ScottRiqui
New member
Diplomatic immunity is hardly an American invention. In fact, it's pretty much a universal concept in modern diplomacy, going back at least 300 years.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What's the law on foreign diplomatic bodyguards?
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
imthegrumpyone
New member
Sorry for my ignorance, I still think it's a bad idea. These people should not be above all if they get into trouble, and that includes yours. They're supposed to be better than that.
Unfortunately, history shows that without diplomatic immunity, a country's official representatives, in times of tension, tend to get jailed for "crimes" such as disrespect to the "Great Leader", being the messenger of bad news, heresy, etc. Without diplomatic immunity there would be no embassies or consulates in foreign countries to communicate with those governments or provide aid to citizens traveling in those countries; a lost or stolen passport could be almost impossible to replace, leaving a citizen stranded in a foreign country for possibly months if not years. Not having a passport or having an expired visa is a criminal offense in many countries.grumpybutt said:Sorry for my ignorance, I still think it's a bad idea. These people should not be above all if they get into trouble, and that includes yours. They're supposed to be better than that.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
So I suppose: THIS IS SPARTA - isn't part of current diplomacy. Look at the Iranian hostage crisis - that's what happens when a country violates the rule of law. Even in WWII - diplomats of our enemies were allowed to leave and vice versa.
I was just interested in how they got the guns here as compared to local laws.
I was just interested in how they got the guns here as compared to local laws.
These people should not be above all if they get into trouble, and that includes yours. They're supposed to be better than that.
The country they represent can waive the immunity if they wish.
When a drunken diplomat (Georgia?) killed someone in Washington in an auto accident his country waived his immunity and he stood trial and was convicted and imprisoned.
The people with diplomatic immunity are expected to behave themselves.
The country the bodyguard represents issues them a diplomatic passport and includes them on the list of diplomats scheduled to enter the country. As such, they do not get searched or have their luggage searched. As to the US allowing it, they are under diplomatic immunity, pretty much the same as the US Secret Service that travel abroad with the Presedential security detail. After all, if we forbid foreign diplomats armed protection, they could do the same with us.
It seems there is a little more to it than just granting diplomatic immunity. I remember this from several years ago.
THE bodyguards of Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, are under investigation by American officials for allegedly illegally importing and possessing sub-machineguns used to protect him.
The inquiry by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is embarrassing for Mr Annan because last year he launched a campaign against the proliferation of small arms, saying: "There is no single tool of conflict so widespread."
The Heckler and Koch MP5 sub-machineguns are said to be particularly lethal at short range. They are commonly used by armed police in Britain and around the world.
An official of the ATF told the Washington Times that permission for Mr Annan's 20 bodyguards, who work in shifts, to import or use the guns had not been granted and that they were strictly controlled weapons.
Mr Annan's support for gun control measures around the world made him distinctly unpopular with America's National Rifle Association and other powerful supporters of the right to bear arms, including the White House.
The UN denied any wrongdoing yesterday. The appropriate permissions had been obtained before the guns were taken into America, a spokesman said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1385694/UN-bodyguards-face-guns-inquiry.html
Feds Pressure Annan To Dump Machine Guns
Stewart Stogel
Monday, Aug. 11, 2003
UNITED NATIONS -- Under pressure from the Bush administration, the United Nations security department has decided to move a stache of controversial firearms out of the world body's New York City headquarters.
The MP-5 sub-machine guns made by Heckler and Koch of Germany, are to be moved to U.N. peace keeping operations overseas, according to State Dept. sources.
As first reported in The Washington Times (February 2002), the UN originally purchased the highly restricted weapons for the personal protection of Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his travels around the New York-Metropolitan area.
The guns were often plainly visible in the support van of Annan's motorcade as it moved throughout the concrete canyons of Gotham.
It was unclear why the Annan bodyguards needed such high powered weapons, say sources within the State Dept's. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).
Under a U.S. agreement with the United Nations, DSS bears the ultimate responsibility for Annan's protection within the borders of the United States.
<snip>
Accommodation
State Dept. sources tell NewsMax that ATF and the U.N. never reached an accommodation which would have allowed the rifles back on the streets of New York. In fact, the sources explained that ATF told the U.N. should the guns venture outside its mid-town Manhattan headquarters, it ran the risk of having them seized.
Firearms are not covered under the provisions of diplomatic immunity, says the State Dept.
Faced with a ban on the use of the firearms outside the U.N. and the possibility of an embarrassing confrontation, the world body and the U.S. agreed on a transfer of the rifles outside the country.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/10/111956.shtml
Whatever comes into the country in another country's diplomatic pouch is unknown, as these are not searched by any country, period. This is how intelligence services of country's got weapons into foreign countrys, through the diplomatic pouch. And should they be issued to diplomatic personel, the most we, as a country can do is eject them from this country.
That's not a relevant issue. The UN is not a sovereign entity, and as such its employees are not automatically recognized under the diplomatic protections we offer to actual diplomatic personnel from other countries, except insofar as they obtain diplomatic assignments from their own countries.
That's not a relevant issue.
Please note the relevant line:
Firearms are not covered under the provisions of diplomatic immunity, says the State Dept.
I don't think it is "diplomatic immunity" that allows bodyguards for foreign diplomats to carry firearms. I believe there are written agreements negotiated with the State Department between the US and the host nation that allows them. Sercret service agents do not carry diplomatic passports and do not have diplomatic immunity. They are visiting law enforcement agents.
I remember reading of DEA agents in South America that were not allowed to carry firearms in some countries. If all it took was granting them diplomatic immunity, they would have been toting guns.
Last edited: