Devyani Khobragade gets full diplomatic immunity, flies back home

[cyphercide]

Yes, India wanted a lot of things and he wouldn't budge.
So the State dept. pulled the rug out from under him and let his target escape.
He can hold on to the case for dear life, but it ain't going anywhere.

That's exactly the point. It ain't going anywhere. How does that translate into a failure for Preet? He held his ground and refused any and all of India's conditions. India was forced to acknowledge him and finally had to bow out on his terms.

You wrote that this case would help his career and I wrote that it wouldn't. He didn't get a conviction. That's what matters and it doesn't help that the State dept. denied him that possibility.

Where did I say that? I remember defending Preet when some guy implied that he was doing it for his career.

Once again, her UN credentials and Indian application are only a request to the US. If some country presents a convicted murderer as a diplomat and applies for his diplomatic visa, do you think the host country is obligated to accept him as such?

Given the ongoing legal proceedings against her in the US itself, it is significant that the State dept. granted her immunity. It was, quite literally, a "get out of jail" card.

But we aren't discussing a convicted felon, are we? The State Department was under no obligations to dish out such high handed measures once Devyani flew out. In fact, how does a lookout notice and an arrest warrant even make sense if they were keen to bury this issue? All they granted her was a plane ticket out, which was the bare minimum they could do given India's huffing and puffing. Nobody got thrown under the bus and certainly nobody is kissing and making up anytime soon.

 

[Bang Galore]

As I mentioned above, the State dept. was under no obligation to honor India's request and grant immunity. Each request for immunity is not guaranteed to be honored. If the applicant has a criminal record, or pending criminal proceedings -- especially in the host country as in this case -- the host country is perfectly entitled to reject the application.

The fact that the State dept. honored India's request in the face of an ongoing investigation and expected indictment shows that the State dept. bypassed their own judicial system to favor India.

This is a crystal clear diplomatic coup by India.

As i have mentioned many times, this case was never going to be the one where immunity wasn't going to be granted. Don't think anyone was foolish to believe that if the Indian government made its displeasure clear, there was going to be any alternative. As far as no obligation is concerned, maybe you should read the official announcement on granting of immunity in this case, it was pretty much always on the cards. After all, other countries have no obligation not to put U.s. diplomats in jail either, there was never a strong case here & international diplomacy isn't run by police officers or lawyers, no matter how high positions they thought they were in. It would be a very foolish prosecutor who imagined that sovereign countries are as helpless in face of such judicial action as individuals may be when faced with the might of the U.S. government standing behind that prosecutor. There seems to have been such a display of foolishness in this case, you can bet that all concerned learnt from the outcome.

If the State dept. was serious about prosecuting her, they could have denied India's request for immunity.
To grant immunity and then say, "Oh, we'll get her next time" is a joke on the US justice system.

Obviously they were not interested in prosecuting her, the state department actually knows the consequences of such actions. It is after all their people who would be in the line of fire not some prosecutor.

That's exactly the point. It ain't going anywhere. How does that translate into a failure for Preet? He held his ground and refused any and all of India's conditions. India was forced to acknowledge him and finally had to bow out on his terms.

I disagree, he ended up wasting his time & causing plenty of anger up in Washington. He could also face a personal penalty of never being able to set foot on Indian soil and going about his career with a probable arrest warrant/absconder tag regardless of what effect it might have in the practical sense. There was almost no way he could simply withdraw a case, that would be suicidal but I'm sure he is wishing now that he had never ever touched this case. No result and plenty of repercussions. Regardless of who came out smelling like what, Bharara certainly didn't get out of this smelling of roses.

 

[cyphercide]

I disagree, he ended up wasting his time & causing plenty of anger up in Washington. He could also face a personal penalty of never being able to set foot on Indian soil and going about his career with a probable arrest warrant/absconder tag regardless of what effect it might have in the practical sense. There was almost no way he could simply withdraw a case, that would be suicidal but I'm sure he is wishing now that he had never ever touched this case. No result and plenty of repercussions. Regardless of who came out smelling like what, Bharara certainly didn't get out of this smelling of roses.

Anger in Washington? Are we talking about the newspaper report that cited the comments of some unnamed official? Officially, there has been no change in their attitude. If anything, the language from Washington now sounds a little harsher than before.

The rest is based on your opinion, but provided the assumption that our courts do pursue the matter, wouldn't the American ambassador(and not Preet Bharara) be summoned to clarify?

Either way, he was simply doing his job as prosecutor and to crucify him for it is unfair.

 

[Developereo]

As i have mentioned many times, this case was never going to be the one where immunity wasn't going to be granted.

We both agree that immunity from the State dept. was a foregone conclusion.

