Devyani Khobragade gets full diplomatic immunity, flies back home

[maniac@666]

It was with the U.S. state department, not with the NYPD, I just pointed out that this story isn't as black & white as it is often made out to be. The MEA isn't filled by fools, if they believed that there was a serious problem developing, she would have been pulled out ages ago. The fact that they felt blindsided by the state department explains why the reaction was harsh.



I didn't mean that the Italian envoy's case was similar to anything here, just that Indian courts can deal pretty harshly with matters that deal with contempt issues. It was no one's case that the Italian ambassador had no immunity, it was that the court read contempt as something it wouldn't tolerate(irrespective of any undertaking). The Indian government might argue immunity in this case but it wouldn't stop an appellate court from probably summoning any individual they feel has shown contempt or interfered in the judicial process (any argument that spiriting away an Indian citizen out of India to prevent the Indian judicial process from working will have to be tested in courts & it would be a very risky argument to make). The final result might be immunity but the Indian government might not have wanted to test the court's resolve & risk a bigger problem with the U.S. Granted that this is only speculation at this point but it is by no means a very unfeasible one.

It is still possible that arrest warrants could be issued against US embassy officials & Bharara himself. While there might not be any practical conclusion to such issue, it might make it impossible for any named person to ever visit India.

it's the difference between us indians and these type of people,united we stand for the pride of our whole country.he simply doesn't understands that we are not supporting that scum but the treatment meted out to her (deputy consul general) who had partial immunity and represents india.they are in habit of doing these types of things,they are repeated offenders,they frisked kalam sir and lots of another high dignitary people,the question why don't we frisk ex us presidents and other high profile people who come here because we follow certain protocols and they do not.when it's comes to them they have high moral ground and for rest they don't care.it's not the way to treat ur friends. they simply see as their pawns which they don't know that we will not become.

 

[cyphercide]

this was already a political drama to gain minority and female votes

Nah, I don't think so. Although, it is fitting that the BJP called a spade a spade. They are the ones who are going to eventually benefit from this incident.



@Topic

The latest on the diplomatic spat:

Khobragade on immigration watch list, faces arrest in U.S.
Devyani Khobragade, India’s former Deputy Consul General in New York who left the U.S. on Thursday after being indicted on visa fraud charges, has lost her diplomatic immunity, will be placed on an “immigration lookout system” and is likely to also have an arrest warrant issued in her name the State Department said.

After the Department acceded to her credentialing request for the United Nations on Wednesday evening, Ms. Khobragade received full diplomatic immunity that protected her from further arrest or prosecution.

The U.S. then requested a waiver of the immunity State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki said on Friday, but “it was denied”.

At that point the U.S. policy to then ask that the concerned diplomat “depart when there are serious charges involved”, applied and thus on Thursday evening Ms. Khobragade boarded a plane for New Delhi, where she was set to resume duties in a new role in the Ministry of External Affairs.

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.

When pressed on why the State Department had agreed to grant Ms. Khobragade’s U.N. credentials request Ms. Psaki said “We would only refuse accreditation and a request for accreditation like this in rare circumstances such as events related to national security risks,” such as espionage suspicions.

It appeared however that opportunity afforded to Ms. Khobragade to exit the U.S. was interpreted as an act of diplomatic expulsion and New Delhi on Friday applied the principle of reciprocity and expelled a U.S. diplomat of similar status to Ms. Khobragade.

Ms. Psaki confirmed that a U.S. official accredited to Mission India would be leaving his post at the request of the Government of India, and “We deeply regret that the Indian Government felt it was necessary to expel one of our diplomatic personnel.”

On a broader note she added that this has “clearly been a challenging time in the U.S.-India relationship,” and Washington hoped that “this will now come to closure and the Indians will now take significant steps with us to improve our relationship and return it to a more constructive place”.

