Devyani Khobragade gets full diplomatic immunity, flies back home

[janon]

Yup.
First Italy, now the US.
Indian government is demanding recognition of the 'changing world order' from the West.

P.S. If the Italian and the American capitulation had happened under Modi, most of the Indians on this forum would be chanting his name.

In both cases, India was only reacting to an act by those countries. It was the Italian govt that tried to renege on their promise of returning the marines, and it was the US govt that tried to prosecute a consul for a widespread practice that countries always overlook. It wasn't India that instigated either of these two incidents, so your theory that India did these to demand recognition does not hold water. India only did what wwas expected of any self respecting country.

Agree with the last sentence.

 

[kbd-raaf]

No. She won't be allowed to enter US. That is why she is being asked to leave in the first place.


On Thursday, the Indian mission to the United Nations rejected the State Department's request that her immunity be waived. Then in a diplomatic note, the U.S. mission requested Khobragade's immediate departure from the United States and said it would take steps to prevent her from obtaining a visa in the future. It also said Khobragade, 39, who is married to an American, risked arrest if she tried to return.

"Upon her departure a warrant may be issued for her arrest and should she seek to enter the United States she could be arrested," the note said.

Indian envoy leaves U.S. in deal to calm diplomatic row - Yahoo News

How exactly does the US plan to arrest a diplomat with immunity?

If she is given a visa that is.

 

[janon]

How exactly does the US plan to arrest a diplomat with immunity?

If she is given a visa that is.

They said that she would be arrested if she returned without diplomatic immunity. And it is unlikely that she will be able to return with immunity, since the US will not give her a visa on a diplomatic passport again. In other words, it is unlikely she will return at all.

 

[kbd-raaf]

They said that she would be arrested if she returned without diplomatic immunity. And it is unlikely that she will be able to return with immunity, since the US will not give her a visa on a diplomatic passport again. In other words, it is unlikely she will return at all.

True, true.

Her marriage is going to be strained now. Deserves it.

 

[cyphercide]

Bazaar haggling 101: you always ask for more than what you know the other guy will pay.

This leaves you room to "compromise" in "good faith".

Oh please. They could have transferred Devyani back to India(effectively ending the spat) the second they moved her to the permanent mission. Why the last minute evacuation?They expected the Americans to fold and the Americans didn't. This was less bazaar haggling and more of how a cop throws the book at you if you refuse to pay his bribe in hopes you would finally relent. India lost, no two ways about it.

 

[Developereo]

In both cases, India was only reacting to an act by those countries. It was the Italian govt that tried to renege on their promise of returning the marines, and it was the US govt that tried to prosecute a consul for a widespread practice that countries always overlook. It wasn't India that instigated either of these two incidents, so your theory that India did these to demand recognition does not hold water. India only did what wwas expected of any self respecting country.

In the Italian case, India had legitimacy but barring an ambassador is still a gutsy move.

In this American case, India had no legitimacy whatsoever. The crime was a proper crime, the arrest was legitimate and the handling of the case was professional throughout. Khobaragade's immunity was granted ex post facto.

This was a diplomatic coup by India through and through -- no doubt about it.

 

[janon]

Oh please. They would have transferred Devyani the second they moved her to the permanent mission. Why the last minute evacuation?They expected the Americans to fold and the Americans didn't. This was less bazaar haggling and more of how a cop throws yhe book on you if refuse to pay his bribe in hopes you would finally relent.

It was a fold by the Americans (albeit a small one), because this is what they should have done in the first place. If a diplomat or consul breaks a domestic law, the host nation is supposed to declare her persona non grata and ask her to leave the country, not prosecute her or arrest her. (By the way, an arrest should only happen after the trial is over, for consuls.)

The attorney's office flouted all those conventions and started prosecuting her, but eventually the US did what they should have done in the first place - made her leave. If that is what thy had done initially, there would have been no hue and cry from India.

 

[Developereo]

Oh please. They could have transferred Devyani back to India(effectively ending the spat) the second they moved her to the permanent mission. Why the last minute evacuation?They expected the Americans to fold and the Americans didn't. This was less bazaar haggling and more of how a cop throws the book on you if you refuse to pay his bribe in hopes you would finally relent. India lost, no two ways about it.

How could she leave without immunity?
The move to the Indian permanent mission was part of the sequence needed to get her immunity from the US State dept.
Everything was worked out in advance.
The State dept. was only waiting for the media storm to cool so she could be "smuggled" out without fuss..

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Sure, but once it became a game of chicken, it was always clear which side would blink first.

The stronger opponent can afford to 'lose face' and shrug it off, but the weaker opponent will resent it for a long time. The damage to the relationship was never worth it and, on balance, it was clear the State department would favor US national interests (i.e. relationship with India) over some New York prosecutor (given the non-lethal nature of the crime).

The only Americans chest thumping were those with a romantic, rather than pragmatic and realistic, view of the American government..

SO that's how you're gonna twist things when India wins...you're petty man.

 

[Developereo]

It was a fold by the Americans (albeit a small one), because this is what they should have done in the first place. If a diplomat or consul breaks a domestic law, the host nation is supposed to declare her persona non grata and ask her to leave the country, not prosecute her or arrest her. (By the way, an arrest should only happen after the trial is over, for consuls.)

