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

[Marley23]

Of course if the maid was supposed to receive room, board, and $4500 a month, saying “she got room and board!” doesn’t help much.

[Ravenman]

@truthSeeker2

Maid’s family given US visas just before diplomat’s arrest

India reworking system of sending Indian domestic helps to missions - The Hindu

Good. The United States should welcome people whose rights are violated by abusive and corrupt behavior by powerful people.

[Bricker]

@aceplace57

I’ve been confused about this case too. Grave Crime would be something violent like murder, rape, or at least a serious physical assault. Maybe even a DUI where somebody was injured or died.

No.

A “grave crime” is a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. See Salazar v. Burresch, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (Dist. Court, CD Cal. 1999):

@Salazar decision at 1111

Article 41 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (“VCCR”) provides that “Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by a competent judicial authority.” “A `grave crime’ has been interpreted by the Department of State to mean a felony.” U.S. v. Cole, 717 F.Supp. 309, 323 n. 5 (E.D.Pa. 1989) (holding that Yugoslavian consul-general was not entitled to consular immunity from money laundering charges because money-laundering constituted a “grave offense”) (citing S.Exec.Rep. No. 91-9, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. at 14 (1969)).

I know this is only MPSIMS, but I’m genuinely curious. When you make a statement like, “Grave Crime would be something violent like murder, rape, or at least a serious physical assault,” does it arise from any research, or do you you just think to yourself, “Well, that’s what it sounds like to me, so that’s what it is!”

[Bricker]

@truthSeeker2

Sorry about bad English and being incomprehensible. I meant that apart from the salary, the maid also got free food, dwelling and various other things. The merits of the case aside, this is
A. Not a grave offense

Yes, it is. It’s a felony under 18 USC § 1028.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Machine_Elf

Just out of curiosity…what in what sort of official diplomatic functions might a diplomat find immunity useful?

My first thought would be violating local laws regarding bribery or extortion. Selling visas, import or export permits and such. The diplomat’s own country might have issues about such behavior, or possibly turn a blind eye toward it, but they wouldn’t like it if a foreigner takes offense to a solicitation for a bribe, calls the local police, and then the police swarm in and arrest the official.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Machine_Elf

… “Grave Crime would be something violent like murder, rape, or at least a serious physical assault,” does it arise from any research, or do you you just think to yourself, “Well, that’s what it sounds like to me, so that’s what it is!”

It would not at all surprise me if the Indian official in question used exactly this logic without legal research, and believed her crime was not “grave” enough.

[truthSeeker2]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I gotta say, this story has it all:
-“We can’t judge them by our standards!” Implication: those people aren’t as advanced as we are, we can’t expect them to understand that slavery is wrong.
-“That poor woman being strip-searched!” Implication: women can’t withstand the consequences of their action the way that men can.
-“It’d be one thing if this was happening to a poor person, but this is a middle-class person!” Implication: it’s more important to treat rich people with respect than to treat poor people with respect.

Racism, sexism, and overwhelmingly classism. Pretty impressive for a single story.

American Raymond Davis was arrested for the murder of two Pakistanis in Lahore in 2011. The US State Department had said Raymond cannot be arrested as he was working with the American Consulate.

Double standards and hypocrisy of the height-est order. Quite disgusting for any nation especially for the one which likes to call itself the greatest in the world.

[Enginerd]

And despite American protests, Davis was arrested, jailed, and charged with the murders for that incident. He was ultimately acquitted and released after the mens’ families were paid compensation, but the issue was resolved according to Pakistani law.

(see here for more details)

[truthSeeker2]

@Enginerd

And despite American protests, Davis was arrested, jailed, and charged with the murders for that incident. He was ultimately acquitted and released after the mens’ families were paid compensation, but the issue was resolved according to Pakistani law.

Remember reading at that time that the US had threatened to cut aid to Pak which is quite disgusting in itself

And of course, The US State Department had said Raymond cannot be arrested as he was working with the American Consulate.

SO heights of Double standards and hypocrisy indeed.