On the subject of fighting human trafficking into the country the Spokesperson noted that the U.S. was “committed… to ensuring all domestic workers are paid for all hours worked… [and] all diplomatic and consular personnel are aware of and abiding by their obligations under U.S. law”.

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

 

[Sashan]

It was with the U.S. state department, not with the NYPD, I just pointed out that this story isn't as black & white as it is often made out to be. The MEA isn't filled by fools, if they believed that there was a serious problem developing, she would have been pulled out ages ago. The fact that they felt blindsided by the state department explains why the reaction was harsh.



I didn't mean that the Italian envoy's case was similar to anything here, just that Indian courts can deal pretty harshly with matters that deal with contempt issues. It was no one's case that the Italian ambassador had no immunity, it was that the court read contempt as something it wouldn't tolerate(irrespective of any undertaking). The Indian government might argue immunity in this case but it wouldn't stop an appellate court from probably summoning any individual they feel has shown contempt or interfered in the judicial process (any argument that spiriting away an Indian citizen out of India to prevent the Indian judicial process from working will have to be tested in courts & it would be a very risky argument to make). The final result might be immunity but the Indian government might not have wanted to test the court's resolve & risk a bigger problem with the U.S. Granted that this is only speculation at this point but it is by no means a very unfeasible one.

It is still possible that arrest warrants could be issued against US embassy officials & Bharara himself. While there might not be any practical conclusion to such issue, it might make it impossible for any named person to ever visit India.

Indian courts can deal with things harshly and I do agree it can as seen by the precedence in dealing with the Italian Ambassador isssue. But then it can become a question of Indian courts vs International Court of Justice(kind of similar to what happened between US and Iran in 1970s after Iranian revolution) at which point India's resolve will be tested to the maximum if ever US decides to go all-in though again there is no precedence on security council dealing with a country in a harsh manner based on the ICJ verdict.



And ofcourse Indian Government can issue arrest warrants against Bharara himself and make him "persona non grata" based on his statements.

 

[Sashan]

it's the difference between us indians and these type of people,united we stand for the pride of our whole country.he simply doesn't understands that we are not supporting that scum but the treatment meted out to her (deputy consul general) who had partial immunity and represents india.they are in habit of doing these types of things,they are repeated offenders,they frisked kalam sir and lots of another high dignitary people,the question why don't we frisk ex us presidents and other high profile people who come here because we follow certain protocols and they do not.when it's comes to them they have high moral ground and for rest they don't care.it's not the way to treat ur friends. they simply see as their pawns which they don't know that we will not become.

On a lighter note based on what you posted before you edited it(yeah true - I saw your original post not that it bothers me but eggs me to have some fun), let me state - I want to kill everyone who did that to Kalam sir as he is a Tamilian himself.

On a serious note, let me ram it down your head - there is always going to be us vs these types, not that you represent India. Let me get it straight. You do not represent India just because you live there or get to vote as your vote counts for nothing else inspite of your choice, some Italian lady would not have been the King maker in India.

And these types as you alluded to support one Indian who has been harassed and was painted by the vindictive Indian media and many here as a Chanakya who was hell bent on an US lifestyle vs the other Indian- the corrupt elite Indian who bent the laws - in getting a language of her preference, cheating a Kargil war widow of her apartment, harassing the maid and her family by filing false charges in Delhi policestation which anyone can do in India.

So get it in your brain - it is a case of one Indian vs the other where the "big bad wolf" supported the downtrodden and I agree with the "big bad wolf" not that I see it as the "big bad wolf" just like how you or others like you see it based on what the media spins out as opposed to you can see when you get your *** out of India.

Again on a lighter note - let me ask you the question - are you one of the elitists hell-bent on preserving the rights of crooks but another bunch of elitists like Kubragades?

 

[Developereo]

The latest on the diplomatic spat:



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

Good God almighty!

This is just salad dressing for domestic US consumption.

The State department is just covering their as$ for subverting the US justice system and letting an alleged criminal escape.

If the State department was serious about enforcing US laws (not their job; it's the DOJ's job), they would never have issued her the immunity in the first place.

