Diplomatic Immunity Quotes

The Prime Minister was visiting the United States and was staying at the White House. President Roosevelt had a spontaneous thought and wheeled himself into Churchill's room. The Prime Minister was stark naked, having just emerged from the bath. Roosevelt apologized but Churchill was unfazed and known for his nudity in his private quarters. He even used what might have been an awkward moment into an opportunity to make a political point.

Diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China was being debated. Many of Churchill’s Conservative Party Colleagues were opposed on the grounds that diplomatic relations gives a signal of legitimacy. In the U. S. this general issue is a constant source of political controversy when diplomatic relations and talks are considered with Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

The first two would often interfere with the operations.

Gets was commenting on the Apple Computer Company who refused to obey a court order to create a program that would break into any iPhone. Apple thought the court order was not only bad public policy, but was not legal, so they refused and appealed to start the legal process. However, the FBI which had claimed that they had no other way to view some critical investigative data, found one, and not wanting the case to go to higher courts where they might or might not lose, the dropped the case, thus stopping the legal appeal as in the United States courts will hot hear theoretical cases as they will in some countries. Since apple was not in danger of being held in criminal contempt any longer the could not longer appeal.

The ambassador had received a public hearing under the assumption that the meeting would be perfunctory. Instead he used the occasion to protest the Queen's quarrels with the Spanish as it was affecting Polish merchants. Such a public complaint to a sovereign was a breach of diplomatic etiquette at the time.

President Wilson had gone to Paris for peace treaty negotiations. Ex-President Roosevelt was on his deathbed. But even then TR was his politically contentious self.

“Dey” and “bey” were Arabic terms for the local ruler of an area.

This Government Instruction to British North African Consular Personnel summarized the policies of the British government with regard to British citizens who run afoul of the law while in Morocco and other North African countries. Essentially, the British almost always insisted on a treaty with the foreign governments that gave jurisdiction to the British Counsul to try any Englishman who was accused of a crime. The national government could not put a British Subject on trial of punish him regardless of the crime. Where local people were the victim of the alleged crime, the national government could send an observer to the trial that the British consul held. To many, this was arrogant and insulting to the host governments. As high handed as it seems, there were and still are great problems with differing concepts of justice, different rights protected and different levels of corruption. In many countries “important” local officials can control or influence the decisions of courts, witnesses can be easily bribed lie, and even judges can readily be bought. Even today, the issue of criminal jurisdiction is one of the most important subjects of negotiations between nations. The United States has similar agreements with Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, Japan and other nations where we have armed forces. Generally, the better and more sophisticated and honest the host government justice system is, the more willing modern nations are to allow them jurisdiction over criminal matters. But generally, in the world today, these treaties are the exception. Most criminal jurisdiction is with the national government where the alleged crime takes place.

In the early 18th century, the succession to the Scottish and English Crowns was unclear. As a safety valve and check, this clause was adopted by the Scottish Parliament. This was one of the most radical and anti monarchy laws ever passed. It took the unilateral power of making war and peace from the king & established the principle of ratification of ALL treaties. The law did not last long. It was nullified by the Union between England & Scotland (1707), and the English Parliament specifically repealed the clause in the “Repeal of Certain Scotch Acts of 1707”. This clause, which only remained in force for 3 years, had a profound effect on the modern democracies. The American founding fathers were totally familiar with the recent English history & this law. So the American’s at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, built the principle into the new Constitution giving the Congress the power to Declare War and the Senate to ratify treaties as a check against Presidential power.

There have been times in democracies where a foreign ministry (State Department) is isolated from the elected politicians and implements a foreign policy that is at odds with the wishes of the elected officials and the majority of the nation. A good American example of this was in 1948 where America had to decide whether to support the creation of the State of Israel in the United Nations and through diplomatic recognition. The professional diplomats in the State Department had developed very close relations with Arab States, and many State Department employees were anti-Semitic. In addition, they thought the most important thing for America was not to risk the Arab oil supply. Meanwhile, the people, Congress, and President Truman were on the other side and Truman had to finally order The Secretary of State to stop his professional diplomats from pursuing their own foreign policy preferences. Even then some did not.