U.S. Authorities strip search Indian diplomat (female).

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Broomstick

I have to wonder if her employer also took away her passport, which seems common enough in exploitation situations.

From post 224:

The housekeeper told U.S. authorities Khobragade subjected her to verbal abuse, paid her less than $3.31 an hour, took her passport away, and told her she had no choice but to continue working under those conditions, prosecutors say.

Again: how is this not indentured servitude? Taking away the passport and telling her she could not choose to quit work–that’s involuntary servitude.

[Broomstick]

@AK84

1. Yes, the laws and more importantly the application thereof are different for the lady in question than they are for us. She is a person who is acting in a diplomatic position. Its not ideal, and is open to abuse, but that is the way it is.

So, you’re OK with the powerful exploiting the weak?

2. At the end of the day, the bigger picture needs to be seen. Do you want, India to retaliate (more than they have already) against US diplomats?

Americans abroad should not be breaking the laws of those countries, either.

3. A point I think that has not been considered. It is most likely that the “Diplomat” never had any idea of how much she was paying the woman in question.

That’s not how it’s been reported. Supposedly, the “diplomat” signed not one but two contracts with the “domestic worker”, one of which was clearly in violation of US labor laws. That doesn’t sound accidental, it sounds delibrate.

Of course, we are not getting the whole story here. We never get the whole story. Based on new information I might change my view of the situation but based on what has been revealed so far it sure does look like fraud.

I do know that diplomats in London for instance have often refused to pay the congestion charge under orders…even though individually they might have been willing to.

Again, I don’t think that’s OK. If everyone driving is charged a “congestion fee” (that is for rush hour, wasn’t it?) then I see no reason to exclude foreign diplomats from that.

[Alessan]

It seems as though the U.S. government has to choose which nation-state to side with: India or New York City.

[truthSeeker2]

@Alessan

It seems as though the U.S. government has to choose which nation-state to side with: India or New York City.

In this thread, it has been

1. Legal arguments definitions of “grave crime”.
2. moral lectures - modern day ‘slavery’

Versus

1. Consular immunity and respect(arrest,handcuff, strip and cavity search).
2. Glaring conspiracy argument. Absconding maid, US not replying to Indian govt. emails since June. Delhi High court’s judgement on this matter.
3. GDP-per-capita-and-salary ratio and free food, accommodation at the place of work.
4. Broader Long term Country-country relations and the emotional reactions to this in India.

[Enginerd]

@Alessan

It seems as though the U.S. government has to choose which nation-state to side with: India or New York City.

That ship has sailed - these events took place in New York, but she was arrested by the US Marshall’s Service on federal charges. The case isn’t New York v. Khobragade; it’s US v. Khobragade.

[AK84]

Broomstick, the claim that service contracts were signed makes it more or less certain to me that the paperwork was handled by the embassy not by the individuals concerned. Since I’m this culture it is unheard for domestic contracts to be written down. Not rare. Not uncommon. Unheard off.

So, I take it you are against diplomatic immunity? Those gay Americans at the New Delhi Embassy should forget about sharing a bed, kissing, petting in fact doing anything but exchanging longing looks? That’s what obeying local laws implies.

[Enginerd]

@AK84

Broomstick, the claim that service contracts were signed makes it more or less certain to me that the paperwork was handled by the embassy not by the individuals concerned. Since I’m this culture it is unheard for domestic contracts to be written down. Not rare. Not uncommon. Unheard off.

If that’s true, it seems like it could be a reason for the arrest to be handled the way it was. If it were just one person writing contracts that violated US laws, it could easily be a matter of notifying the embassy and asking for that person to be either corrected or replaced. If the operators of the consulate are themselves writing contracts that violate American laws, that’s a much bigger deal.

[Hello_Again]

@bldysabba

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?

When you bring another human being to the United States with the express purpose of exploiting their labor by paying them an illegally low wage, we call that “human trafficking.”

[Hello_Again]

Nm

[Bricker]

@bldysabba

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.

