Wow.
That came out a lot snarkier than I wanted. I'm blaming the pain in my neck (I slept wrong--my neck hurts).
Let me see if I can be a bit more diplomatic about the statement:
Rob: you are correct. Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity are not the same thing. That was never the issue. The issue is that IST Team Members are not an extra-legal force that has unlimited jurisdiction over the entire globe who can blatantly ignore the laws of their host countries. They are an international military police force operating within sovereign countries, as an adjunct of the U.N. not as a global secret-police force that answers only to the U.N. All of their rights and abilities are fairly well spelled out through Legal Enforcement Powers. The ISTs, pretty much, can’t do anything defined under Legal Immunity.
Giving the team members Legal Immunity (Diplomatic Immunity) would, likely, see them declared persona non grata on a regular basis—such as when they’re trying to assist on an investigation within a sovereign nation. Knowing that the IST team members do not have to follow any of the laws or respect the rights of their citizens (per Legal Immunity, not Legal Enforcement Powers) and can seize any evidence which cannot be legally seized back, would mean that there would be no interest in nor reason for local authorities to ever allow them access. They don't have to ever actually break the law--many people see the possibility and consider it proof of the event (see the legal definition of Conspiracy for more on that).
Even five points of legal immunity would see local authorities (especially “Federal” level) restrict their access, and arrest them (they can be arrested and held, just not charged) for minor slights. Cooperation would be negligible. And, accusations that the U.N. is attempting to create a one-world-government would be much easier to defend and prove.
Keeping them on the same “legal grounds” as local law enforcement (albeit with a wider jurisdiction) would still see some friction, but closer to the way local authorities react to “Federal” law enforcement taking over their investigation.
All that said, if Bob wants the IST Team members to have Legal Immunity [5] (for a U.N. Observer) that would be easy to add. However, I disagree that they should have it.
That came out a lot snarkier than I wanted. I'm blaming the pain in my neck (I slept wrong--my neck hurts).
Let me see if I can be a bit more diplomatic about the statement:
Rob: you are correct. Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity are not the same thing. That was never the issue. The issue is that IST Team Members are not an extra-legal force that has unlimited jurisdiction over the entire globe who can blatantly ignore the laws of their host countries. They are an international military police force operating within sovereign countries, as an adjunct of the U.N. not as a global secret-police force that answers only to the U.N. All of their rights and abilities are fairly well spelled out through Legal Enforcement Powers. The ISTs, pretty much, can’t do anything defined under Legal Immunity.
Giving the team members Legal Immunity (Diplomatic Immunity) would, likely, see them declared persona non grata on a regular basis—such as when they’re trying to assist on an investigation within a sovereign nation. Knowing that the IST team members do not have to follow any of the laws or respect the rights of their citizens (per Legal Immunity, not Legal Enforcement Powers) and can seize any evidence which cannot be legally seized back, would mean that there would be no interest in nor reason for local authorities to ever allow them access. They don't have to ever actually break the law--many people see the possibility and consider it proof of the event (see the legal definition of Conspiracy for more on that).
Even five points of legal immunity would see local authorities (especially “Federal” level) restrict their access, and arrest them (they can be arrested and held, just not charged) for minor slights. Cooperation would be negligible. And, accusations that the U.N. is attempting to create a one-world-government would be much easier to defend and prove.
Keeping them on the same “legal grounds” as local law enforcement (albeit with a wider jurisdiction) would still see some friction, but closer to the way local authorities react to “Federal” law enforcement taking over their investigation.
All that said, if Bob wants the IST Team members to have Legal Immunity [5] (for a U.N. Observer) that would be easy to add. However, I disagree that they should have it.