allow it in reverse. Also the justice system there doesn't inspire confidence.
The US always puts it diplomats back on a plane ASAP after that sort of incident. My buddy in the foreign service ran someone over while on a tour and they did exactly the same thing. Back on the next flight out.
It sounds callous, but the person would otherwise become a scapegoat for the US.
People don't normally get incensed over non-DUI car accidents.
People were out for blood because her husband and allegedly she worked for US intelligence agencies. If she was just a tourist who forgot which side of the road she was supposed to drive on the case would just be in the local papers.
You can see it in this thread on hacker news. THEY WERE SPOOKS! STRING EM UP. Uh, no, they were working on a joint intelligence mission with the UK. The vast majority of intelligence workers are analysts and support staff not little green men.
The only reason for mentioning her being a spook is how she used that fact to escape.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-...
(And say what you like about Craig Murray, he was an ex-diplomat so should understand the rules around immunity).
The US and UK even changed the rule to remove diplomatic immunity from spouses of people at that base after the incident (but not retroactively), which proves she did have it at the time.
Clearly, the parent comment's interpretation is correct in this context. The only other use I've encountered was #3, I believe in James Ellroy novels.
At least the US State Dept position is that she did have diplomatic immunity.
With more civilized countries, the idea is that the person accused is still being tried, but in its country court, with the assumption that if they are guilty, they will get sentenced anyways.
That isn't about "compatibility" of the laws. The US has extradition treaties with pretty much all of their allies but the conditions are mainly dictated by the US given their stronger position.
No country's laws condones war crimes and yet no international court even tried prosecuting any case of suspected war crimes committed by the US military because of things like this [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
My point is that it's not a one-way street. Countries extradite because they think it's in their best interest.
Indeed and that was my point. Treaties are signed despite significant disagreements in the law, that's not the driving factor you made it out to be earlier. The EU and the US historically disagreed significantly on things like the death penalty or drug related crimes yet the extradition treaties were readily signed. But interests are better served by avoiding retaliation.
The fact that the US has the death penalty is a commonly cited reason that other countries deny or hesitate to extradite.
This only happens one way, with extradition to the US, thanks to worldwide bullying.
The morally correct way would be probably to go full Mossad and either kidnap, or disappear the perpetrator, but that can’t happen for political reasons. Same reason why Blackwater terrorists avoid consequences.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/business/carlos-ghosn-esc...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972784817/2-americans-extradi...
No, it doesn't. Sovereignty is inherently unlimited. Jurisdiction depends on the law of the party seeking to exercise it. Bringing someone before the court with jurisdiction may sometimes require external cooperation, but the terms of that are products of diplomacy; there's no hard and fast universal rules.
Its actually obligatory under treaties of near universal acceptance; though of course nations are free (and some do) choose not to exercise jurisdiction beyond their borders outside of those areas where treaty requires it. Though I think the more common choice is to apply jurisdiction both to citizens/nationals irregardless of location for at least some offenses as well as general jurisdiction over national territory.
Its true that some countries, like the US, are more inclined than others to assert non-obligatory jurisdiction over acts by foreigners on foreign territory.
Of course - such treaties, in order to be ratified by as many countries as possible, go for the minimum common denominator, which must be able to accomodate the views of such maximalists too.
Also, to be fair, the ranks of these maximalists tends to change with the fortunes of military power. France and UK, for example, used to be much more aggressive in claiming entitlements.
America aren't extraditing him - the UK is extraditing him.
Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Irrelevant information: The us has extradition treaties with many countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_Unite...
I don't see anything on that Wikipedia page that says it would.
The more usual case for extradition is for returning fugitives who have left the country where they allegedly committed the crime.
> The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to demand extradition of British citizens and other nationals for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required to extradite from the UK to the US versus from the US to the UK.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_...
What do you mean "wrong"? They expressed an opinion, not a fact.
That you shouldn't be able to be extradited to a country you have nothing to do with, is something I agree with as well, but I wouldn't say it's "true". What is true today is that many countries have treaties to allow them to basically kidnap citizens of other countries. If you think that's good/bad, you should argue for one of those viewpoints, not necessarily if it's true/false.