According to Reuters, she’s been reassigned to the UN Mission in order to attempt to assert diplomatic immunity retroactively (no idea if that’s really how it works).
It could be a face saving gesture so the State Dept can say she has immunity. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is involved now. I don’t know how much pressure is being applied. I’d imagine the politicians are already in CYA and making phone calls. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in the next few days.
You know, it’s not as if a SWAT team burst through her door. She was arrested in a fairly standard manner (the marshalls waited for her someplace they knew she would be), and treated like anyone who gets arrested instead of having security procedures waived and then assigned a separate cell for her own comfort.
That’s true. She probably was treated the same as anyone else. I was focusing more on the reaction in India. This story is probably headline news over there.
Lets see how it plays out in the next few days.
The implication of what you write is that if you’re not in a position of power, you’re not due respect. Is that what you intend? I find this idea repellent to my core.
No matter what happens, a strong message has been delivered to all consulate workers. I imagine there’s quite a scramble to either pay their nannies U.S. minimum wage or fire them and do without. That was probably the point Justice and State is making. They wanted to get these people’s attention. Make it clear prosecutions would be pursued.
Hopefully servants working conditions will improve while they are employed in the U.S.
Everyone deserves respect. It costs nothing to use polite language and courtesy. I’m sure the Marshall’s did that in this case. But how do you politely instruct someone to strip and submit to a cavity search? That’s going to be unpleasant no matter how it’s worded. I’d hope they were courteous and professional as possible.
My earlier post was referring to respect for an office and what it represents. I’m no fan of our current President. But I would be very polite if I ever met him. I’d shake his hand. I’m showing respect for the office. The same is true for arresting a consulate representative. The arrest should have been coordinated through the Indian embassy. Get their lawyers involved. You’re showing respect to the government she represents by doing that.
The transfer to the UN probably has the effect of placing her continued presence in US territory in a different category – UN status allows for people the US would normally not want around (e.g. Iranian, North Korean officials) to move unhindered.
I would tend to go along with bldysabba in the part about wondering what else may be going on in this. Moral Panic about worker exploitation, perhaps? After all, we have not heard the maid’s whole story (though a court in India apparently IS requesting that she be returned there). Maybe combined with an ill-thought-out politically-driven response to pressure from NYC sectors who resent the Immune Class (both UN and regular diplomatic/consular staffs in NY and DC have a public image of abusing their immunity to flout common laws having nothing to do with their official status; as I mentioned earlier, many residents are rubbed the wrong way by this). They really need to do a review of how this was handled.
It seems there was no perp walk as such, but it also seems like at least in the NY District even if it’s a nonviolent white-collar offense, after you are charged then yes you WILL be handcuffed and, yes, if not immediately bailed out then put in common lock-up with the vulgar criminals and for that purpose strip searched (per a SCOTUS decision last year). Nevermind if you merely shorted your tax witholdings or an employee’s pay. The American public generally *wants *to see the white collars treated like common criminals. Having gone through the consulate’s legal representatives as **aceplace57 **suggests may have avoided that scenario since they would have been at the ready to make the necessary motions and if necessary immediately post bond.
Meanwhile, truthSeeker2, you persist in sounding like you are advocating retaliation for retaliation’s own sake.
In Other News… apparently there is another factor here, in that what I read from India sources is that there has been outcry from various sectors that there was not a strong enough initial reaction to the incident by the Indian federal authorities and they are claiming that this was so because Khobragade is a Dalit; so they may now be the ones who feel politically compelled to take a harder line to appease domestic indignation.
A very interesting admission. 
I had wondered how well consulate employees are paid. They get the trappings of office. A house and maybe a household budget for food and official entertaining. The actual paycheck may not be that great.
If Khobragade is a Dalit then she probably has little personal wealth. Which means she should have left the nanny behind in India.
Oddly enough, I’m not one of the ones describing the arrangement as “slavery”. Exploitation, yes, but not to that particular extreme.
Employers who stiff their employees are regarded as scum in the US, and that’s where my “moral outrage” is coming from. Failure to pay your employees for work performed and services rendered is theft in this country and I am contemptuous of thieves regardless of social class or national origin.
And if she had been paid NYC minimum wage she would have been better off still.
Why is that an excuse for allowing US law to be broken in the US?
Actually, in the US same-sex marriage IS legal… in some states. I realize this can be confusing for outsiders but marriage laws can differ depending on where you live. It is legal in California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia (Washington DC), Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. People from outside those states can travel to those states for the purpose of getting married. So it’s possible they did, in fact, meet the requirement of being legally married.
Sorry, but that sounds about right to me.
I don’t think of it as a close parallel to indentured servitude either. We do not have all the facts of the case, but as far as I can tell, the woman was simply engaged to carry out her duties as she would have in India, getting room and board and a higher salary than she would have in India. If she was unhappy with the arrangement, I have not read anywhere that she was prevented from returning to India. Why didn’t she? She simply went missing, presumably(although I’d be happy to change my mind if more facts emerge) to take advantage of the fact that she now had a valid visa and work permit she would never otherwise have obtained. Her problems also not a shortage of funds. One months pay would buy the ticket back. She’s arranged visas and (presumably) tickets for her family to join her.
Your standards for terrible are what I’m questioning. All such value judgments are relative. The place that you’re approaching them are minimum wage laws in the US and you then conclude that the treatment of the woman was terrible. I’m arguing that the conditions the woman was facing were a step up from what she would face in India, the only reason she was facing these conditions was her agreement with her employer. This agreement placed her in a better situation than she would have been in otherwise! There is no way she would have been making as much money as she was in this situation. Had the employer actually followed the law, this particular woman would definitely have been worse off. Criticising someone for breaking US law in this instance is one thing, and justifiable. Criticising them for making someone better off when they would otherwise have been worse off mystifies me, but if you still think it valid, have at it.
!? Strawman much?
If room and board are paid for, what costs of living are you talking about Marley? This woman’s family is in India. Any costs that she bears for them are at Indian costs. As for the issue of duress, I have yet to read anything that indicates she was risking arrest for just quitting and going back home. If you do have any sources that indicate duress, I’d like to read them
But that’s just the thing - this woman(the maid/nanny) didn’t and couldn’t have the option of American wages or the wages promised to her. The only options she had were Indian wages(which come up to AT MOST half what she was given) or, well, what she was offered. The consular officer could never have afforded American minimum wages. Again - I’m not claiming this was the sensible or legal thing to do for the consular officer. She should not have done it and should have bloody well made do without help she could not afford under local laws. But let’s nobody pretend that she was exploiting the maid. She was not. It’s an unfortunate fact that human capital is cheap in India. To claim that she was exploiting someone by paying them double(at minimum) what their labour is worth does not make sense to me. The only reason the maid could earn this much money was because the consular officer was making sure she got a visa and came with her to the US. Is that not germane in this discussion for anyone? Why not?
Does the government of the US regard those marriages as legal? I would presume that what US states think has no bearing on international transactions.
It’s an article of the Indian Penal Code, instituted by the British, struck down by the High court a few years ago and then recently upheld on appeal by the Indian Supreme Court, which makes homosexuality a criminal offence which can be punished with imprisonment for ten years. In the absence of a ruling on the matter(since I don’t think India has ever arrested diplomatic staff from other countries - even Pakistanis just get deported. Could be wrong though) if the executive wanted, they could interpret it to be a grave offence I suppose. Not that they will.
I love how deep and well informed your opinions are. Kudos.
From where are you getting that the ‘wrong’ (could you define the ‘wrong’ by the way) that was done to this woman was against her will? Was she clapped in irons and shipped over from India?