Yes, they could. That sounds perfectly legal to me.

[Ravenman]

@AK84

Broomstick, the claim that service contracts were signed makes it more or less certain to me that the paperwork was handled by the embassy not by the individuals concerned. Since I’m this culture it is unheard for domestic contracts to be written down. Not rare. Not uncommon. Unheard off.

Khobragade’s lawyer, Dan Arshak, claims that two contracts exist, but that they have been misrepresented by the government.Cite. So, regardless of what you think is common practice, it has been asserted by all sides that two contracts exist.

So, I take it you are against diplomatic immunity? Those gay Americans at the New Delhi Embassy should forget about sharing a bed, kissing, petting in fact doing anything but exchanging longing looks? That’s what obeying local laws implies.

The woman DOES NOT HAVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. This has been covered extensively over the past several pages of this thread. She is a consular officer, not a diplomat, and consular immunity does not extend to felonies that have nothing to do with her official duties.

And what’s the deal with this frequent reference to a bigoted and intolerant law in India as a counterpoint to fraud and labor law violations? If person from country X came here and made false declarations in violations of US law, how is it relevant that country X has laws that are a blatant affront to human rights and dignity? Those aren’t the same things at all. It’s like saying that Saudi workers in the United States should be able to commit visa fraud, because we don’t want American Jews who may be posted there to be imprisoned on the basis of their religious beliefs.

If Americans commit perjury abroad, they are certainly subject to legal action in compliance with other relevant laws. Stating the existence of bigoted laws in other countries primarily makes me think less of that country, as opposed to thinking the US should relax enforcement of pretty standard and uncontroversial laws that exist in every country.

[Isosleepy]

At this point, the U.S. asserts that she does not enjoy immunity. That makes all the arguments about not respecting immunity, not believing immunity is important or correct, moot. Had she enjoyed immunity, she could have set fire to a school bus full of cute puppies after kicking major Bloomberg in the nuts, and if immunity were not waived by her home country, gotten away Scott-free. But she doesn’t enjoy immunity.
She is alleged to have committed 2 crimes: lying on a visa application, and breaking U.S. labor law. Even if to Indians neither seems to be a “reasonable” law, they are laws, and if they were broken, there are consequences.

[Isosleepy]

@truthSeeker2

2. Glaring conspiracy argument. Absconding maid, US not replying to Indian govt. emails

I keep seeing this “absconding maid” thing. Is it seriously your argument that the maid did something wrong by escaping her -illegal- “employment” situation? And that the U.S. should somehow have enforced her employers hold over her? If so, the gulf between your world-view and mine is even wider than I thought, and I hope yours is not a majority opinion in India.

[Machine_Elf]

The media is reporting that India is reassiging her to some higher-level position in an attempt to confer the diplomatic immunity that was missing at the time of her alleged offenses.

Is immunity retroactive like that?

[lance_strongarm]

@Machine_Elf

The media is reporting that India is reassiging her to some higher-level position in an attempt to confer the diplomatic immunity that was missing at the time of her alleged offenses.

Is immunity retroactive like that?

I don’t know, but perhaps it would protect her from further legal proceedings.

[Gray_Ghost]

@Machine_Elf

The media is reporting that India is reassiging her to some higher-level position in an attempt to confer the diplomatic immunity that was missing at the time of her alleged offenses.

Is immunity retroactive like that?

IANAL, and I’m definitely not a specialist in international law. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (which would govern this situation if Khobragade were to be presented as a diplomatic agent to the State Department. Compare with the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations, which governs her status now.), at Article 39, states:

1. Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other Ministry as may be agreed.

Further, according to Article 7 of the VNDR,

Subject to the provisions of Articles 5, 8, 9 and 11, the sending State may freely appoint the members of the staff of the mission.

Per Article 9, The receiving state—that would be the U.S.—has the option of declaring Khobagrade persona non grata. Which is probably what will happen anyway, and what should have happened at the start of this kerfluffle. USA SDNY Bharara could have still had his press conference decrying the horrible crimes of not paying consular domestic staff minimum wage—aside, wake me up when we get to the Saudis treatment of their domestic staff—and we wouldn’t have the scandal of a strip-searched consular officer.