 

[Bang Galore]

Good God almighty!

This is just salad dressing for domestic US consumption.

The State department is just covering their as$ for subverting the US justice system and letting an alleged criminal escape.

If the State department was serious about enforcing US laws (not their job; it's the DOJ's job), they would never have issued her the immunity in the first place.

That's a weird argument. If allowing immunity is to be seen as subversion of domestic law, then the very signing of treaties that allow for such "subversion" would have to be questioned. The U.S. would also then have to follow the "noble" principle of not attempting to subvert the laws of any other country. That happened here. The U.S. was asked to lift immunity of Wayne May, the diplomat expelled by India to face those very charges of subverting the judicial process, the U.S. declined and the diplomat was expelled to probably save him from being dragged to an appellate court in India on contempt charges. Not giving immunity was never a real choice here (that would be only a fervent hope of a few "interested" parties alone), the U.S. administration, right to the very top, is absolutely furious that this incident was allowed to go this far in the first instance.

 

[Developereo]

That's a weird argument. If allowing immunity is to be seen as subversion of domestic law, then the very signing of treaties that allow for such "subversion" would have to be questioned. The U.S. would also then have to follow the "noble" principle of not attempting to subvert the laws of any other country. That happened here. The U.S. was asked to lift immunity of Wayne May, the diplomat expelled by India to face those very charges of subverting the judicial process, the U.S. declined and the diplomat was expelled to probably save him from being dragged to an appellate court in India on contempt charges.

She did NOT have the requisite immunity at the time of the crimes. This was, and remains, the State department's position, else they would not have given the green light for the investigation (not the arrest) to proceed in the first place.

For all practical purposes, she was Jane Citizen when she was apprehended.

The State department granted her immunity so she could leave the country, knowing full well that India wouldn't waive the immunity.

A comparable scenario would be if you or I -- ordinary citizens -- commit a crime in another country and get arrested for it. Then our government applies for, and gets, immunity so we can fly away without facing trial.

Giving immunity was never a real choice here (that would be only a fervent hope of a few "interested" parties alone), the U.S. administration, right to the very top, is absolutely furious that this incident was allowed to go this far in the first instance.

Giving immunity was the ONLY choice to end the headache for the State dept. State was never interested in justice, it was always the DOJ pushing for justice against DOS's wishes.

 

[cyphercide]

Good God almighty!

This is just salad dressing for domestic US consumption.

The State department is just covering their as$ for subverting the US justice system and letting an alleged criminal escape.

If the State department was serious about enforcing US laws (not their job; it's the DOJ's job), they would never have issued her the immunity in the first place.

I am beginning to suspect that you're using reverse psychology to get Indians to accept defeat on this incident!!!

Either that or you're deliberately choosing to be dismissive about actual evidence that doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative on the matter.

You were previously dismissive about the State Department clarification on retroactive immunity on previous offenses. It still stands.

You predicted that Preet Bahrara would be "thrown under the bus" to salvage the situation. Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, Preet comes out of this looking like a champ who stood up for the rights of the poor and undefended. What's more is that he has delivered his own brand of justice by separating Devyani from her American husband and kids . No wonder they call him "The Sheriff" in the American media.

You claimed the State Department would willingly retreat from its onslaught. I don't think putting someone on the immigration watch list and seeking an arrest warrant counts as cosmetic measures designed to placate the domestic crowd.

So you were wrong with a lot of your predictions. Big whoop, it happens to the best of us. But the best also have the ability to acknowledge and process new information that is contrary to their line of thinking.

 

[Bang Galore]

She did NOT have the requisite immunity at the time of the crimes. This was, and remains, the State department's position, else they would not have given the green light for the investigation (not the arrest) to proceed in the first place.

That was precisely the point. The feeling in the U.S. administration is that it was done by mid level officials without the required oversight from senior officials. The decision to move her to the UN was always going to be India's decision alone & there was no way immunity would then not be granted. This was a badly constructed decision in the first place where the only end game was always going to be against the U.S.

