Are the royals on the rocks?

1101113151642

Comments

  • IF Andrew were arrested, tried, and convicted in the US, what would be involved with putting a foreign royal in prison? (Besides an international incident with a long-time friendly country.) Could it be done? Would it be done? Would he have to be kept out of "the general population" of prisoners, for his own protection?

    Etc., etc., etc.
  • GK - it won't happen. It makes for an interesting mind experiment, perhaps, but that's as far as it goes. Andrew won't be arrested, though he might find it prudent to avoid the US for a bit.
  • In both cases, the Prince and Sacoolas, questions of honour (personal and national) arise. Not much hope there, evidently.
  • Yup. All that Andrew is suspected of is having sex with someone (a) over the age of consent, and (b) young enough to be his daughter. Vile - yes, but not a crime.

    Anne Sacoolas made statements in front of witnesses at an RTA acknowledging that she broke the law by driving on the wrong side of the road (a criminal offence), and that offence caused the death of an innocent young man.

    And (allegedly) failing to report sex trafficking, and (allegedly) failing to support or assist enquires into said sex trafficking and associated crimes by those he claims as friends.

    But in both cases, they are being requested to participate in the relevant bits of due process.

    He muttered about answering FBI questions if he could help and was advised to do so based on the press reports I read. (I didn't watch it). Giving him several great reasons for doing nothing. He can't help and, even if he could, his lawyers have told him not too
  • There is no suggestion he was involved in any trafficking so why does the NY prosecutor want to talk to him?
  • If you were a personal friend of the Kraft twins and went regularly to the blind beggar, the police would probably want to know what you’d seen of the comings and goings.
  • So send an assistant DA to London to take a statement.
  • edited January 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »
    IF Andrew were arrested, tried, and convicted in the US, what would be involved with putting a foreign royal in prison? (Besides an international incident with a long-time friendly country.) Could it be done? Would it be done? Would he have to be kept out of "the general population" of prisoners, for his own protection?

    Etc., etc., etc.

    The answer depends on a number of things, such as if it's a federal or a state offence. Note that in the US, prisoners are sentenced "to the custody of the Attorney General," and that can mean different things. There are a range of federal prisons in the US, and there are several minimal security ones designed for non-violent offenders (Allenwood or Otisville Federal Prison Camps, among others, as well as facilities on military bases-- special rules for Guantanamo, as we have learned). Otherwise, his visibility would require special measures for his own protection from other inmates, and this is more common in state prisions, where former police, etc, are set aside from other prisoners. In the past in several states, certain former officials had bungalow-equivalent or apartment facilities (as in Spain). (Disclaimer: I acquired some of this knowledge when a former colleague, who had left the Public Service to make much much more money in the private sector, did so with too much focus, and ended up convicted of a very major bit of tax evasion-- there is very little available on special facilities in Canada, and they are quite limited.)

    While it is likely that the Queen herself cannot be sentenced or imprisoned, there are no special provisions for princes or consorts in the UK (The Tower of London?). There are no formal provisions in the US, other than the VIP facilities to which I refer above. There are also circumstances (e.g., certain health conditions) where they'll hand out house arrest, but again this depends on whether or not the conviction is for a federal offence or a state offence and, for the latter, which of 51 criminal codes is in play.

    Would it be done? Prosecutions sometimes happen for PR or political reasons. Would the federal authorities pursue extradition? Would they like to see a debate on the equivalence with Mrs Sacoolas?
  • s a matter of interest, would Prince Andrew, as a non-US national, be entitled to plead the Fifth Amendment?
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    s a matter of interest, would Prince Andrew, as a non-US national, be entitled to plead the Fifth Amendment?

    Whyever not? The US constitution is US law - it doesn't only apply to Americans. There are a couple of places where it mentions citizens - but mostly it just talks about people.

    Non-Americans are people too.
  • Has anyone told Mr Trump that?

    I'll get me coat...
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    s a matter of interest, would Prince Andrew, as a non-US national, be entitled to plead the Fifth Amendment?

    Whyever not? The US constitution is US law - it doesn't only apply to Americans. There are a couple of places where it mentions citizens - but mostly it just talks about people.

    Non-Americans are people too.

    This is correct. The Bill of Rights isn't so much an enumeration of the rights of people (though it is also that) as much as it is a list of restrictions of things the government isn't allowed to do. The relevant text:
    No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, . . .

    "Person", not "citizen". In fact the word "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights and we know the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were familiar with the word since they put citizenship requirements on members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the president and the vice president.
  • So send an assistant DA to London to take a statement.

