Why does "immunity" exist?

[mdegges]

Is there a reason why UN peacekeepers, diplomats, and high ranking officials have political immunity? I started reading The Whistleblower and it's insane how many hoops the author had to jump through to spread the word about human trafficking in Bosnia. But that seems to be the only effect she had.

Originally hired by the U.S. company DynCorp in the framework of a U.N.-related contract, she filed a lawsuit in Great Britain against DynCorp for unfair dismissal due to a protected disclosure, and on 2 August 2002 the tribunal unanimously found in her favor. DynCorp had a $15 million contract to hire and train police officers for duty in Bosnia. At the time she reported such officers were paying for prostitues and participating in sex trafficking. Many of these were forced to resign under suspicion of illegal activity, but none have been prosecuted, as they also enjoy immunity from prosecution in Bosnia.

Is there any rational reason for immunity? Why was it created, and should it continue to be given?

[softwareNerd]

Traditionally, it's like an opponent who approaches under a white flag, or something similar, to parley. One country is sending their ambassador to another and the idea is that the other country can expel the ambassador, but not arrest him. The idea is that the receiving country could otherwise arrest the ambassador on a trumped up charge. If an ambassador commits a crime, the country he represents ought to prosecute him. That's the theory, but of course there are a fair number of abuses.

Not the same, but similarly, U.S. soldiers based in Iraq and Afghanistan were/are there under an arrangement where the local government will not prosecute them: not even if the country becomes stable and has a properly-functioning government. It is up to the U.S. government to prosecute them.

[mdegges]

Traditionally, it's like an opponent who approaches under a white flag, or something similar, to parley. One country is sending their ambassador to another and the idea is that the other country can expel the ambassador, but not arrest him. The idea is that the receiving country could otherwise arrest the ambassador on a trumped up charge. If an ambassador commits a crime, the country he represents ought to prosecute him. That's the theory, but of course there are a fair number of abuses.

Thanks, I see the situation.

Not the same, but similarly, U.S. soldiers based in Iraq and Afghanistan were/are there under an arrangement where the local government will not prosecute them: not even if the country becomes stable and has a properly-functioning government. It is up to the U.S. government to prosecute them.

Would there be any need for this in an objectivist society? From what I've read, immunity seems so unjust because offenders are never prosecuted. Victims have no way to (legally) get any justice, and even worse, it puts officals above the law and gives them free reign to do whatever they want.

[Hairnet]

It has no place in a rational world. People (sometimes) respected diplomats and wouldn''t dare hurt them because they didn't want to set the precedent that those that surrendered or those who would wanted to reperesent their government could just be killed or detained. Considering the equal playing field that all of those people were on techonologically, philisophically, and militarily, I understand that political ideal.

The United States should not and will not surrender to anyone, so we shouldn't worry about setting precedents other than prosecuting the guilty. The ideal makes no sense in our days because the US is the strongest on so many levels and thsoe that could concievably challenge us would never want to.

If you come to our country you should obey our laws. American citizens are prosecuted all over the absurd crimes, and we give the leaders of those countries free passes in ours. That is evil.

[Nicky]

There is nothing wrong with people having immunity from prosecution by a specific agency or government, if there's a justifiable reason for it (i.e. diplomats - to prevent the host country from obtaining undue influence over a foreign country's officials, soldiers , lawmakers and members of a cabinet - to protect the separation of the branches of government).

But there has to be a mechanism in place where these people are still held responsible for any crimes. In the case of the US military, it's the military's own justice system. In the case of diplomats it's supposed to be their own government (and it usually is, the problems usually occur when we allow an evil government to send its representatives to NYC- that shouldn't happen to begin with, let alone with immunity from local justice), and in the case of lawmakers and cabinet members it's Ethics Committees, and other mechanisms that allow for the stripping of that immunity by the legislative body.

[Reidy]

A country's principal recourse against immune diplomats is its power to expel them, and countries regularly use this against, e.g. spies or drunk drivers.

[mdegges]

The United States should not and will not surrender to anyone, so we shouldn't worry about setting precedents other than prosecuting the guilty. The ideal makes no sense in our days because the US is the strongest on so many levels and thsoe that could concievably challenge us would never want to.

If you come to our country you should obey our laws. American citizens are prosecuted all over the absurd crimes, and we give the leaders of those countries free passes in ours. That is evil.

...(and it usually is, the problems usually occur when we allow an evil government to send its representatives to NYC- that shouldn't happen to begin with, let alone with immunity from local justice)...

