But my point was that being in a friendly country is not proof that she wasn't working as a spy. That was all.
The point in the post was that she might have been working over here as a spy though???
That is quite fundamental it seems:
If she was
not working here as a spy then there is an anomaly whereby she had broad diplomatic immunity as a family member of a CIA officer posted to the listening station but her husband only has it relating to his work as a CIA officer, ergo the US were legally right (even if not morally) to remove her. This anomaly has since been resolved as a direct result of this case - in future someone involved in an RTA outside the base whether spy or family member of will not have immunity.
If she
was working here as a CIA officer posted to that facility then as per the agreement between the UK and US she only has diplomatic immunity relating to her work there at the US listening station, she doesn't have broad immunity thus if she were to get into a bar brawl, or rob a bank or indeed get involved in an RTA and kill someone as she did then that limited immunity shouldn't cover her.
There is some indication that she might in fact have still been working for the CIA at the time, ergo there is a question over whether it was in fact correct for her to have been able to claim diplomatic immunity.
That friendly countries spy on each other is a complete red herring as far as this immunity question is concerned - it doesn't matter who she was employed to spy on via the listening station - in fact, the immunity is likely there in the case of friendly countries, if they are (through their activities) breaking the law of some EU countries which the UK has extradition treaties with for example. The UK and US officially don't spy on each other, they have access to each other's programs, intelligence etc... there are diplomats in the state dept/foreign office who no doubt feed back info about various politicians, they want to know where they stand on different issues affecting the relationship no doubt etc.. but there isn't any need for any covert activities against each other given the level of coordination and information sharing etc.. But... for the sake of argument, supposing you do image that her (possible) employment at this listening station involved some spying on the UK, perhaps she's keeping tabs on the governor of the bank of England or Boris Johnson's communications or something (and they've kept it quiet from any UK personnel presumably posted there and with access to their intercept programs) well even then it doesn't make any difference - she might have been popping out to drive and collect lunch or something during the working day, the RTA outside the base shoudln't count.
The point about the UK being a friendly country is simply why such a facility might exist here and why only limited immunity is needed - in say Russia or some ****-hole-istan country then they would want full diplomatic immunity and/or wouldn't have a base or big listening station like that in the first place rather perhaps some people posted to the Embassy with full immunity.
