Craig Murray thinks she did not have diplomatic immunity, but I think that is an argument in principle and is barking up the wrong tree. The issue is whether the United States should have asserted immunity or waived it. It is clear they should have waived it and law required this.
I suspect that Craig Murray's analysis is more likely correct than your knee jerk assertions.
His analysis comes with supporting evidence and he does actually know about the subject given his background. You are just expressing opinion with nothing to support it other than your own arrogance.
You claim legal knowledge or expertise over other posters on a regular basis and this is supported only by your own bluster.
I don't understand what this sudden personal attack is about, completely unprovoked, but let me reply:
(i). It's not knee jerk assertions. I base it on actual knowledge. I can back it up and quote law. And I have not attacked Craig Murray. All I have said is I take a different view.
(ii). I am not being arrogant. I am just telling you what I think. I have not been arrogant about my legal knowledge. If I correct somebody about the law (assuming I have done that), that does not equate to arrogance.
(iii). I don't "...claim legal knowledge or expertise over other posters on a regular basis". I merely claim legal knowledge. If my understanding of the law is better than that of other posters, that is not arrogance. Being right about something does not make you arrogant in relation to somebody who is wrong. To suggest that it does is just a form of abuse.
(iv). To be clear, because we need to be in the face of your attack, I believe she did have immunity of some kind, but I am saying that it doesn't really matter whether she had immunity or not, that point can be relegated to principle, as we are where we are; the real issue is the United States' breach of international law in declining to waive the immunity. Is it possible, Gringo, that your failure to appreciate this distinction reflects a certain ignorance on your part about the matter under discussion? Or would that be 'arrogant' of me? Or would it be arrogant of you? Ignorance can be the result of arrogance.
Your post is disgraceful, but I'd like it to remain, as I want to refer to your attitude later.
I've noticed, Gringo, you do have a tendency to become abusive at the slightest disagreement with whatever view you have. In my case, I only become abusive in the face of abuse, I don't abuse people just for disagreeing with me.
Maybe you should learn to do the same?
On a previous thread, you started accusing me of having some sort of sinister pro-police agenda, merely because I extend due process rights to accused police officers.
You seem to have these pet notions and fixations in your head, and when anybody disturbs them - even when, as here, it is done politely and knowledgeably - you don't seem to able to cope with it.