I don't think the question is about American superiority. It's just about individual people who break laws in other countries, while they have immunity. The book I'm reading is primarly about americans and europeans who get paid a lot of money to go to third world countries and investigate problems (sort of like policemen do here). A large amount of these people have gotten involved in human trafficking, kidnapping, rape, and murder. I don't think the proper response is, "The USA is the strongest country, so we can do whatever we want when we land in your country." I think they should be prosecuted whether they're American or not.

Another reason for immunity might be that the laws in other countries are much different than in ours. ie: if an American woman were a diplomat in Afganistan, she shouldn't pay the penalties for not covering her head with a hijab, like the law there dictates. But if immunity didn't exist, would she be forced to wear a hijab (or be punished for not wearing one, according to the laws in Afganistan)?

Edited March 22, 2012 by Michele Degges

[Nicky]

But if immunity didn't exist, would she be forced to wear a hijab (or be punished for not wearing one, according to the laws in Afganistan)?

I don't think anyone is forced to wear the hijab/burka in the government controlled areas of Afghanistan. That would be a bit much, even for Mr. Karzai and his newfound hatred of the West.

I don't think the question is about American superiority. It's just about individual people who break laws in other countries, while they have immunity. The book I'm reading is primarly about americans and europeans who get paid a lot of money to go to third world countries and investigate problems (sort of like policemen do here).

Get paid by whom? And they got their immunity from whom?

Blame those institutions, not Europe or the US. Europe and the US hold their own agents accountable for crimes committed everywhere.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Nicky

[mdegges]

I don't think anyone is forced to wear the hijab/burka in the government controlled areas of Afghanistan. That would be a bit much, even for Mr. Karzai and his newfound hatred of the West.

Afghanistan is one of the main countries known for hijab "enforcement."

A different example is that it's illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know, immunity is the only thing stopping a female diplomat from getting arrested for this violation. If immunity didn't exist, she would face the penalties (being beaten by authorities).

Get paid by whom? And they got their immunity from whom?

Blame those institutions, not Europe or the US. Europe and the US hold their own agents accountable for crimes committed everywhere.

Please reread the initial post. They got their immunity from the UN, the UK, and in some cases the US. None of these violators that I have mentioned have been prosecuted by their home countries, or by the countries in which they committed these offenses.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Michele Degges

[Nicky]

Please reread the initial post. They got their immunity from the UN, the UK, and in some cases the US. None of these violators that I have mentioned have been prosecuted by their home countries, or by the countries in which they committed these offenses.

Just to clarify: Are you saying that American citizens are in possession of some kind of a permission slip to break the laws of the United States, that they received from the US government?

That someone can go to Bosnia, violate an American law, and the American justice system can't prosecute him when he comes back?

Edited March 22, 2012 by Nicky

[mdegges]

Just to clarify: Are you saying that American citizens are in possession of some kind of a permission slip to break the laws of the United States, that they received from the US government?

That someone can go to Bosnia, violate an American law, and the American justice system can't prosecute him when he comes back?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the details about every case. But from what I've read, it seems to depend on: 1) the severity of the crime, 2) how many people were involved in the crime, 3) how much media attention (if any) it has gotten, and 4) the effect it would have on the public's opinion if they knew about what happened. In some cases, as in the OP, violators are not prosecuted at all and still have immunity. (In TWB, the author implies the reason is that so many US/UK/UN people were involved that the truth would hurt their reputation beyond repair. They didn't want the word getting out, so they closed all the open investigations that dealt with the individuals who were kidnapping, raping, buying, and selling Bosnian girls. The evidence against these guys was all there, including statements from the women who had survived and could name names. But they were never prosecuted, and their immunity was never waved.) This is not the only time that something on this severe a scale has happened with similiar results..see this link for further details.

I think there's cases where immunity is important, (like when a diplomat travels to another country without following mandated religious customs, etc), but there is a fine line between immunity and impunity.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Michele Degges

[Nicky]

That doesn't really clarify much. Are you talking about people working for the US government, who are immune to prosecution from US agencies?

Because, contrary to claims to that effect by some people, they are not. They are subject to both DOJ prosecution and US civil suits. In fact there is a famous case where Jamie Leigh Jones sued and lost a civil case over her alleged rape in Iraq, after her allegations were used by various interests to claim the US isn't investigating such crimes.

I think the people in these stories are under a UN flag, not American or British. Of course American prosecutors can't investigate a crime that occurred in Bosnia, in the middle of a UN operation. Even if they tried (which they shouldn't, it's none of their business), the UN would refuse to cooperate with them. That doesn't mean these people have immunity from the US government. That's a preposterous thing to say.

[mdegges]

I asked why immunity exists in the first place, if there would be a need for it in a rational society, and then went on to discuss cases where I think immunity might be important, and other cases where it is obviously being abused.