 

[Developereo]

You were previously dismissive about the State Department clarification on retroactive immunity on previous offenses. It still stands.

Not sure what you are referring to here. The State dept. stands by its claims that she did not have immunity when the alleged crimes occurred. That's exactly my point that she has been given fresh immunity precisely to escape justice.

You predicted that Preet Bahrara would be "thrown under the bus" to salvage the situation. Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, Preet comes out of this looking like a champ who stood up for the rights of the poor and undefended. What's more is that he has delivered his own brand of justice by separating Devyani from her American husband and kids . No wonder they call him "The Sheriff" in the American media.

Bharara was completely sidelined. His case is on ice forever since no one in their right mind believes that Khobragade will set foot on American soil without securing immunity first.

For prosecutors, the measure of success is the conviction rate, not the indictment rate.

You claimed the State Department would willingly retreat from its onslaught. I don't think putting someone on the immigration watch list and seeking an arrest warrant counts as cosmetic measures designed to placate the domestic crowd.

As I mentioned, this chest thumping is for cosmetic purposes. The State department was under no obligation to grant immunity to Khobragade. The fact that it did so is a clear indication that it valued Indian concerns over US justice.

there was no way immunity would then not be granted.

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.

 

[cyphercide]

Not sure what you are referring to here. The State dept. stands by its claims that she did not have immunity when the alleged crimes occurred. That's exactly my point that she has been given fresh immunity precisely to escape justice.

Oh geez!!! I will have to look through my previous posts for that:

Developereo said: ↑
The State department wants the case to go away, but they can't say it in public because it would undermine the DOJ and NY prosecutors. All their talk (State) is for the domestic media, but they will find a way once the media spotlight goes away.

It has happened in the past; it will happen again.


State department has given retroactive immunity in the past. They will do so again. They are only waiting for the media spotlight to go away.

The only guy hopping mad will be Preet Bharara, and he is expendable.

I replied to your post with the State Department's clarification to which you replied:

Developereo said: ↑The chest thumping is for the domestic media and not to undermine the DOJ. Once the spotlight is off, some deal will be made.

As for deciding immunity, I'm not sure the judge has any say. The decision lies with the State dept.

You are very fond of this "for public consumption" argument, aren't you?

 

[Developereo]

Oh geez!!! I will have to look through my previous posts for that:



I replied to your post with the State Department's clarification to which you replied:

Sure, I said that the State dept. was desperate to end this debacle and placate India.
It had granted retroactive immunity in the past, so it was very much a possibility in this case too.
As it turned out, the State dept. took the lesser, but equally effective, option of granting her current immunity which was enough to let her escape prosecution.

You are very fond of this "for public consumption" argument, aren't you?

Because I know how politics works in a democracy.
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.

 

[cyphercide]

Bharara was completely sidelined. His case is on ice forever since no one in their right mind believes that Khobragade will set foot on American soil without securing immunity first.

For prosecutors, the measure of success is the conviction rate, not the indictment rate.

No, he wasn't. I find it laughable that you would see it as that. Who refused for the charges to be dropped altogether? Who refused to reduce charges to non-criminal charges? India started off with completely sidelining him but eventually ended up in his office looking for a settlement. He refused to drop criminal charges(although he did go as far as to reduce it to a misdemeanor charge so long as Devyani pleaded guilty) and the Indians were sent on their way.

And I'm unsure as to why you would cite conviction rates for a case that hasn't seen one day in trail. I asked for where and how Preet Bharara got thrown under the bus.

As I mentioned, this chest thumping is for cosmetic purposes. The State department was under no obligation to grant immunity to Khobragade. The fact that it did so is a clear indication that it valued Indian concerns over US justice.

No, it isn't. It is upping the ante by disregarding her UN credentials. They are making sure that Devyani will not set foot in the United States unless it is to face trail. It is a clear indication that all the United States agreed to was getting her a ticket back home(visa).

