[Flash Bazbeaux]

Normally a host country has no criminal jurisdiction over an accredited diplomat. That’s what “diplomatic immunity” means. If that is the case here, then the US is not protecting the diplomat from anything.

[Ken522]

Maybe they just wanted to get him back on US soil so they could fire his ass ...

[Dr. Franklin]

Normally a host country has no criminal jurisdiction over an accredited diplomat. That’s what “diplomatic immunity” means. If that is the case here, then the US is not protecting the diplomat from anything.

The host country can request that diplomat's home country waive the diplomatic immunity. No report that they did. The U.K. has enough pedophile Muzzies grooming and raping British girls to prosecute without worrying about what diplomats have on their electronic devices.

[DiogenesLamp]

Normally a host country has no criminal jurisdiction over an accredited diplomat. That’s what “diplomatic immunity” means. If that is the case here, then the US is not protecting the diplomat from anything.

This is why the story doesn't make sense. If he's *OUR* Diplomat, he's outside their jurisdiction anyways.

If we grabbed him, it's probably because we want to punish him. Are they objecting to us punishing our own criminals?

Either the British Authorities are nuts, or whoever did this story didn't get some facts straight.