I'm 99.9% sure you haven't even looked into the matter that I've been discussing, namely the abuse of immunity granted by US, UK, and UN workers in Bosnia. (I have the book right in front of me to support what I'm saying.) In addition, you haven't answered any of the questions I posed, so we're not making any ground here. I will stop the discussion until there's new information added.

[softwareNerd]

I asked why immunity exists in the first place, if there would be a need for it in a rational society, ... ...

It should not exist in the sense implied by the examples you mention. Those are unlike traditional diplomatic immunity. In traditional diplomatic immunity, one country gives immunity to specific citizens of another. The equivalent would be if Bosnia granted immunity to U.N. or NATO soldiers.

However, the examples you speak of imply that the U.S. gives immunity to its own soldiers who are in Bosnia. If this is true, it is wrong. As someone replied earlier, there is no reason to take an individual outside the purview of all governments. This section in the Justice Department is supposed to look into such crimes. I've heard about a case being prosecuted in Canada. It sounds odd that the U.S. would grant immunity to its own citizens. If it does, it ought not to do so.

[Nicky]

I asked why immunity exists in the first place, if there would be a need for it in a rational society, and then went on to discuss cases where I think immunity might be important, and other cases where it is obviously being abused.

I'm 99.9% sure you haven't even looked into the matter that I've been discussing, namely the abuse of immunity granted by US, UK, and UN workers in Bosnia.

You're alleging that the US government gives some individuals (you're not saying whom) immunity, and then asking whether we agree with this.

My answer was "What immunity?". Post the law that supposedly grants this immunity, and I'll tell you if it's right or wrong. I'm 99.9% sure that this law doesn't exist, and these Americans are not immune from prosecution in the United States.

[mdegges]

However, the examples you speak of imply that the U.S. gives immunity to its own soldiers who are in Bosnia.

Specifically, DynCorp is a US based private military contractor. "DynCorp receives more than 96% of its more than $3 billion in annual revenues from the US federal government." Employees of this company, and other international/UN workers, have been accused of the crimes I mentioned above. I meant to imply that because this company is US-funded and US-based, these employees have immunity from the US government. TWB also implies this within the first few chapters, so I assume it is true.

My answer was "What immunity?". Post the law that supposedly grants this immunity, and I'll tell you if it's right or wrong. I'm 99.9% sure that this law doesn't exist, and these Americans are not immune from prosecution in the United States.

It's unclear whether these offenders came back to the US or not. Either way, their immunity was not waived, which leads me to believe that they cannot be prosecuted (immunity must be waived first before a person can be prosecuted). You can read the details on wiki, if you'd like:

"In the late 1990s, according to whistleblower Ben Johnston, a former aircraft mechanic who worked for the company in Bosnia and Herzegovina, DynCorp employees and supervisors engaged in sex with 12 to 15 year old children, and sold them to each other as slaves. Ben Johnston ended up fired, and later forced into protective custody. According to Johnston, none of the girls were from Bosnia and Herzegovina itself, but were kidnapped by DynCorp employees from Russia, Romania and other places.

"On June 2, 2000, members of the 48th Military Police Detachment conducted a sting on the DynCorp hangar at Comanche Base Camp, one of two U.S. bases in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all DynCorp personnel were detained for questioning. CID spent several weeks working the investigation and the results appear to support Johnston's allegations. For example, according to DynCorp employee Kevin Werner's sworn statement to CID, "during my last six months I have come to know a man we call 'Debeli,' which is Croatian for fat boy. He is the operator of a nightclub by the name of Harley's that offers prostitution. Women are sold hourly, nightly or permanently."

"Johnston is not the only DynCorp employee to blow the whistle and sue the billion-dollar government contractor. Kathryn Bolkovac, a U.N. International Police Force monitor hired by the U.S. company on another U.N.-related contract, filed a lawsuit in Great Britain against DynCorp for unfair dismissal due to a protected disclosure (whistleblowing), and on 2 August 2002 the tribunal unanimously found in her favor. DynCorp had a $15 million contract to hire and train police officers for duty in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time she reported such officers were paying for prostitutes and participating in sex-trafficking. Many of these were forced to resign under suspicion of illegal activity, but none have been prosecuted, as they also enjoy immunity from prosecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

DynCorp has admitted it fired five employees for similar illegal activities prior to Johnston's charges. In the summer of 2005, the United States Defense department drafted a proposal to prohibit defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forced prostitution and labor. Several defense contractors, among others DynCorp, stalled the establishment of a final proposal that would formally prohibit defense contractor involvement in these activities."