Where we disagree is that you think they did it for the sake of their own diplomats, whereas I believe the overriding consideration was the US-India relationship.

That's exactly the point. It ain't going anywhere. How does that translate into a failure for Preet? He held his ground and refused any and all of India's conditions. India was forced to acknowledge him and finally had to bow out on his terms.

He wasn't able to add a notch on his 'conviction' belt.

Where did I say that? I remember defending Preet when some guy implied that he was doing it for his career.

OK, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

But we aren't discussing a convicted felon, are we? The State Department was under no obligations to dish out such high handed measures once Devyani flew out. In fact, how does a lookout notice and an arrest warrant even make sense if they were keen to bury this issue? All they granted her was a plane ticket out, which was the bare minimum they would do given India's huffing and puffing. Nobody got thrown under bus and certainly nobody is kissing and making up anytime soon.

As I wrote, this 'notice' is just for public consumption since Khobragade is not stupid enough to enter US territory without immunity. Rather than throwing her in jail for 15 years, as her alleged crimes warranted, the State dept. gave her the lesser punishment of banishment.

 

[Bang Galore]

Anger in Washington? Are we talking about the newspaper report that cited the comments of some unnamed official? Officially, there has been no change in attitude. If anything, the language from Washington now sounds a little harsher than before.

The rest is based on your opinion, but provided the assumption that our courts do pursue the matter, wouldn't the American ambassador(and not Preet Bharara) be summoned to clarify?

Either way, he was simply doing his job as prosecutor and to crucify him for it is unfair.

Even if you assume that the newspaper report is inaccurate, you do know that Kerry called in to express regret(supposedly an apology but for legal reasons mentioned as regret). What is harsher from Washington? Their reaction to an expulsion of a diplomat was about hoping that India would be satisfied & would now move on...Harsh tone?

Preet Bharara had no business interfering (& foolishly admitting to that interference) in the Indian judicial system involving Indian nationals on Indian soil. Contempt of court & a probable case for attempting to subvert justice are a given. The expelled officer was in line to be prosecuted precisely for that, the MEA asked for immunity to be withdrawn, failing which to leave the country. What Indian appellate courts might or might no do is pure speculation here but the admission of interference gives the courts grounds to charge him. Whether or not they do it is a different matter. The U.S.. ambassador might also be in line though I believe that the Indian government seems to have cleared the way to put all blame on the expelled diplomat. Bharara is clearly in the firing line if the high court decided to go after him. In any case, whether or not there is a case against him, you can be pretty sure that he won't be stepping on Indian soil anytime soon. No immunity & probably cavity & other searches might very well follow, there is simply no discounting the anger the system in India harbors towards him. The MEA goes nowhere, not like the politicians. They seem to have taken it personally & it would be very risky for any American diplomat, let alone a chap like Bharara to open up a chance at retribution.

We both agree that immunity from the State dept. was a foregone conclusion.

Where we disagree is that you think they did it for the sake of their own diplomats, whereas I believe the overriding consideration was the US-India relationship.

Actually I don't disagree on the overriding factor being the Indo-US relationship. I couldn't agree more though I wouldn't discount the fear of retaliation and the worry about setting a dangerous precedent for not only India but other more hostile & unpredictable countries to follow.

 

[cyphercide]

He wasn't able to add a notch on his 'conviction' belt.

Like I said, that was the bare minimum(and not a significant concession) given India's reaction to Devyani's arrest. Note how I never did argue about Devyani walking free, the only contention was on how she would come to that stage. Although, I do think she will pursue her legal options from India. What a reversal it would be if the American judge presiding over the case acknowledges her immunity and scraps the case!!!

As I wrote, this 'notice' is just for public consumption since Khobragade is not stupid enough to enter US territory without immunity. Rather than throwing her in jail for 15 years, as her alleged crimes warranted, the State dept. gave her the lesser punishment of banishment.

It has bigger connotations than that. The notice and arrest warrant is to signal that her new-found(at least by American contention) immunity will be completely disregarded by the US were she to exercise it . If you did go through the article I posted earlier(written by a former Foreign Secretary), it also is indicative of a vindictive nature to pursue this incident by US authorities.

 

[Sashan]

@Bang Galore - I have been reading your arguments about the US embassy official and Preet who can be held for contempt of court here in India. I do understand that Preet can be held for contempt of court for his statement. But what legal standing even the court will have in trying to hold the US embassy official for contempt of court? I am not talking about immunity. Last I looked up buying a ticket for an Indian citizen by someone else is not a crime. So what is that alleged crime we are talking about here committed by the official? The Indian citizen had a valid passport was granted a proper visa and a ticket was bought by the embassy. So if the court feels it interfered with the prosecution, then the Indian officials should be held accountable for not seizing the passport of the maid's husband.

