Diplomats who commit crimes shouldn’t get a free pass

[Solomon2]

Opinions
Diplomats who commit crimes shouldn’t get a free pass

By Martina E. Vandenberg, Published: January 1
Martina E. Vandenberg is a pro bono human rights attorney and president of the Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center. She has brought cases against diplomats for domestic worker abuse in the United States and provides technical assistance to pro bono attorneys representing domestic workers, including the lawyers for the domestic worker in Devyani Khobragade’s case.

The diplomatic standoff over the recent arrest of an Indian consular official accused of visa fraud, false statements and exploitation of a domestic worker has several relevant precedents.

In June 2011, an Italian consular officer, Giuseppe Penzato, was arrested in San Francisco. Federal prosecutors charged Penzato and his wife with exploiting a domestic worker in their home. This year, both pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess an illegal identification document; they paid $13,000 in back wages to the domestic worker and quietly left the United States.

These cases illustrate that diplomats can be held criminally accountable for exploiting domestic workers. In the first two instances, the individuals enjoyed consular immunityonly for their official acts. In the third, the government of Mauritius waived its diplomat’s immunity, allowing the prosecution to proceed.

These cases all marched through the U.S. legal process without major fanfare. Italy, Taiwan and Mauritius did not try to make international incidents over the charges. They did not remove security barriers protecting U.S. embassies or strip U.S. diplomats of identity documents.

So why the fracas in New Delhi?

Over the past few years, the Indian government has established a contemptible pattern of defending consular officials accused of labor exploitation and human trafficking in the United States. Lost in the uproar over the Dec. 12 arrest of Devyani Khobragade is the fact that this is the third exploitation case brought against Indian officials in New York since 2010.

The first two cases, filed as federal civil complaints, accused high-ranking Indian consular officials of human trafficking for forced labor. Both cases were brought by domestic workers with assistance from pro bono attorneys. One ended in a $1.4 million judgmentagainst the diplomat in 2012. Public filings indicate that the second case ended in 2012 with a confidential settlement. The Indian government responded to the first lawsuit by joining the defendant to file a suit against the domestic worker and all of her pro bono attorneys in an Indian court seeking to halt the U.S. case.

Now India is seeking to shield Khobragade from criminal prosecution, arguing that she possessed full diplomatic immunity as an adviser to India’s permanent mission to the United Nations. Even if Khobragade had such immunity — and India’s recent effort to reassign Khobragade to its permanent U.N. mission underscores that she did not — its use under these circumstances would pervert the intention of the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. As a consular official, Khobragade had a limited form of immunity covering her official acts, not her private affairs.

Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed his “regret” over the circumstances of Khobragade’s arrest, which reportedly included a strip search by a female U.S. marshal. But Kerry and his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, have publicly denounced trafficking and the exploitation of domestic workers by diplomats. As recently as November, the U.S. mission to the United Nations held a meeting with the entire diplomatic corps in New York to explain U.S. labor law and proper treatment of domestic workers

Instead of acquiescing to the Indian government’s efforts to thwart justice, the U.S. government should deny the request to reaccredit Khobragade to the United Nations. The State Department should refuse to accord her full diplomatic immunity, rather than the more limited consular immunity she possessed at the time of her arrest. The federal criminal prosecution must be allowed to continue without regard to political expediency; anything else would send precisely the wrong message about the rule of law in the United States.

U.S. officials should also suspend India from the visa program that permits diplomats to bring domestic workers to the United States; suspension is required under the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act if there is at least one credible case of exploitation or trafficking and a foreign government has tolerated the abuse.

At its heart, this incident is about a domestic worker alleging fraud, underpayment of wages and other serious violations of U.S. law. Khobragade’s counsel insists that she is innocent. As in previous prosecutions of foreign officials, the evidence — not misappropriated diplomatic immunity — should decide the case.

Martina E. Vandenberg: Why are diplomats free to abuse in America?

Swati Sharma: Why India is upset about Devyani Khobragade, and why it’s wrong

The Post’s View: Human trafficking is a scourge in need of greater attention

 

[armchairPrivate]

Real diplomats have full diplomatic immunity in accordance with the Vienna convention. There is no if and but. It is the international law. Law doesn't have to make sense.

If the article is referring to the Indian consul general Devyani Khobragade, then it is a different story. This woman is no diplomat. She is a glorified clerk. This woman has/had limited diplomatic immunity. My guess is limited to void a parking ticket and that's it.

 

[Counter-Errorist]

So can we get Raymond Davis and the men who ran over an innocent man while they were speeding to try to get to him back here to stand trial in Pakistan?

 

[neehar]

Opinions
Diplomats who commit crimes shouldn’t get a free pass

By Martina E. Vandenberg, Published: January 1
Martina E. Vandenberg is a pro bono human rights attorney and president of the Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center. She has brought cases against diplomats for domestic worker abuse in the United States and provides technical assistance to pro bono attorneys representing domestic workers, including the lawyers for the domestic worker in Devyani Khobragade’s case.

