I agree. US military personnel stationed overseas are subject to the laws of the host country. No “diplomatic immunity” for our uniformed personnel.
Why should civilians have such protections?
That said, diplomatic immunity is a longstanding rule. No country has ever waived it as far as I have been able to discover after a quick search on the subject.
Are US military stationed overseas required to go off base?
If they are not required to, then they are no different than a tourist when they do.
One of the little known aspects of the war.
Iran did not honor those traditions when they took our Embassy in 1979.
how servicemembers fare under host country’s legal systems is really complicated and depends on the status of forces agreement we have with that country. that’s how that sargeant in romania got away with killing a famous pop star in the 2000s w/only a reprimand under the UCMJ.
The US pressured Georgia (the country, not the state) into waiving diplomatic immunity on one of its diplomats. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-dec-20-mn-531-story.html It seems reasonable to me that diplomatic immunity should not be used to shield people from justice. The intention of diplomatic immunity was to shield diplomats from politically motivated prosecutions, but a non-rogue state should not be protecting its diplomats from justice when they have committed a genuine crime. That is an utter abuse.