Which position are you referring to? You can’t know my position particularly well, since I have stated multiple times in this thread that the consul officer can justifiably be prosecuted, and especially for lying on the visa application. I think the US has been silly(and perhaps not within their rights) with how ham handed their approach has been, but I have never claimed that the woman ought not to be prosecuted at all.
Wow. You really got me there, pal. I’m a broken wreck of a man, now that you’ve pointed out how I’m actually arguing for slavery!
He didn’t say that. But he nailed you.
Right. Because slavery and this is exactly the same thing. Or even a close parallel. Or a parallel at all. If it is, would you or runner pat care to actually make any arguments instead of insinuations?
john kerry has expressed regret over the arrest. I think they will need to do more than that.
It’s not an exact parallel to slavery. It is a very, very close parallel to indentured servitude, with the main difference being that indentured servitude was legal and this isn’t.
If you’re treating someone terribly, it’s no defense to say that someone else would treat them even more terribly. But that seems to be what you’re arguing: that we can’t criticize the boss for her terrible treatment of an employee, because if she weren’t exploiting the employee, the employee would be even worse off.
…a lot more than that so that it doesnt have to come to arrest of some senior american diplomat on some ‘grave’ charge.
I absolutely hope it comes to that. If an American consulate worker tries to exploit some American worker while in India, please, Indian government: arrest the jerkface immediately. I sincerely and truly want entitled fools who exploit their workers to face consequences for their actions, and I don’t care about nationality.
Edit: if you’re suggesting that they should make up a charge against an American, that’s just kindergarten foolishness: “He tattled on me to teacher, so I’m gonna tattle on HIM!” Bullshit, and grow up.
Justice should be pursued wherever there’s an injustice, without any sort of slack cut to the ruling class as is too often traditional. But justice should not be pursued out of a childish vendetta.
you would have meant it sincerely but what you have typed is inapplicable and non sensical stand of taking moral high ground without proper evaluation of the case.sorry to say
Dude, typing a bunch of words that say I’m wrong isn’t the same as presenting an argument that I’m wrong.
The only high ground I’m taking is against:
- Folks who think the rich ought to be treated leniently by the justice system;
- Folks who think it’s okay to illegally exploit a poor person if your exploitation of them leaves them better off than if you hadn’t exploited them illegally;
- Folks who think that it’s okay to break US labor law if no such labor law exists in your own country; and
- Folks who think that proper law enforcement ought to be retaliated against with trumped up fake Hatfield&McCoy style law enforcement.
I’ll happily take the high ground against anyone taking those positions, and I’ll do it EVEN IF YOU CALL ME NONSENSICAL AGAIN!
It’s not slavery that’s being compared, it’s justifying a wrong done to someone against their will by saying it was actually good for them. That’s fucking pathetic.
The Convention does not further define the phrase, and it is left to individual countries to implement it. Unfortunately, in international law there is no supreme, unquestioned authority – in US law, the Supreme Court is such an authority and has spoken on this exact issue! as previously cited.
I cannot find any contrary rulings from The Hague, either.
So I would invite the Indian politician to show his work : on what legal authority is his opinion resting? And you – same question.
Well within their rights. But lets say the feds contact the consulate and asked if the suspect pretty please turn herself in on this warrant with $250,000 bail. What are the odds that she would be on the next plane to India?
What is your basis for concluding this woman was better off with this job in the U.S., bldysabba? In India perhaps she could have made a salary that was actually commensurate with the cost of living. Some of us would argue that $7.25 an hour isn’t enough to live on in the U.S., especially in an expensive place like New York, and $3.31 an hour isn’t even close. And then there’s the minor issue of duress, since she was apparently risking arrest for quitting.
I’ve been reading the posts today. I see Bricker and others have clarified the legal issues. My original OP was primarily an initial reaction to the story based on a couple news articles. I was looking at the case strictly as a bystander. Gee this was handled badly. I understand the anger in India. Further discussion here reveals the complexity of the case. There isn’t much room for emotion in a legal case. It’s in the court’s hands now.
I still think consideration of the consular’s status should have been respected. There was no need for an arrest on the street. She could have voluntarily come in with her consulate’s lawyer and been charged, paid bail & released in only a few hours time.
Why give her special treatment? Well the special treatment is showing respect for her *position *as a consulate officer and representative from India. Respect is very important. Without it you get the mess we’re in now. This incident now has to be handled by the State Dept and India’s government. Meanwhile our legal system takes its own path in prosecuting the case.
All i know is that before this thing, I had almost no opinion on India. All i knew was they have a long-standing emnity with Pakistan, produce some smart people, and are into cricket. Now I know that their cultural and moral values are entirely different from mine, if the protestors, posters on this board and Indian officials I’ve seen on TV are representative of the other 1 billion or so people there. They are different in a way that make it hard for me to see any benefit to deep and good relations between the US and India.
I expect that the US state department will cave, and do some stuff to placate those Indians who are upset that an Indian woman who alledgedly lied on a visa application, and treated her employee in a manner i find very reprehensible, and who does not enjoy immunity, was appropriately arrested and treated like an arrestee.
What I think should happen is that the US insists on an apology from the Indian government for putting US diplomatic personnel in danger, and failing that, reduces whatever aid goes from the US to there, and also re-examine trade agreements to make sure they have parity and not in fact benefit India, until such an apology is made.
In the mean time, given the conditions our consular workers now seem to face in India, I would understand if any processing of visa applications, student or otherwise, ground to a complete halt.
Then again, I understand that making the issue go away by placating the Indians is far more likely to produce the greatest good for the largest number of people in the long term, and therefore morally far superior to my gut reaction as above. But I don’t have to like it.
Ironically by handling this case so badly the State Dept might have to step in and expel the consulate officer back to India. That would be the most expeditious way to handle this incident. This wouldn’t be necessary if her arrest and charges been handled with more sensitivity for her position.
What happens now is up to the State Dept and politicians. IMHO Justice Dept will have to cave when the politicians get involved.
People are allowed to voluntarily turn themselves in when there’s little to no chance that they’ll run or try to avoid the charges. Is that the case here?
If the US Attorney had presented a warrant for her arrest to the Indian Consulate, what do you think are the odds that she would have actually turned herself in? India is up in arms right now at her treatment - do you think they would have cooperated with authorities to let her be charged, or is it more likely that they would have claimed immunity and whisked her somewhere out of law enforcement’s reach?
IMO, an arrest on the street was the only way she would feasibly be charged with anything.
If only they’d realized that powerful people are too good to be treated like the rest of us.
I see nothing wrong with showing respect for a country and its appointed representatives. The consulate officer is being held accountable for her actions. She has been charged and is facing years in prison. I personally think the State Dept will intervene but even then she’s expelled and her career as a consulate officer is over. She will pay a penalty for her actions.