 

[cyphercide]

Even if you assume that the newspaper report is inaccurate, you do know that Kerry called in to express regret(supposedly an apology but for legal reasons mentioned as regret). What is harsher from Washington? Their reaction to an expulsion of a diplomat was about hoping that India would be satisfied & would now move on...Harsh tone?

Preet Bharara had no business interfering (& foolishly admitting to that interference) in the Indian judicial system involving Indian nationals on Indian soil. Contempt of court & a probable case for attempting to subvert justice are a given. The expelled officer was in line to be prosecuted precisely for that, the MEA asked for immunity to be withdrawn, failing which to leave the country. What Indian appellate courts might or might no do is pure speculation here but the admission of interference gives the courts grounds to charge him. Whether or not they do it is a different matter. The U.S.. ambassador might also be in line though I believe that the Indian government seems to have cleared the way to put all blame on the expelled diplomat. Bharara is clearly in the firing line if the high court decided to go after him. In any case, whether or not there is a case against him, you can be pretty sure that he won't be stepping on Indian soil anytime soon. No immunity & probably cavity & other searches might very well follow, there is simply no discounting the anger the system in India harbors towards him. The MEA goes nowhere, not like the politicians. They seem to have taken it personally & it would be very risky for any American diplomat, let alone a chap like Bharara to open up a chance at retribution.

Yes, I'm aware of the call of regret. I'm also aware of India turning it down in wait for a formal apology. By what I perceive, the tone does seem to have hardened since that call expressing regret. Certainly no one is terming it as a big blunder or being even a little apologetic in their official stance :

However Ms. Psaki reiterated that the charges against the senior Indian diplomat, which relate to allegations of underpaying her domestic worker Sangeeta Richard, would stand and her immunity ceased to apply the moment her role at the UN ended.

“Prior to her departure it was conveyed to her and to the Government of India that she is not permitted to return to the U.S. except to submit to the jurisdiction of the court,” Ms. Psaki explained, adding that the “charges remain in place”, and the prosecutor in the Southern Distict of New York would confirm whether an arrest warrant had been issued yet.

Khobragade on immigration watch list, faces arrest in U.S. - The Hindu

The rest I do know and don't recall voicing an objection to the same.

 

[Bang Galore]

Yes, I'm aware of the call of regret. I'm also aware of India turning it down in wait for a formal apology. By what I perceive, the tone does seem to have hardened since that call expressing regret. Certainly no one is terming it as a big blunder or being even a little apologetic in their official stance

I don't think so, in any case future actions will show what course this is taking.

 

[Bang Galore]

@Bang Galore - I have been reading your arguments about the US embassy official and Preet who can be held for contempt of court here in India. I do understand that Preet can be held for contempt of court for his statement. But what legal standing even the court will have in trying to hold the US embassy official for contempt of court? I am not talking about immunity. Last I looked up buying a ticket for an Indian citizen by someone else is not a crime. So what is that alleged crime we are talking about here committed by the official? The Indian citizen had a valid passport was granted a proper visa and a ticket was bought by the embassy. So if the court feels it interfered with the prosecution, then the Indian officials should be held accountable for not seizing the passport of the maid's husband.

Two separate questions. One is related to charges & the other to possible immunity. In the first instance, Preet Bharara's statement implicates everyone in the chain. Add to that, this officer claimed those tickets on diplomatic quota (waived taxes) when they clearly were not for the use of US embassy personnel. If you have been following the case, you would know that the Indian government actually asked for his immunity to be removed to bring criminal charges, expulsion was a result of immunity not being lifted.

On the second point, the supreme court left it open whether or not they saw contempt of court as being covered under immunity. While no decision was eventually made(on the Italian ambassador's case), there is possible room that the high court might simply ignore immunity when dealing with contempt. The mess would then be for the GoI to handle. It is why there is so much danger left in this case. Bharara faces no immediate prosecution ,especially if he chooses not to visit India but other U.S. officials in India might face the court's ire. which was probably the reason to get rid of this officer quickly.


There is no case for anyone in India to answer, there was no court bar on the persons traveling. However Bharara's comment in that incredibly stupid statement directly mentions that the reason for travel was to cause escape from the Indian judicial system & implicated himself & other officials in that action.

 

[cyphercide]

I don't think so, in any case future actions will show what course this is taking.

True that. Although our diplomats don't share your enthusiasm on the matter:

Stung by the India-US row over diplomat Devyani Khobragade and her help Sangeeta Richard, sources say the Foreign Ministry is now pushing the Finance Ministry to change the status of domestic workers who go to the US with Indian envoys.