[truthSeeker2]

@Enginerd

And despite American protests, Davis was arrested, jailed, and charged with the murders for that incident. He was ultimately acquitted and released after the mens’ families were paid compensation, but the issue was resolved according to Pakistani law.

(see here for more details)

from your cite -

A major focus of the incident was the U.S.'s assertion that Davis was protected under the principle of diplomatic immunity due to his role as an “administrative and technical official” attached to the Lahore consulate.[3] The U.S. government claimed that Davis was protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and demanded he be released from custody immediately.[12] President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, “There’s a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold.”

The Punjab authorities (the province in which Davis was arrested) claimed that Davis was not on a diplomatic visa but on an official business visa

[treis]

If you keep reading, that page says:

According to USA Today, “U.S. officials in Islamabad will say only that he was an American Embassy employee who was considered part of the ‘administrative and technical staff’.”[59]

The US position was that he was working at the embassy, not the consulate.

[JRDelirious]

@Ravenman

And so your concern about what “grave crime” means is leading to you suggest that an American official be arrested for trumped-up reasons.

Your commitment to the rule of law appears to be paper-thin.

May or not be the intention but yes, it does sound like advocating that an alleged injustice be subject to payback with a **deliberate **injustice against someone not involved at all. Not at all the ethical high ground.

And if the maid’s family were granted visas, what’s the problem with that? Reading some Indian media they all keep referring to the “absconding maid” case. What else is going on here?

Yes, American justice is particularly fond of perp walks and strip searches – and the NYC federal and local prosecutors have the added pressure factor of a public opinion that wants the high and mighty brought down (Rudy’s and Spitzer’s legacy) and strongly dislikes the “diplomatic immunity” excuse for common offenses. Headache for all involved.

[truthSeeker2]

@treis

If you keep reading, that page says:

The US position was that he was working at the embassy, not the consulate.

Again

President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, “There’s a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold.”

[Marley23]

@JRDelirious

And if the maid’s family were granted visas, what’s the problem with that? Reading some Indian media they all keep referring to the “absconding maid” case. What else is going on here?

I’m guessing that she violated the terms of her visa by quitting her job - and India doesn’t like the fact that she accused a diplomat of breaking the law.

[Bricker]

@truthSeeker2

Again

Are you going to acknowledge the actual arguments being presented to you?

[Loach]

@truthSeeker2

Again

So you are using a previous incident in which a government (the US) used the argument and failed as your precedent? Thanks for proving the point.

[Enginerd]

My point from the Davis incident was that he was prosecuted despite Obama’s request for diplomatic immunity. The US claimed Davis was immune, Pakistan didn’t buy it, and he was prosecuted according to the local laws.

India is claiming Khobragade is immune. The US isn’t buying it. What’s next?

[Falchion]

@Loach

So you are using a previous incident in which a government (the US) used the argument and failed as your precedent? Thanks for proving the point.

Even less compelling, the issue in the Davis case was whether or not he qualified as a consular employee or a embassy employee (or, for that matter, as a employee at all).

Everyone agreed that there was no immunity if he was a consular employee. Here, there is no question that this woman is a consular employee. Accusations of hypocrisy are weak, at best.

(Of course, the fact that Davis was likely a CIA operative goes a long way to explain both the confusion over his status, the desire to get him released, and the hesitation to release him).

[Machine_Elf]

@JRDelirious

Yes, American justice is particularly fond of perp walks and strip searches…

How do Indian police officials deal with an arrestee? Is there no strip search? Are arrestees not put in holding cells with “common criminals and drug addicts?”

[Machine_Elf]

@Boyo_Jim

@Machine Elf

… “Grave Crime would be something violent like murder, rape, or at least a serious physical assault,” does it arise from any research, or do you you just think to yourself, “Well, that’s what it sounds like to me, so that’s what it is!”

It would not at all surprise me if the Indian official in question used exactly this logic without legal research, and believed her crime was not “grave” enough.

Please be careful with your cut-and-paste actions: I did not post the material you have attributed to me there.