Edited March 23, 2012 by Michele Degges

[softwareNerd]

Specifically, DynCorp is a US based private military contractor.

The U.S. definitely ought to have a way to prosecute people it hires as its agents, even if those people are immune from prosecution by others.

After a bit of Googling, it sounds like this case might not strictly be about positively granting immunity from U.S. prosecution, but about not having jurisdiction under U.S. law. In other words, the U.S. is granting these people immunity from Bosnian prosecution, but the U.S. itself does not have jurisdiction to prosecute them. While the U.S. can prosecute its military personnel and private individuals who work for its military, it sounds like something more is needed to give the U.S. jurisdiction over private contractors working for the state department. This bill appears to address the issue.

[Nicky]

The U.S. definitely ought to have a way to prosecute people it hires as its agents, even if those people are immune from prosecution by others.

After a bit of Googling, it sounds like this case might not strictly be about positively granting immunity from U.S. prosecution, but about not having jurisdiction under U.S. law. In other words, the U.S. is granting these people immunity from Bosnian prosecution, but the U.S. itself does not have jurisdiction to prosecute them. While the U.S. can prosecute its military personnel and private individuals who work for its military, it sounds like something more is needed to give the U.S. jurisdiction over private contractors working for the state department. This bill appears to address the issue.

If civilian contractors can't be prosecuted, why are they being prosecuted (both by US civilian and military justice)?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3963828

http://www.usnews.com/news/iraq/articles/2008/04/05/first-contractor-charged-under-military-justice-system

The supporters of that bill allege that those contractors aren't subject to American justice, but their evidence is weak, and often fabricated (like the case I cited two posts ago). In reality, those contractors are not immune.

It's unclear whether these offenders came back to the US or not. Either way, their immunity was not waived, which leads me to believe that they cannot be prosecuted (immunity must be waived first before a person can be prosecuted). You can read the details on wiki, if you'd like:

Again, what immunity was not waived? My position is that this alleged immunity doesn't exist. It wasn't waived, because you can't waive something that doesn't exist.

What is your proof that these people are immune from prosecution by American justice? Is there a law? A Presidential order? Anything at all?

[mdegges]

The U.S. definitely ought to have a way to prosecute people it hires as its agents, even if those people are immune from prosecution by others.

After a bit of Googling, it sounds like this case might not strictly be about positively granting immunity from U.S. prosecution, but about not having jurisdiction under U.S. law. In other words, the U.S. is granting these people immunity from Bosnian prosecution, but the U.S. itself does not have jurisdiction to prosecute them. While the U.S. can prosecute its military personnel and private individuals who work for its military, it sounds like something more is needed to give the U.S. jurisdiction over private contractors working for the state department. This bill appears to address the issue.

I see. I didn't know that was the case. I wonder if this is the first law of its kind to exist, because the events I mentioned happened over a decade earlier.

Again, what immunity was not waived? My position is that this alleged immunity doesn't exist. It wasn't waived, because you can't waive something that doesn't exist.

What is your proof that these people are immune from prosecution by American justice? Is there a law? A Presidential order? Anything at all?

I don't have the time or motivation to research immunity laws that existed over 20 years ago. Countless articles and books that deal with this sex-trafficking scandal have specifically stated that these employees were granted immunity before going overseas. That is enough proof for me.

[Nicky]

I don't have the time or motivation to research immunity laws that existed over 20 years ago.

I don't think they ever existed. I challenge you to produce them.

In regard to your claim that you don't have time: I can produce the text of any existing American law for you in under 5 minutes. They're not a secret. If you have time to read several books on a subject, you really should set five minutes aside to find out if they're telling the truth or not.

I see. I didn't know that was the case. I wonder if this is the first law of its kind to exist, because the events I mentioned happened over a decade earlier.

It's not a law, it's a bill. And it doesn't look like it's gonna pass anytime soon. Reps Leahy and Price (Democrats) tried the same gag before the 2008 elections. It died because they were aiming to curb US intelligence efforts (the hot topic at the time, before Obama got into office and the need for reigning in the CIA magically disappeared).

My guess is it will die again (even though they specifically made sure that this time it won't apply to intelligence workers), because there is no credible evidence that US justice lacks the authority to prosecute its civilian contractors. This is just another politically motivated effort that would create another cluster of federal agencies, to add to the inefficiency and waste of the hundreds that are already in place. I really doubt that's what's going to make federal law enforcement more competent in apprehending criminals.

That lack of competence in the ranks of existing agencies is the only problem here, if there is a problem, btw. Although it's unclear that there even is a significant problem. I know of only one instance when a judge threw out a case over its handling by the investigators (a case against some Blackwater employees in Iraq).