Foreign Secretary Sujata Singh has met senior Finance Ministry officials in this regard, sources said.

Several Indian diplomats in the US are worried that the Americans will now act against them since their domestic helps also come on A3 visa like Ms Richards. The visa subjects them to US laws.

There are, according to sources, around 14 such 'ticking time bombs' in the US right now.

If the Foreign Ministry changes their status to Indian staffers, they will come under Indian law. The proposal requires clearance by the Finance Ministry.

Sources say some Indian diplomats may send back their domestic helps if the proposal is not cleared in the next few days.

Meanwhile, Ms Khobragade has moved a federal court in New York to dismiss the visa fraud case against her, saying there is lack of personal jurisdiction since she had been accorded full diplomatic immunity by the US Department of State.

Arrested on December 12, the 39-year-old diplomat was allegedly strip-searched and held with criminals, triggering a row between the two countries with India retaliating by downgrading privileges of certain category of US diplomats among other steps.

Devyani Khobragade fallout: Indian diplomats fear more US action, want change in visa status of domestic helps, say sources | NDTV.com

I do understand that Preet can be held for contempt of court for his statement. But what legal standing even the court will have in trying to hold the US embassy official for contempt of court? I am not talking about immunity. Last I looked up buying a ticket for an Indian citizen by someone else is not a crime. So what is that alleged crime we are talking about here committed by the official? The Indian citizen had a valid passport was granted a proper visa and a ticket was bought by the embassy. So if the court feels it interfered with the prosecution, then the Indian officials should be held accountable for not seizing the passport of the maid's husband.

In reality, it would have been easier to get hold of the consular official(who India sees as only having limited immunity) than of Preet. Regardless of the statements he made in his rebuttal, the Judge isn't going to pull up the guy who sanctioned the "evacuation" from Washington, the Judge is more likely to ask the cops to bring the people who facilitated such an action from our end.

There exists a possibility of a summons if Preet gets personally named by Devyani's lawyers(or if someone files a PIL). However, there's no guarantee that our courts would take action against the American Attorney due to the multiple complications that may arise.

 

[Bang Galore]

True that. Although our diplomats don't share your enthusiasm on the matter:

I see you are partial to a particular strain of news. There won't be any more follow up cases of this nature, take that to the bank or I'll be happy to apologise for not being able to read the situation at all. True that Indian diplomats will come under pressure to resolve such matters; once a case has been made, it would be difficult to apply different standards for similar cases. However there won't be a repeat, if you thought there would be then the Americans would not have granted immunity in the first place in this case. A second instance of similar nature will almost certainly see U.S. diplomats in jail, I'm not sure that there are any takers for standard procedures in an Indian jail among American diplomats. The Indian diplomats in the MEA are simply trying to get the Indian government to take on such workers as government workers, something the government has been loath to do because of the permanency of job that creates. This "breast-beating" is to that end and will probably work.

 

[cyphercide]

I see you are partial to a particular strain of news. There won't be any more follow up cases of this nature, take that to the bank or I'll be happy to apologize for not being able to read the situation at all. True that Indian diplomats will come under pressure to resolve such matters; once a case has been made, it would be difficult to apply different standards for similar cases. However there won't be a repeat, if you thought there would be then the Americans would not have granted immunity in the first place in this case. A second instance of similar nature will almost certainly see U.S. diplomats in jail, I'm not sure that there are any takers for standard procedures in an Indian jail among American diplomats. The Indian diplomats in the MEA are simply trying to get the Indian government to take on such workers as government workers, something the government has been loath to do because of the permanency of job that creates. This "breast-beating" is to that end and will probably work.

As I see you favor news that reinforce your opinion on the matter!!!

To be honest, your previous "you do know" comment is what ticked me off to become partial to the particular strain of news.

Bhai, paper shaper toh hum bhi parte hain!!!

Quick question:

Since when did it become routine for IFS officers to marry foreign nationals? I remember reading that our former President, K.R. Narayanan, had to secure special permission in order to marry his wife:

Soon after, Narayanan received an offer to join the Indian Foreign Service, which he did in 1949. As a young diplomat, Mr.Narayanan's first posting was in Rangoon, where he met his future wife, a Burmese woman named Tint Tint who subsequently took on the name Usha. They married in 1950 in New Delhi after Nehru granted special permission for an IFS officer to marry a foreign national.

The Hindu : National : K.R. Narayanan — President who defied stereotype

How come no one raised the issue of the American husband in Devyani's case?

