Indian consular official arrested - India goes apeshit

[Kitsune]

The US law enforcement seems to love their cavity search

[Gaidin]

Was that the law enforcement or was that the jail personnel?

[RogueIce]

Thanks guys, didn't know. Thought it was just a strip search.

Even with that second article, the only source for her being cavity searched is the diplomat herself. Who is not exactly unbiased and, if you believe the charges at all, isn't above lying clearly.

The USMS has only said she was strip searched. Hell even in the OP's original article Human Rights Watch only mentioned being strip searched (which they don't like on principle) but apparently said nothing about a cavity search, which you'd think is something they might also take issue with. HRW's story on the matter again, only mentioning a strip-search.

So before we all jump on the "lol Americans r stupidz" bandwagon and how the USMS are idiots and all that, can't we take a step back and consider that maybe, just maybe this person who already lied about her nanny's wages is lying again to drum up as much outrage as she can?

[Lonestar]

The US law enforcement seems to love their cavity search

Full Cavity Searches all around

[Gaidin]

Even with that second article, the only source for her being cavity searched is the diplomat herself. Who is not exactly unbiased and, if you believe the charges at all, isn't above lying clearly.

The USMS has only said she was strip searched. Hell even in the OP's original article Human Rights Watch only mentioned being strip searched (which they don't like on principle) but apparently said nothing about a cavity search, which you'd think is something they might also take issue with. HRW's story on the matter again, only mentioning a strip-search.

So before we all jump on the "lol Americans r stupidz" bandwagon and how the USMS are idiots and all that, can't we take a step back and consider that maybe, just maybe this person who already lied about her nanny's wages is lying again to drum up as much outrage as she can?

Hell I'm not exactly jumping on the bandwagon. I realize who's saying what. I just didn't even know there was even her saying it. I've got no problem at all with jail entry procedures. See my earlier reply to Thanas for reference.

[Dargos]

Strip searches and visual cavity serches are SOP during inproccessing into jail in Germany.
Females must remove their clothes, raise their arms, lifit their breasts, turn around and spread their but cheeks,
Then with legs spread at least shoulder width, do a few knee squats to see if any thing falls out. Males have to do almost the same thing, but instead of breasts (if they don't have them) they have to lift their nut sacks. If the guard suspects somthing, a doc will do a more detailed search. You would really be amazed in what can be smuggeld in. From cell phones to drugs to weapons.

[Broomstick]

And still not a violent act and still not justifying a cavity search.

While I agree with your statement, it does not require a violent act to legally justify a cavity search in the US. There have been attempts to fight this in court, but with the "get tough on crime" attitude of the past few decades that hasn't been effective.

[KlavoHunter]

The US law enforcement seems to love their cavity search

Full Cavity Searches all around

Stole my message... bastard!

[phongn]

Official statement by US Attorney Preet Bharara:

There has been much misinformation and factual inaccuracy in the reporting on the charges against Devyani Khobragade. It is important to correct these inaccuracies because they are misleading people and creating an inflammatory atmosphere on an unfounded basis. Although I am quite limited in my role as a prosecutor in what I can say, which in many ways constrains my ability here to explain the case to the extent I would like, I can nevertheless make sure the public record is clearer than it has been thus far.

First, Ms. Khobragade was charged based on conduct, as is alleged in the Complaint, that shows she clearly tried to evade U.S. law designed to protect from exploitation the domestic employees of diplomats and consular officers. Not only did she try to evade the law, but as further alleged, she caused the victim and her spouse to attest to false documents and be a part of her scheme to lie to U.S. government officials. So it is alleged not merely that she sought to evade the law, but that she affirmatively created false documents and went ahead with lying to the U.S. government about what she was doing. One wonders whether any government would not take action regarding false documents being submitted to it in order to bring immigrants into the country. One wonders even more pointedly whether any government would not take action regarding that alleged conduct where the purpose of the scheme was to unfairly treat a domestic worker in ways that violate the law. And one wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse?

Second, as the alleged conduct of Ms. Khobragade makes clear, there can be no plausible claim that this case was somehow unexpected or an injustice. Indeed, the law is clearly set forth on the State Department website. Further, there have been other public cases in the United States involving other countries, and some involving India, where the mistreatment of domestic workers by diplomats or consular officers was charged criminally, and there have been civil suits as well. In fact, the Indian government itself has been aware of this legal issue, and that its diplomats and consular officers were at risk of violating the law. The question then may be asked: Is it for U.S. prosecutors to look the other way, ignore the law and the civil rights of victims (again, here an Indian national), or is it the responsibility of the diplomats and consular officers and their government to make sure the law is observed?