The diplomatic standoff over the recent arrest of an Indian consular official accused of visa fraud, false statements and exploitation of a domestic worker has several relevant precedents.

In June 2011, an Italian consular officer, Giuseppe Penzato, was arrested in San Francisco. Federal prosecutors charged Penzato and his wife with exploiting a domestic worker in their home. This year, both pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess an illegal identification document; they paid $13,000 in back wages to the domestic worker and quietly left the United States.

These cases illustrate that diplomats can be held criminally accountable for exploiting domestic workers. In the first two instances, the individuals enjoyed consular immunityonly for their official acts. In the third, the government of Mauritius waived its diplomat’s immunity, allowing the prosecution to proceed.

These cases all marched through the U.S. legal process without major fanfare. Italy, Taiwan and Mauritius did not try to make international incidents over the charges. They did not remove security barriers protecting U.S. embassies or strip U.S. diplomats of identity documents.

So why the fracas in New Delhi?

Over the past few years, the Indian government has established a contemptible pattern of defending consular officials accused of labor exploitation and human trafficking in the United States. Lost in the uproar over the Dec. 12 arrest of Devyani Khobragade is the fact that this is the third exploitation case brought against Indian officials in New York since 2010.

The first two cases, filed as federal civil complaints, accused high-ranking Indian consular officials of human trafficking for forced labor. Both cases were brought by domestic workers with assistance from pro bono attorneys. One ended in a $1.4 million judgmentagainst the diplomat in 2012. Public filings indicate that the second case ended in 2012 with a confidential settlement. The Indian government responded to the first lawsuit by joining the defendant to file a suit against the domestic worker and all of her pro bono attorneys in an Indian court seeking to halt the U.S. case.

Now India is seeking to shield Khobragade from criminal prosecution, arguing that she possessed full diplomatic immunity as an adviser to India’s permanent mission to the United Nations. Even if Khobragade had such immunity — and India’s recent effort to reassign Khobragade to its permanent U.N. mission underscores that she did not — its use under these circumstances would pervert the intention of the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. As a consular official, Khobragade had a limited form of immunity covering her official acts, not her private affairs.

Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed his “regret” over the circumstances of Khobragade’s arrest, which reportedly included a strip search by a female U.S. marshal. But Kerry and his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, have publicly denounced trafficking and the exploitation of domestic workers by diplomats. As recently as November, the U.S. mission to the United Nations held a meeting with the entire diplomatic corps in New York to explain U.S. labor law and proper treatment of domestic workers

Instead of acquiescing to the Indian government’s efforts to thwart justice, the U.S. government should deny the request to reaccredit Khobragade to the United Nations. The State Department should refuse to accord her full diplomatic immunity, rather than the more limited consular immunity she possessed at the time of her arrest. The federal criminal prosecution must be allowed to continue without regard to political expediency; anything else would send precisely the wrong message about the rule of law in the United States.

U.S. officials should also suspend India from the visa program that permits diplomats to bring domestic workers to the United States; suspension is required under the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act if there is at least one credible case of exploitation or trafficking and a foreign government has tolerated the abuse.
At its heart, this incident is about a domestic worker alleging fraud, underpayment of wages and other serious violations of U.S. law. Khobragade’s counsel insists that she is innocent. As in previous prosecutions of foreign officials, the evidence — not misappropriated diplomatic immunity — should decide the case.

Martina E. Vandenberg: Why are diplomats free to abuse in America?

Swati Sharma: Why India is upset about Devyani Khobragade, and why it’s wrong
The Post’s View: Human trafficking is a scourge in need of greater attention

International Court of Justice

so whats the difference now and then??do u.s diplomats and consular officers have a separate law??
also i think you should see these.
U.S. diplomat flees Kenya after killing man whose wife was pregnant in car crash | Mail Online
US embassy cables: US-Romania relations threatened by musician's death | World news | theguardian.com

So can we get Raymond Davis and the men who ran over an innocent man while they were speeding to try to get to him back here to stand trial in Pakistan?

perhaps @Solomon2 will answer that

 

[Solomon2]

So can we get Raymond Davis and the men who ran over an innocent man while they were speeding to try to get to him back here to stand trial in Pakistan?

R. Davis didn't get off scot-free but in accordance with Pakistan-endorsed sharia law paid "blood money" - essentially a conviction of manslaughter payable by a fine.

I always wondered why no action was taken regarding the guy who was run over. The most likely explanation is that the officers who attempted to retrieve Davis had full and uncontested diplomatic immunity. (Yeah, this car accident s--t happens in the U.S. too, and - with one exception, a drunken Ukrainian who ran over a little girl - ends without a criminal prosecution. The rest of the time the dip gets expelled, I think.)