The attorney's office flouted all those conventions and started prosecuting her, but eventually the US did what they should have done in the first place - made her leave. If that is what thy had done initially, there would have been no hue and cry from India.

How can you trial someone without arresting them first?
Also, the US has every right to prosecute a consul without full diplomatic immunity.
At the time of the crime and arrest, she did not have full diplomatic immunity (despite Indian media claims to the contrary).

SO that's how you're gonna twist things when India wins...you're petty man.

Why should I twist anything when I predicted all along that India would win and Khobragade would walk free with immunity?

 

[janon]

In the Italian case, India had legitimacy but barring an ambassador is still a gutsy move.

In this American case, India had no legitimacy whatsoever. The crime was a proper crime, the arrest was legitimate and the handling of the case was professional throughout. Khobaragade's immunity was granted ex post facto.

This was a diplomatic coup by India through and through -- no doubt about it.

Not really. If a consul with partial immunity breaks a domestic law, then the host country is supposed to follow certain procedures. One, to inform the consular general. Two, to initiate and complete all legal proceedings, hold the trial, find her guilty and ONLY THEN arrest her. (It is different from the procedure for ordinary visitors or citizens.) She should not have been arrested before the trial was over, that is part of the convention covering consular relations.

As for the nature of the "crime", that is standard practice among the diplomats of most developing countries. There is nothing new that DK did. It is a practice that has always been overlooked, and for good reason. The act may have broken the letter of the minimum wage law, but by no means did it break the spirit of the law, since that law is intended to give a modicum of living standard to minimum wage earners - Sangita richards was living a much mor comfortable life than any minimum wage earner.

And to reiterate, every Indian consul or diplomat has done the same thing. Just like American diplomats have screened films on Indian soil without passing it through the censor board, and the spouses of American diplomats and consuls have taught in missionary schools in India without a work permit, and other such inconsequential "crimes".

 

[Guynextdoor2]

How can you trial someone without arresting them first?
Also, the US has every right to prosecute a consul without full diplomatic immunity.
At the time of the crime and arrest, she did not have full diplomatic immunity (despite Indian media claims to the contrary).



Why should I twist anything when I predicted all along that India would win and Khobragade would walk free with immunity?

Course that's coz of the generosity of the USA right?

 

[janon]

How can you trial someone without arresting them first?
Also, the US has every right to prosecute a consul without full diplomatic immunity.
At the time of the crime and arrest, she did not have full diplomatic immunity (despite Indian media claims to the contrary).

As answered in my next post, that is written in the vienna conventions regarding consuls. And the Indian media is not claiming she had full immunity, it has always been stressed that she had partial immunity - and that too means something. For instance, only arresting after the trial.

Yes, they can conduct a trial without formally arresting her, because she is not a flight risk. In such cases, she is expected to live in the embassy until the trial is over (which the Italian marines are doing, BTW - how are we trying them without jailing them?). After the trial is over, and only if she is found guilty should she be arrested or housed in a prison.

 

[cyphercide]

It was a fold by the Americans (albeit a small one), because this is what they should have done in the first place. If a diplomat or consul breaks a domestic law, the host nation is supposed to declare her persona non grata and ask her to leave the country, not prosecute her or arrest her. (By the way, an arrest should only happen after the trial is over, for consuls.)

The attorney's office flouted all those conventions and started prosecuting her, but eventually the US did what they should have done in the first place - made her leave. If that is what thy had done initially, there would have been no hue and cry from India.

How can it be seen as a fold yaar? The United States deliberately mistreated Devyani who had full immunity even before the incident , agreed to none of the demands made by India, and got away scot free as not a single member of the American Embassy stands accused in our courts as was threatened by India.

Regarding your previous comment regarding Preet's office:

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara was made aware of the details of the Devyani Khobragade case only days ahead of the Indian Deputy Consul General's arrest on December 12, it has emerged, contrary to media reports suggesting that he had pursued this case from the start to fulfil “political ambitions.”

Ms. Khobragade faces criminal charges — a felony — for making material false statements on a visa application form and for visa fraud, both relating to allegations that she underpaid her domestic assistant, Indian national Sangeeta Richard.

Indian-American Bharara, who in the days following Ms. Khobragade’s arrest stoutly defended the U.S. government's pursuit of the case against her, has faced a wave of criticism in India.

He has variously been labelled an “Uncle Tom” in social media and had his motives questioned for going after prominent South Asians in the U.S. such as hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam and former Mckinsey and Company boss Rajat Gupta.

Yet, it was clear this week that he was not involved in playing a prominent role in directing the investigation of the Khobragade case, which was apparently the job of other U.S. federal agencies, nor even apprised of certain details of the case until very shortly before the arrest of the senior diplomat.

Bharara apprised of Devyani case only days before her arrest - The Hindu

 

[me_itsme]

You really are thankless people.
Her father Uttam Khobragade said in Delhi, "Devyani was fighting to uphold the sovereignty of this country. When alternatives were offered she sacrificed the personal comfort."

Bro, her father will tell sh!t. She and her dad are involved in scams worth a lot of money & also lying to the Indian high commision i think so she should suffer the consequences. She is no heroine. We just wanted her back cause she is our citizen and we have the right to throw her behind bars.

So I don't know how this makes us Thankless.