 

[Bang Galore]

Since when did it become routine for IFS officers to marry foreign nationals? I remember reading that our former President, K.R. Narayanan, had to secure special permission in order to marry his wife:

I must admit that this surprised me too. I don't know, the rules must be more relaxed though I would question the utility of having such an officer representing Indian interests in the US, would think a possible conflict of interest would be possible. The way she has been whining about her husband & children make me wonder about what other posting would she have ever been open to.

How come no one raised the issue of the American husband in Devyani's case?

Maybe she already had sought permission but having IFS officers married to foreign nations and especially having her kids be foreign nationals is far from ideal.

There is however a more interesting angle here. If there was allegation of human trafficking(not made in the indictment) and there was allegations that the maid was being mistreated by being made to work more hours, how come the husband, an American national isn't prosecuted for that part. I assume he lived in that house(the nanny makes references to him in a letter/diary), so how come he wasn't charged for being involved in the supposed mistreatment? The only charges attempted were on the visa application & wages agreed agreement but a standard implication (including on the visas the nanny & her family are now staying on) was of human trafficking. Surely he was an equal partner in the supposed "crime".

 

[Bang Galore]

Indian-born U.S. prosecutor misses the target with his moral crusade against diplomat

There are no saints in the saga of Devyani Khobragade, the Indian diplomat who was forced last week to leave America (and her American husband and kids) to escape a humiliating trial for allegedly underpaying her housekeeper, also an Indian.

But if there is a sinner here, it is not the diplomat or the housekeeper. It is the U.S. attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee, whose crusade will hurt those in whose name he launched it: foreign domestic help.

It’s an understatement to say that the episode has soured relations between the two countries, who were just burying the hatchet after decades of Cold War animosity. Indians, whose national pride is disturbingly tied to how their government officials are treated abroad, protested as news spread that Khobragade was arrested when dropping off her daughters to school, strip searched and held in a cell with “common” criminals.

The Indian government went into full retaliation mode, condemning America for its “despicable” and “barbaric” behavior; removing security barricades outside the American embassy; and – in a hilarious fit of peevishness — slapping duties on the wine and cheese imports of American diplomats (try staying sober for a few days, Yankees, and may be you’ll start thinking straight!).

But Bharara, himself born in India, was unbowed. “One wonders,” he asked, “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?”

It’s a good question. But the answer is not, as Bharara insinuated, the deeply class-conscious Indian society that reflexively treats the rich and powerful as more equal than the poor and powerless. It is that Indians see Bharara’s pompous insistence on enforcing a preposterous rule of law without regard to the human context as moral fanaticism.

And they are right.

The charge against Khobragade, ironically a women’s rights advocate herself, is that in the visa application for Sangeeta Richards, the housekeeper, she promised to pay $4,500 per month, as per New York’s “prevailing wage” requirement. However, in a separate contract, she offered Richards only $600 a month.

Human rights groups insist that this is “wage theft.” If so, half of India would want its wages stolen.

Under one-third of the country's 1.2 billion people subsist on $1 a day. Average per capita annual income is about $3,600, half of what Richards was being paid. Median salaries of software engineers and family physicians are on par with her salary.

The U.S. consulate pays its Indian employees half of Richards' wages.

If Khobragade had actually given Richards the full legal amount, she would have handed over most of her paycheck. It is an open secret in New York that foreign diplomats, who get a special dispensation under U.S. immigration law to bring over domestic help, rarely pay full legal wages.

One could argue that if Khobragade couldn’t afford to pay Richards what the law demanded, she should have done without her. Fair enough. But would Richards – or the 600 million Indians who would gladly swap places with her – have been better off under that scenario? Far from it.

Had Richards remained in India, she’d have made a third of what she was being paid. Her living conditions would have been far worse. And she would be consigned to a culture where the standards for the treatment of domestic help are much lower.

Given his India connection, Bharara couldn’t be unaware of this. So why exactly did he do it? The speculation in India is that this was a naked attempt to manipulate American sensibilities to impress his progressive base and advance his political career.

That’s not a bad guess. If Bharara were genuinely motivated by the plight of housekeepers, there are better ways to help. He could lobby to scrap the requirement in America’s immigration law that suspends their visas if they change employers, trapping them in genuinely abusive situations.

He could petition to loosen the visa barriers against foreign domestic workers so that they could shop around for employers — a far better way of raising wages and improving working conditions. He could also campaign against prevailing wage laws that price these workers out of the marketplace.

But that would mean taking on protectionists on the Right and Left who don’t want competition by foreign workers. It’s far easier to collect trophy scalps of prominent people for minor infractions.
Indian-born U.S. prosecutor misses the target with his moral crusade against diplomat | WashingtonExaminer.com