News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Assange Hearing Day 17. Parent comment

Re:Assange Hearing Day 17 by jjgreen on Friday September 25, 2020 @04:24PM (#24593747)
The diplomat was not a diplomat, he was a American intelligence officer based at RAF Croughton. The letter of agreement between the Foreign Office and the US ambassador to Britain in August 1995 about the American personnel at RAF Croughton says explicitly that diplomatic immunity for people like Mr Sacoolas would not apply for "acts performed outside the course of their duties".

The US has acted dishonourably in this case.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Assange Hearing Day 17 by gamblor956 on Friday September 25, 2020 @05:10PM (#24594132)
No, the US acted within the parameters of the 1995 agreement.

The agreement provided traditional diplomatic immunity[1] to personnel stationed at the base and their families but only waived criminal immunity for personnel for acts outside of the course of their duties. This waiver didn't extend to their families, because not being personnel, all of their acts would be outside the course of their duties and it would render their immunity meaningless.

This year, they changed that immunity so it no longer applies to family members, meaning they no longer have immunity. It was not made retroactive because the US would not agree to that (ex post facto criminalization is allowed in the UK).

[1] Diplomats usually refer to this type of immunity as "special immunity" because it is not related to the performance of diplomatic functions.

[ Parent | on HN ]