    Seems reasonable, but according to the FBI he just hasn’t replied to their communications.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited January 2020
    There is no suggestion he was involved in any trafficking so why does the NY prosecutor want to talk to him?

    He was a close personal friend of the accused and spent a lot of time with him in the company of girls who claim they were trafficked by the accused. IANAL, but I can understand why the NY prosecutor might want to ask him:

    Did he ever wonder why there were so many attractive young women wandering about or notice anything odd?

    Did any of these girls ever speak - or try to speak - to him about their treatment?

    Did any of his staff express concern about this relationship or the set-up?

    Did he, as has been alleged, have sex with any of the girls?

    All of which he'd be answering under caution. No wonder his legal team are not replying to requests for an interview unless it's backed up with something more formal.
  • Spare a thought for HM the Q...she must be approaching the end of her reign, and yet she has to contend with (a) Brexs*it, (b) Andrew and his alleged goings-on, and (c) Harry and Meghan jumping ship.

    Not to mention poor old Philip getting feebler.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    There is no suggestion he was involved in any trafficking so why does the NY prosecutor want to talk to him?

    He was a close personal friend of the accused and spent a lot of time with him in the company of girls who claim they were trafficked by the accused. IANAL, but I can understand why the NY prosecutor might want to ask him:

    Did he ever wonder why there were so many attractive young women wandering about or notice anything odd?

    Did the decor in the house ever give him pause for thought?
  • O, I doubt it - Royals are trained to Not Notice anything untoward...
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I see the Sussex's are threatening to sue anyone who takes an unauthorized picture of the family in Vancouver.

    This will support their move to LA as the only place on earth where they can purchase sufficient security to keep the world out of their private life. How dare you expect to be given any information about the goings on of the 5th and 6th in line to the throne without their express permission! (Oprah and Madonna would understand)
  • Is LA related in any way to La-La-Land? Cuz that's where they need to go, if they want to stay out of the public eye.
  • Same place, BG. Los Angeles, California.
  • If they move to LA, they'll probably have more privacy and safety problems, ISTM. Like bus tours to celebrities' homes. (Though AIUI some celebs have vacant homes in their names, specifically for that purpose. IOW, the celebs are never there for the public to see.)
  • The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that foreign citizens have the civil rights as American citizens when it comes to criminal or civil matters.

    There have been instances where members of the royal families have been charged with a crime--Princess Anne got a speeding ticket once and she was also charged with violating the dangerous dog act.

    In the case of Prince Andrew, if the US government determines he should be tried for any sex crime (whatever that may be) they would have to ask for extradition. But, no one can be extradited by either country unless the offense is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Same place, BG. Los Angeles, California.

    Sorry, that should be BF.

  • Gramps--

    Diplomatic privilege doesn't apply?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Gramps--

    Diplomatic privilege doesn't apply?

    I really cannot say, all I could find is that while the sovereign cannot be charged with a crime, but royal family members have.

    I guess if the queen sends her brother on a diplomatic mission, then diplomatic immunity would apply. However, given recent events, I don't think she will send him on any such mission.
  • Everyone in my circles is happy to welcome the Sussexes, given their various charitable interests. We would like them to be very low key local celebrities - show up for the big fundraisers, sit on a few boards, do some keynotes and promote a few select charities. Nobody has raised the issue of security costs - I've only seen that in the news and the comments. Wherever they end up - next door to Chip Wilson? - I'm sure their neighbours will easily dispose of any intrusive media. I think they have tapped into our Lotus Land get away from it all, reinvent yourself, and go granola sympathies.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Gramps--

    Diplomatic privilege doesn't apply?

    I really cannot say, all I could find is that while the sovereign cannot be charged with a crime, but royal family members have.

    I guess if the queen sends her brother on a diplomatic mission, then diplomatic immunity would apply. However, given recent events, I don't think she will send him on any such mission.

    Son. If she had a brother, she wouldn't be queen!!

    If he had been travelling in the US with a diplomatic passport, then he would have had immunity; however, there are versions which only grant immunity with respect to activities in support of his mission-- I don't know which he had.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Spare a thought for HM the Q...she must be approaching the end of her reign, and yet she has to contend with (a) Brexs*it, (b) Andrew and his alleged goings-on, and (c) Harry and Meghan jumping ship.

    Not to mention poor old Philip getting feebler.

    Not sure why paragraph (a) is really something the Queen would be bothered about.

    I mean, she was around before the UK entered the EU. I doubt she sees EU membership as some sort of key component of an ordered universe. Nor do I imagine she takes a keen interest in the terms of trade and so forth.
  • I think she takes an interest in national unity and the public good.
  • Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if it was unclear. Mind you, she may get more concerned if civil unrest spreads to the burning-down of palaces...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    I think she takes an interest in national unity and the public good.