 

[neehar]

R. Davis didn't get off scot-free but in accordance with Pakistan-endorsed sharia law paid "blood money" - essentially a conviction of manslaughter payable by a fine.

I always wondered why no action was taken regarding the guy who was run over. The most likely explanation is that the officers who attempted to retrieve Davis had full and uncontested diplomatic immunity. (Yeah, this car accident s--t happens in the U.S. too, and - with one exception, a drunken Ukrainian who ran over a little girl - ends without a criminal prosecution. The rest of the time the dip gets expelled, I think.)

what about david headly??is he a diplomat too??are they going to return him to india??

 

[Solomon2]

what about david headly??is he a diplomat too??are they going to return him to india??

As near as I can tell Headly hasn't had dip immunity since he was a toddler.

 

[neehar]

As near as I can tell Headly hasn't had dip immunity since he was a toddler.

he was involved in a crime in india which resulted in deaths of 100s of people.he committed a crime on indian soil.and he do not have a diplomatic immunity.so why was he not returned to india??

 

[Counter-Errorist]

R. Davis didn't get off scot-free but in accordance with Pakistan-endorsed sharia law paid "blood money" - essentially a conviction of manslaughter payable by a fine.

The lawyers of the victim's families claimed that they had been forced to accept the money. Blood money is only acceptable if the family accepts it. They were clearly coerced into accepting it.

Asad Manzoor Butt, a lawyer who had been representing the deceased's relatives, told the media outside the jail that he had been detained for several hours by the prison administration and the heirs had been forced to sign the diyat papers

Raymond Allen Davis incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I always wondered why no action was taken regarding the guy who was run over. The most likely explanation is that the officers who attempted to retrieve Davis had full and uncontested diplomatic immunity. (Yeah, this car accident s--t happens in the U.S. too, and - with one exception, a drunken Ukrainian who ran over a little girl - ends without a criminal prosecution. The rest of the time the dip gets expelled, I think.)

The US refused to let them be interviewed. So back on-topic - should these 5 be tried in Pakistan for the crimes they committed, regardless of their diplomatic status?

 

[jaunty]

So can we get Raymond Davis and the men who ran over an innocent man while they were speeding to try to get to him back here to stand trial in Pakistan?

In the Raymond Davis case president Obama himself stated that RD had full diplomatic immunity which was a lie and Pakistan didn't grant him that and rightly so. Even then they found a way to get him out of Pakistan scott free. You wouldn't claim the moral high ground after that, would you?

 

[JanjaWeed]

Post Script: This logic doesn't apply for American diplomats!

 

[Hulk]

R. Davis didn't get off scot-free but in accordance with Pakistan-endorsed sharia law paid "blood money" - essentially a conviction of manslaughter payable by a fine.

I always wondered why no action was taken regarding the guy who was run over. The most likely explanation is that the officers who attempted to retrieve Davis had full and uncontested diplomatic immunity. (Yeah, this car accident s--t happens in the U.S. too, and - with one exception, a drunken Ukrainian who ran over a little girl - ends without a criminal prosecution. The rest of the time the dip gets expelled, I think.)

While that might be technically true, US tried the level best to make him avoid facing the law. They played all the trick in the book to help him avoid the law. So morally US does not have right to preach.

 

[Sashan]

While that might be technically true, US tried the level best to make him avoid facing the law. They played all the trick in the book to help him avoid the law. So morally US does not have right to preach.

The difference is the crime committed by Raymond Davis is in the official line of business. He felt a threat and he shot those two guys. Devyani's is her personal business and nothing to do with anything official. So there is a whole lot of difference and moral standing on both the issues.

 

[jaunty]

The difference is the crime committed by Raymond Davis is in the official line of business. He felt a threat and he shot those two guys. Devyani's is her personal business and nothing to do with anything official. So there is a whole lot of difference and moral standing on both the issues.

R Davis was no diplomat, in fact he was a CIA agent as later revealed by the guardian. His name was added to the list of diplomats after he had murdered those guys, not to talk about the one they ran over. That is the reason why he wasn't granted immunity and the US had to find a way through sharia to get him free. But that doesn't change the fact that the US--the POTUS, no less did lie and tried to argue that he had full immunity.

The difference is the crime committed by Raymond Davis is in the official line of business.

Also there is no official duty that require a diplomat to carry guns and kill people whenever they feel threatened.

 

[Sashan]

R Davis was no diplomat, in fact he was a CIA agent as later revealed by the guardian. His name was added to the list of diplomats after he had murdered those guys, not to talk about the one they ran over. That is the reason why he wasn't granted immunity and the US had to find a way through sharia to get him free. But that doesn't change the fact that the US--the POTUS, no less did lie and try to argue that he had full immunity.

Mate - if India does something for a RAW official I would totally understand the moral standing. Even if he does not have the immunity, it would have been a very appropriate case. And even if the PM of India says something on the contrary or lies on his diplomatic status, I could understand.

But Devyani's?