Third, Ms. Khobragade, the Deputy General Consul for Political, Economic, Commercial and Women’s Affairs, is alleged to have treated this victim illegally in numerous ways by paying her far below minimum wage, despite her child care responsibilities and many household duties, such that it was not a legal wage. The victim is also alleged to have worked far more than the 40 hours per week she was contracted to work, and which exceeded the maximum hour limit set forth in the visa application. Ms. Khobragade, as the Complaint charges, created a second contract that was not to be revealed to the U.S. government, that changed the amount to be paid to far below minimum wage, deleted the required language protecting the victim from other forms of exploitation and abuse, and also deleted language that stated that Ms. Khobragade agreed to “abide by all Federal, state, and local laws in the U.S.” As the Complaint states, these are only “in part” the facts, and there are other facts regarding the treatment of the victim – that were not consistent with the law or the representations made by Ms. Khobragade -- that caused this Office and the State Department, to take legal action.

Fourth, as to Ms. Khobragade’s arrest by State Department agents, this is a prosecutor’s office in charge of prosecution, not the arrest or custody, of the defendant, and therefore those questions may be better referred to other agencies. I will address these issues based on the facts as I understand them. Ms. Khobragade was accorded courtesies well beyond what other defendants, most of whom are American citizens, are accorded. She was not, as has been incorrectly reported, arrested in front of her children. The agents arrested her in the most discreet way possible, and unlike most defendants, she was not then handcuffed or restrained. In fact, the arresting officers did not even seize her phone as they normally would have. Instead, they offered her the opportunity to make numerous calls to arrange personal matters and contact whomever she needed, including allowing her to arrange for child care. This lasted approximately two hours. Because it was cold outside, the agents let her make those calls from their car and even brought her coffee and offered to get her food. It is true that she was fully searched by a female Deputy Marshal -- in a private setting -- when she was brought into the U.S. Marshals’ custody, but this is standard practice for every defendant, rich or poor, American or not, in order to make sure that no prisoner keeps anything on his person that could harm anyone, including himself. This is in the interests of everyone’s safety.

Fifth, as has been reported, the victim’s family has been brought to the United States. As also has been reported, legal process was started in India against the victim, attempting to silence her, and attempts were made to compel her to return to India. Further, the Victim’s family reportedly was confronted in numerous ways regarding this case. Speculation about why the family was brought here has been rampant and incorrect. Some focus should perhaps be put on why it was necessary to evacuate the family and what actions were taken in India vis-à-vis them. This Office and the Justice Department are compelled to make sure that victims, witnesses and their families are safe and secure while cases are pending.

Finally, this Office’s sole motivation in this case, as in all cases, is to uphold the rule of law, protect victims, and hold accountable anyone who breaks the law – no matter what their societal status and no matter how powerful, rich or connected they are.

[Thanas]

That is a good statement. I believe the DA.

[Edi]

Thread title changed to reflect the status of the arrested person (diplomat vs consular officer, their immunity levels are different).

[Borgholio]

Glad to get the official statement by the prosecution. Phrased in that way, it all makes sense. Still willing to bet India will continue to over-react though.

[phongn]

The full complaint (PDF)

Thread title changed to reflect the status of the arrested person (diplomat vs consular officer, their immunity levels are different).

It looks like India is transferring her to the UN to give her full diplomatic immunity. No word on if State will accept the appointment or grant retroactive diplomatic immunity

[Borgholio]

Can India even do that? She's already been charged with a crime and there's enough evidence to make it stick...I would think that changing her job posting *after* the fact is a blatant abuse of the idea of diplomatic immunity. Similar to how an ambassador can't take a handgun and blow the head off an infant in a stroller and be guaranteed immunity.

The idea of immunity is to protect diplomats from bullshit criminal charges as retaliation against the nation they represent. I'm really curious to see how this will play out. If India can legally do this, I can see other nations doing it far more often...possibly with sinister motives.