    So basically she would like you all to stop panicking so much.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    So she might, and will probably tell us, her Humble Subjects, so in her next Christmas broadcast, though she would have done better to have shown Boris the door last year...

    ...and I rather doubt that she'll have to worry about her benefits being cut, or having to queue up at a foodbank, or finding that her medication is unavailable or unaffordable...
  • Son--so right. After 9 in the evening, I do not think very clearly. I should have known that.
  • :lol:

    HMQ never seems to age, unlike her kidz!
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that foreign citizens have the civil rights as American citizens when it comes to criminal or civil matters.
    This seems variable. Some apprehended people appear to have no rights, such as those on USA military bases like at Guantanamo Bay. We also hear of American torture camps elsewhere, which they call "black sites". I don't think there's any rights in those places.
  • ...which is why black sites are elsewhere, so American laws don't apply.

    :(
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    ...which is why black sites are elsewhere, so American laws don't apply.

    :(

    American citizens have rights in non-US locations; non-US citizens do not; non-US citizens in the US do have rights (not sure where that leaves non-citizens in places like Puerto Rico given that Gitmo counts as non-US). The US was very quick to move to the mainland a Gitmo captive who turned out have been born in the US (his parents had been here for a short time before moving back to Saudi Arabia). They were careful to make him renounce his US citizenship before they deported him to Saudi Arabia (not sure whether they checked his income for the next few years to see if he paid US income tax).
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that foreign citizens have the civil rights as American citizens when it comes to criminal or civil matters.
    This seems variable. Some apprehended people appear to have no rights, such as those on USA military bases like at Guantanamo Bay. We also hear of American torture camps elsewhere, which they call "black sites". I don't think there's any rights in those places.

    GITMO is indeed a black eye on the stated American policy. Few people are really supportive of GITMO, but it was put in Guantanamo because, technically, it is not on American soil--we are "renting" it from Cuba. However, the courts, up until Trump, have generally affirmed basic human rights of the prisoners but they have not enforced those rights.
  • Is anyone suggesting Prince Andrew should be sent to Guantanamo?
  • I suspect doing that would rule out the President of the United States getting an invite to the Palace for several decades.
  • No great loss then.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that foreign citizens have the civil rights as American citizens when it comes to criminal or civil matters.
    This seems variable. Some apprehended people appear to have no rights, such as those on USA military bases like at Guantanamo Bay. We also hear of American torture camps elsewhere, which they call "black sites". I don't think there's any rights in those places.

    GITMO is indeed a black eye on the stated American policy. Few people are really supportive of GITMO, but it was put in Guantanamo because, technically, it is not on American soil--we are "renting" it from Cuba. However, the courts, up until Trump, have generally affirmed basic human rights of the prisoners but they have not enforced those rights.
    You make the point: they've no rights if not enforced.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Is anyone suggesting Prince Andrew should be sent to Guantanamo?

    Oddly enough, this point came up in conversation over a plate of river trout at a fusion joint last night. The sotto voce response of my co-diner was that Prince Charles might be interested in sending him there, but it might make Prime Minister Boris a little nervous.
  • It has been a while since I ate river trout.
  • American citizens have rights in non-US locations; non-US citizens do not; non-US citizens in the US do have rights (not sure where that leaves non-citizens in places like Puerto Rico given that Gitmo counts as non-US).

    Puerto Rico is a US territory. Guantanamo Bay is not.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    American citizens have rights in non-US locations; non-US citizens do not; non-US citizens in the US do have rights (not sure where that leaves non-citizens in places like Puerto Rico given that Gitmo counts as non-US).

    Puerto Rico is a US territory. Guantanamo Bay is not.

    GITMO is on the tip of Cuba.

    AGAIN, WE HAVE GONE OFF ON A TANGENT HERE. Sorry about that.

    Back to the royals, namely the Suxxes.
  • I see the Harry just wants to be called by his first name now.
  • I thought he looked rather forlorn. And I'm not sure that the tieless schtick goes down too well when other people have donned best bib-and-tucker because of his presence.
  • I don't know the protocol, but would Harry normally wear some sort of tie that would indicate his royal status? Given that (AIUI) he and Meghan aren't even supposed to themselves as "royal" anymore, maybe that's why.

    There are other ties, of course. But maybe he couldn't bring himself to wear (or buy) one.
  • Is there something Important going on? Do TPTB feel the need to distract us yet again with 'royal' circus acts?
    :fearful:
Sign In or Register to comment.