Hacker News Reader

Comment by traceroute66 | Hacker News Reader

> it’s necessary.

Yes, but the point in this case is that we are told the person did not have diplomatic immunity.

Not everybody who works at an embassy has diplomatic immunity.

The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.

This is not the first time either that the US has flown somebody out of the UK in questionable circumstances before they were questioned by UK police.

The UK is not a third-world country, there is no reason why somebody should not be questioned by UK police or dealt with in UK courts.

You can also bet your bottom dollar that if the tables were turned and the equivalent happend on US soil, there would be little chance of being flown out covertley. Most sensible people don't like "One rule for US, another rule for everyone else", even more so under the present US administration.

View on HN

> The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.

from what I know, this is not correct.

if the US said he's a diplomat or has diplomatic immunity and/or was given that by the US and notified the UK, then he has immunity and it is up to the US and UK to resolve their grievances through diplomatic channels.

for example, many family members of diplomats and government officials have such status in host countries

> many family members of diplomats and government officials

Point still remains. They will be family members of people with suitable job description and rank.

As an extreme example, nobody seriously expects a janitor at an embassy to be given diplomatic immunity.

There are a large numebr of roles at an embassy that simply do not require diplomatic immunity. And based on the media reports, it seems this person was in one of those roles that did not require diplomatic immunity.

I read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/sep/14/ministers-u... and was not able to find out anything about this person not having diplomatic immunity or that he was not in a role that granted him such status

like I said, this seems to be handled just as I thought, through the UK putting pressure on the US to act according to their wishes

it's really up to the US to classify what staffers are under immunity, that's just how it goes. it may not be right or moral but that's part of what allows them to station staff in other countries without fear of them being compromised and so on.

> based on the media reports, it seems this person was in one of those roles that did not require diplomatic immunity.

if you could give a reference to this, that'd be great. remember though, it doesn't have to be a "diplomat" role. just being in an official role or attached to such, or being family of such person is enough in most cases.

Just because how it works doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean that isn’t how it works.

From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."

In other words a spook.

And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.

Not necessarily, administrative, service, and consular staff are not diplomats but still receive varying levels of diplomatic immunity, typically just as it relates to their job. A CIA officer would be under the cover of a diplomat, no one would ever say that they actually aren't a diplomat.

https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/diplomatic_immun...

> And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.

This person was allegedly looking at CSAM.

Police and courts interrogating someone as to why they were looking at CSAM is a specific line of enquiry and doesn't touch upon their job.

Also from the US State Department website:

    Under international law and practice, persons enjoying immunity from the jurisdiction of a receiving State’s laws nonetheless have a duty to respect those laws. Immunity is not a license for misconduct. It is a doctrine intended to benefit the sending State or IO, not individuals.

If the allegation is correct and the guy was looking at CSAM at home, then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply. Allegedly looking at CSAM at home does not "benefit the sending state".

> then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply.

that's not what it means, though. it means that Immunity is meant to ensure the persons enjoying immunity can fulfill their duties, it doesn't mean that it is only selectively applied or that it can be discarded at will by the host country

a person with diplomatic immunity could murder another person and still be immune from prosecution, and it'd be then up to the sending & host state to figure out what to do. from what I know, the sending state can waive such immunity to allow for prosecution

Reply on news.ycombinator.com