• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should foreign diplomats get immunity from crimes?

Should foreign diplomats get immunity from crimes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • No

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Maybe/Other

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Total voters
    13

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should foreign diplomats get immunity from crimes?

"Common" crimes. Non-political. Everything from parking tickets to murder.

Keep in mind that if we would/could eliminate immunity for them, other countries would do the same for our diplomats.
 
Should foreign diplomats get immunity from crimes?

"Common" crimes. Non-political. Everything from parking tickets to murder.

Keep in mind that if we would/could eliminate immunity for them, other countries would do the same for our diplomats.

Well if we did eliminate diplomatic immunity it would be hard to deal with any country directly (i.e. going to their country) for fear of breaking some obscure law (i.e. woman not covering their faces).
 
Should foreign diplomats get immunity from crimes?

"Common" crimes. Non-political. Everything from parking tickets to murder.

Keep in mind that if we would/could eliminate immunity for them, other countries would do the same for our diplomats.

Yes. By making the immunity absolute it avoids potentially fractious confrontations and dangerous situations for diplomats left defenseless to the capricious nature of politics, changing circumstances, misunderstandings, and the like. That a properly accredited diplomat is inviolate has been one of our most useful and civilized innovations and has served us very well. The few minor incidents of misconduct should not be enough to impugn this system or our treaty obligations.
 
Yes, of course they should. It's one of the basic principles of all diplomacy, and to do away with it would regress our relations with other nations by leaps and bounds -- just imagine if the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia had to cover her face!

Absurd.
 
It depends. Are these minor crimes committed out of ignorance of the system? They should not be held accountable for those crimes. If they are crimes committed willfully because they know they can get away with it? They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'd say intent should be the deciding factor.
 
Yes. We don't want our people subject to arrest and prosecution in a foreign country.

Ideally, I think most favored nation status should apply to countries that agree to hold their diplomats accountable under the home country's laws for crimes committed while in the host country with fines, when applicable, sent to the home country.
 
Should foreign diplomats get immunity from crimes?

"Common" crimes. Non-political. Everything from parking tickets to murder.

Keep in mind that if we would/could eliminate immunity for them, other countries would do the same for our diplomats.

Realistically diplomats have to.

Consulars don't.
 
I should have voted Other but I voted No.

It really depends on what though. It depends on if they are doing something to someone or not. New York City is where the United Nations Headquarters is located.
 
Should foreign diplomats get immunity from crimes?

"Common" crimes. Non-political. Everything from parking tickets to murder.

Keep in mind that if we would/could eliminate immunity for them, other countries would do the same for our diplomats.

No they should not get any immunity.If our citizens where in other countries committing crimes they wouldn't get any immunity and our diplomats shouldn't be out committing any crimes. If countries want to use bull **** religious laws against our diplomats then we can cut ties off with that country of bomb them into submission.
 
It is illegal in many countries to criticize the government.

In many of those countries, U.S. policy is critical of the government.

So that is basically a way of saying:

"Should we neuter our foreign service, or tell them to spend years in reeducation camps in order to present U.S. policy preferences?"
 
No they should not get any immunity.If our citizens where in other countries committing crimes they wouldn't get any immunity and our diplomats shouldn't be out committing any crimes. If countries want to use bull **** religious laws against our diplomats then we can cut ties off with that country of bomb them into submission.

I'm sure you're joking, but in case you're actually this uneducated, I should point out that bombing places you don't like often makes problems worse, and often doesn't work out very well anyway.
 
I'm sure you're joking, but in case you're actually this uneducated, I should point out that bombing places you don't like often makes problems worse, and often doesn't work out very well anyway.
If you believe that I said we should bomb countries I do not like then you are a uneducated piece of foreign trash,see I can play that game too. I have no problem with diplomats being charged and arrested for actual crimes should they commit actual crimes on foreign soil. However if they go arrest my country's diplomats because they do not wear a burka, bring chewing gum into a country, be a homosexual, carries a firearm for protection and so on then it should be seen as a act of aggression and that country no longer wishes to continue relations with my country.So I could care less if things get worse in that country.Preferably instead of wasting money sending diplomats to other countries the meetings should be done skype or some other similar service and televised live(I do not believe meetings between countries should be secret).
 
Those diplomats should be arrested.



The thing is, they don't. The US claims diplomatic immunity even if a consul staff murders people in broad daylight.

Its sad and quite frankly, aggravating.
 
Of course the answer is 'no'.

Civilians have to obey the laws when they go to other countries - so should diplomats.

If the diplomats are so stupid that they cannot remember the laws of the country that they are stationed in - then don't send these morons there to begin with.

And if they don't want to obey the laws while they are there - then again, don't send these whiny babies in the first place either.
 
Of course the answer is 'no'.

Civilians have to obey the laws when they go to other countries - so should diplomats.

If the diplomats are so stupid that they cannot remember the laws of the country that they are stationed in - then don't send these morons there to begin with.

And if they don't want to obey the laws while they are there - then again, don't send these whiny babies in the first place either.

Good point.
 
Back
Top Bottom