Should an American get away with murder on foreign soil ?

If I recall correctly wasn't there a muslim prince, or something like that, who killed his gay lover/servant while overseas? Didn't he try to get away with it due to his diplomatic immunity?

 

On Foreign Soil the American Embassy and Consulates are Spying. That's a pretty paranoia by the US.

 

I suppose we should be mourning the two armed Pakistanis who lost their lives while trying to rob someone .

 

There you go ! A classic American (fake) Muslim.

 

Should have gut shot them.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12317138

Here we have the dutch government freezing contact with Iran because a dutch woman was hanged there. The dutch obviously want that dutch people can do whatever they want overseas including breaking the law, simply because they are dutch.

:coo:

 

What is it with you and celebrating the idea of Muslim governments killing people. In one thread you're fantasizing about other nations ganging up and turning the inhabitants of Israel into fried eggs, now you gleefully report on a woman getting hanged. Isn't there some kinda medication you're supposed to take for this. In case you're curious, that isn't normal.

 

celebrating, gleefully?

Can you read my mind?

 

americans get away with murder on foreign soil all the time...there is no war crimes court that the USA is responsible to, not because they are somehow above the law, but because they can blackmail and bomb any country that would dare sue them...

americans have big guns and means of delivery so they have the right to kill you and not face any justice over it...if you want justice you need to start developing weapons of mass destruction...

one day all countries will have a means to hurt the USA or any other invader...until then the USA is just more equal than others

 

I can't even confirm that it exists, but I can read your posts.

 

Totally wrong if anyone hurt the U.S.A anytime in the future all of the world would be our allies and they would be invaded.

U.S.A and Russia have the most nuclear bombs out of the world. No other country comes close so we will always be ahead.

Trust me when it comes to WAR our nation is the most respected in keeping peace at all points of the mission.


HINT this is not World War 2. We don't have two nukes and basically even on the playing field like the rest of the world. Another country would shit in their pants if they challenged us.

WAKE UP

 

Which part of my posts is giving you the impression that I'm "celebrating"?

 

..... The text. ....

[maybe the smiley too]

 

Which part of my text?

 

The part that precedes the smiley.

 

It's about I stopped wasting my time with nutcases like you.

join my ignore list.

cowboy.

 

If not enjoying seeing women get hung or stoned by mysogenist assholes makes me a nutcase, or constantly hoping others go to war for the glory of a backward religion does so, then I'm guilty. You don't have to put us on your ignore list to prove you're ignorant though, but I can certainly live with it.

 

Because those people (not all Muslims/Immigrants, only those who want to establish Sharia law or change British culture) love to abuse the "freedom of speech" and "freedom to criticize the government" given in the west. They want to establish a separate legal system for themselves, and constantly whine that alcohol shouldn't be sold in stores, that the way British women dress "offends" them, that flying a British flag and displaying pride in your European heritage is "racist", banning Christmas celebrations - even secular ones such as Santa Claus, Christmas tree, etc. I could go on, but I am not going to write a 40 page thesis on their whining.

Here's a response to them: if you don't like Britain (or any other country), leave. Yes, we will drink in public establishments. Yes, our women will dress how they please. Yes, we have a right to be proud of our culture and heritage. If you want to live in an Islamic country, then go to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Funny thing is, if a westerner attempted the same thing in an Islamic country, then he would be either imprisoned, deported and banned from the country, subjected to torture, or executed.

While I do believe (especially as a representative of a diplomatic mission), that he could have done more to help, rather than just complying with the minimum required by law of "leaving his contact details", there ARE some situations where this would be the right thing to do. In certain countries, if a foreigner hits a local (even if the local was at fault) with his car, a mob would quickly build up and all hell breaks lose.

Imagine driving through a "ghetto" area in New York/LA/Atlanta, etc. at night and hitting a drunk "gangsta" crossing in the middle of the road. If you stayed on the scene to help him, chances are his "homies" wouldn't be too happy to see what you have done and bullets would fly in your direction very quickly.

Not really. See the Wikipedia article on diplomatic immunity.

There are many levels of immunity, depending on how high up you are on the diplomatic totem pole. Certain diplomats have full immunity and cannot be prosecuted under local laws, no matter what crime they have committed (even deliberate murder). Others have more limited immunity that usually applies only for "official acts", i.e. actions committed while on duty and performing a task required by the diplomatic organization (such as violating currency laws by not declaring money transfers coming to the embassy, etc.)

In any case, the host country has a few options. They can ask the sending state to waive the diplomat's immunity. They can ask the sending state to prosecute the diplomat back home. Or, they can simply expel the diplomat and ban him from the country (persona non grata).

We don't know if it's murder. For some reason, I doubt a US diplomat would simply whip out his weapon and randomly shoot at Pakistanis for fun. If he had gone crazy and wanted to kill people deliberately, I think he would have shot more than 2 individuals.

The Pakistani that got killed was armed as well. We don't know what happened 100%. Maybe the Pakistani did indeed try to rob the diplomat. Maybe they got into an argument and the Pakistani drew his pistol first, making the diplomat shoot him out of fear of being shot himself.

We will have to wait to find out more details. But yet again, I doubt a diplomat would simply shoot locals (in a populated area, meaning that he has a 95%+ chance of getting caught) without something happening which genuinely caused him to think he is in danger.

If he was indeed attacked or had a gun pointed at him by the Pakistani, he was within his rights to use self-defense. Much like a shop owner has the right to use deadly force to resist an armed robbery - of course, this usually results in whining on the part of the robber's family/community: "He didn't dooz nuffings!! Mah son waas a goood buoooy! (even though he has a criminal record longer than the phone book)"

 

P.S I hate Obama allowing TERRIOST on USA soil to have a criminal court and not a military court.

Criminal court needs evidence that the government has to withhold from the court because confessions outside of the U.S.A and water boarding etc. Do you think we were picking UP EVIDENCE IN IRAQ and IRAN during war?

Military Court is really the opposite of a criminal court taking in account all of the evidence that was heard and seen in prison.

I cant wait to get Obama and his cronies out of the office.