 

[Developereo]

No he wasn't. I find it laughable that you would see it as that. Who refused for the charges to be dropped altogether? Who refused to reduce charges to non-criminal charges? India started off with completely sidelining him but eventually ended up in his office looking for a settlement. He refused to drop criminal charges(although he did go as far as it a misdemeanor charge as long as Devyani pleaded guilty ) and the Indians were sent on their way

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.

And I'm unsure as to why you would cite conviction rates for a case that hasn't seen one day in trail. I asked for where and how Preet Bharara got thrown under the bus.

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.

No, it isn't. It is raising the ante by disregarding her UN credentials. They are making sure that Devyani will not set foot in the United States unless it is to face trail. It is a clear indication that all the United States agreed to was getting her ticket back home(visa).

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.

 

[cyphercide]

Sure, I said that the State dept. was desperate to end this debacle and placate India.
It had granted retroactive immunity in the past, so it was very much a possibility in this case too.
As it turned out, the State dept. took the lesser, but equally effective, option of granting her current immunity which was enough to let her escape prosecution.

They know well in advance about her family and so they are making sure she doesn't reunite with them till the time she faces trial. I am shocked as how you are seeing it as being desperate. I see the State Department being absolutely vindictive in their approach.

The messy Devyani Khobragade episode has come to a tangled closure, with many untied loose ends. The US has shown unrelenting obstinacy in treating her as a felon, has hastily indicted her for visa fraud and underpaying her maid, contrary to international conventions and good political judgment in dealing with a country that it touts as a key strategic partner for the 21st century.

To end the impasse, the US has agreed, ungracefully, to conferment of full diplomatic immunity to her following her transfer to India's UN mission, accompanied by effective expulsion from the US. There is no US apology for arresting and maltreating her in the first place and no withdrawal of the cooked-up case against her by the US State Department in connivance with the US Embassy in New Delhi.

Threatening to arrest her on return to the US without immunity shows that the US has no desire to close the diplomatic wounds opened up by its high-handedness towards an Indian diplomat. The US may derive satisfaction that in this case it has upheld its labour laws and made the point that foreign diplomats violating them are liable for legal action, but the price has been alienation of India.

It is baffling why the US should prioritise empty moral posturing over substantial political interests. For quite some time it will be very difficult for the US to mouth its heady rhetoric about the importance it attaches to its relations with India, and for India to take it seriously.

This incident has exposed the inherent inequalities in India-US bilateral relations, with Indian feelings further exacerbated by US mockery of India's judicial system by "evacuating" the maid's family from India on "T" visas associated with severe sex or labour trafficking.

Such US interference in India's judicial system should not be tolerated and those in its missions involved in the issuance of such visas should be legally proceeded against.

The US has been trying to shift the focus from Devyani's maltreatment to India's decision to withdraw the security barriers "surrounding" the US embassy, which is a canard because only a public road that had been taken over by the US embassy to make it comfortable for its personnel to access the embassy club has been re-opened to traffic, but with security barriers alongside the embassy's walls and police presence still in place.

The decision to control misuse of diplomatic privileges by the embassy is being termed as "petty" and unbecoming of a democracy and a would-be great power. Such condescending editorials in the US mainstream press show how self-centred, narrow-minded and insular Americans can be.

All sensible persons would agree that this incident should not disproportionately damage the bilateral relationship. India and the US are dialoguing on numerous key strategic issues. Yet, on this sensitive issue the dialogue between the two countries has stumbled badly.

Looking ahead, it is necessary to have a bilateral agreement on immunities for diplomats working in consulates. The status of domestic staff accompanying our diplomats has to be clearly defined through a bilateral agreement. By being petty-minded on a minor legal issue the US has neither conducted itself as a great power nor as India's strategic partner.

Devyani Khobragade row exposes Indo-US inequalities - Economic Times[/quote]