Legal commentators on the subject of diplomatic immunity (most of them citing the U.K. case of Empson v. Smith, 1966 1 QB 426. “[D]iplomatic immunity is not immunity from legal liability, but immunity from suit.”) have noted that the immunity is procedural; i.e., no one is saying she hasn’t committed the crimes, they’re just saying she’s not subject to the jurisdiction of a criminal court in the receiving state. Hence, it doesn’t matter whether the crimes were committed before her immunity or during: she’s immune now, and until the sending state waives it.

For all of those who are concerned that treating her in another manner than arresting her in front of her kid’s school and booking her into jail means that American laws would be flouted, are you willing to have the infamously voluminous Indian civil and criminal codes applied to U.S. consulates in a similar manner? Not to mention the other tit-for-tat crap that’s going to happen to U.S. diplomatic missions in India, such as road barriers being removed from in front of the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. Jeez, PNG her if either the Indian Ambassador or Consul General blows off the friendly phone call or three that was sent beforehand telling them to knock it off with the exploitation. How hard is that?

At least, if she tells a good enough tale, and has a good enough Immigration attorney, the maid and her immediate family are now probably going to get a snazzy green card out of it. I’d be interested to hear someone’s opinion, who knows more about that process, about the likelihood of that happening, and what contributes to the State Department issuing a T visa or not. (Paging Eva Luna…) So there’s some good that happened.

[Ravenman]

It’s been a long time since I looked this up, but I believe the United Nations, not the United States, would be responsible for accepting the credentials if she were to be reassigned. I just can’t recall how this would relate to US visa/immigration/diplomatic/consular relations laws.

[lance_strongarm]

@Ravenman

It’s been a long time since I looked this up, but I believe the United Nations, not the United States, would be responsible for accepting the credentials if she were to be reassigned. I just can’t recall how this would relate to US visa/immigration/diplomatic/consular relations laws.

Since the UN is in the US, I think there’s some kind of agreement on that.

Someone else should look it up for me.

[Marley23]

@truthSeeker2

In this thread, it has been

1. Legal arguments definitions of “grave crime”.

From a legal perspective, this appears to be one.

2. moral lectures - modern day ‘slavery’

I think one poster compared it to slavery. Most have said it’s an immoral (and of course illegal) form of forced servitude. I think you’re ignoring them so you can keep complaining about how this isn’t slavery.

1. Consular immunity and respect(arrest,handcuff, strip and cavity search).

That type of immunity doesn’t seem to apply here, your claim about her arrest and handcuffing hasn’t been independently supported, and the U.S. Marshalls say there was a strip search but no cavity search.

2. Glaring conspiracy argument.

I have no idea what this means.

3. GDP-per-capita-and-salary ratio and free food, accommodation at the place of work.

“Free food and accommodation” is irrelevant if she was being paid an illegally low wage, was working under abusive conditions, and if the diplomat lied about the those things.

4. Broader Long term Country-country relations and the emotional reactions to this in India.

Relations between the two countries are important. “Emotional reactions in India” don’t strike me as all that important, especially since they’re based on the expectation of special treatment for privileged people.

But the bottom line here is that India claims Richards was extorting Khobragade and the U.S. believes Khobragade lied on her visa forms and was treating Richards like dirt. I’m not sure we can do much to sort this out unless there’s a trial and the facts come out, but I’m not much impressed by the claims of immunity or disrespect or ‘hey, it’s more money than she would have made in India!’ If it proves to be true, this is an awful way to treat another person.

[bup]

Forgive me for asking a question that has probably been answered several times in this thread, but I am too lazy to go through all the posts:

OK, so she has no immunity, and the crime she’s suspected of has good evidence to support arrest.

Is it proper, or outrageous, that she was strip-searched after arrest? Or something in between?