[Gaidin]

If State lets them, yes. Full immunity is apparently retroactive, but State has to recognize it. And hell, if State's agency is the one investigating the crime anyway, it's not like there'd be a lot of dust kicked up over it between departments. Hell, the second article presents the idea that they wouldn't be shocked at it playing out this way and are sending a message for them to play by the rules they're expected to follow. It's not like they couldn't kick an actual diplomat out if they really wanted to anyway, they just couldn't prosecute them if they recognized the status.

[Kitsune]

Why not just admit wrongdoing and allow the us to deal with her legally?
In many ways, shows better transparency.

[Thanas]

Why not just admit wrongdoing and allow the us to deal with her legally?
In many ways, shows better transparency.

The same reason why the US fights tooth and nail and uses every trick to get its citizens freed even if they are the biggest scumbags of the earth - states do not give their citizens up to foreign prosecution.

[Kitsune]

Why not just admit wrongdoing and allow the us to deal with her legally?
In many ways, shows better transparency.

The same reason why the US fights tooth and nail and uses every trick to get its citizens freed even if they are the biggest scumbags of the earth - states do not give their citizens up to foreign prosecution.

Can you give a good example where a US diplomatic staff had strong evidence against them when they are still in the country of the crime and such a situation occurred?

[Ralin]

Can you give a good example where a US diplomatic staff had strong evidence against them when they are still in the country of the crime and such a situation occurred?

I suspect he's thinking more of US soldiers as he says that.

[Broomstick]

The same reason why the US fights tooth and nail and uses every trick to get its citizens freed even if they are the biggest scumbags of the earth - states do not give their citizens up to foreign prosecution.

The US actually has a rather spotty regards in regards to ordinary civilians in that respect - prominent politicians and military are a different matter.

[Kitsune]

In her case, I doubt she would get a jail sentence even if convicted - just a slap on the wrist, some fines, and don't do it again

[phongn]

In her case, I doubt she would get a jail sentence even if convicted - just a slap on the wrist, some fines, and don't do it again

Maybe. But State could've quietly handled this entirely under the radar (maybe declaring Khobragade persona non grata after bringing in Richards' family). It feels much more like they are making a statement (and there's rumours around that State is very, very tired of diplomats using their immunity to violate US employment law for the help).

[Kitsune]

In her case, I doubt she would get a jail sentence even if convicted - just a slap on the wrist, some fines, and don't do it again

Maybe. But State could've quietly handled this entirely under the radar (maybe declaring Khobragade persona non grata after bringing in Richards' family). It feels much more like they are making a statement (and there's rumours around that State is very, very tired of diplomats using their immunity to violate US employment law for the help).

That would make sense.

[Spoonist]

Can you give a good example where a US diplomatic staff had strong evidence against them when they are still in the country of the crime and such a situation occurred?

How about one of the more recent cases?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... h/2612229/
Again like Thanas said, States in general and the US specificly don't like their diplomatic or consular staff tried even for unrelated stuff.
The procedure as you can see was to airlift the person+family on the next available flight. Regardless of circumstances. This procedure has been in effect since the incidents in Pakistan. The motivation is that if it is necessary one can always return the person later if it is deemed warranted, but if the person stays that could lead to difficulties later. So better safe than sorry etc, however this change in procedure has also led to a decrease in the willingness to assist local authorities to do proper police work and an increase in obstructing investigations.
Its a slippery slope where each step is motivated and sort of rational, but the end result is that you protect "your guys" regardless of guilt.

Almost all countries who can get away with it do this. Since the US can get away with more than most, they do it more than most.

On the flip side, the US is one of the few countries who try to prosecute foreign diplomats and consular staff for domestic abuse and trafficking. Most countries don't and instead the offenders are simply sent home and are supposed to be charged there but usually aren't.
Most fameous was the one who jealously killed his wife and then burned the body in the garden with lots of witnesses in surrounding buildings. I think it was some asian country but I'm not sure. *goes googling* Ah, here you go, scroll to the bottom
http://www.cracked.com/article_19591_6- ... ty_p2.html

[Kitsune]

You need to understand that I needed to understand exactly what we are discussing here.
Kenya is not the US and one item is that I would want to (even if he stayed for further investigation) get the family out of the country for their own safety. No matter what, they were not involved in the accident.
Diplomatic immunity is one of those items I don't know all the ins and outs about.