India expels American diplomat

[Solomon2]

It is evident that you have no clue what a diplomatic immunity means and its ramifications as claimed on the indian judicial system .

I know what dip-immunity normally means:

Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representa
tives of Members not for the personal benefit of the irdividuals themselves,
but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in
connection with the United Nations. Consequently a Member not only
has the right but is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representative
in any case where in the opinion of the Member the immunity would impede
the course of justice, and it can be waived without prejudice to the purpose
for which the immunity is accorded.

- but I'm learning that India claims its own path on such matters.

 

[dontsuspendme]

I know what dip-immunity normally means:

Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representa
tives of Members not for the personal benefit of the irdividuals themselves,
but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in
connection with the United Nations. Consequently a Member not only
has the right but is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representative
in any case where in the opinion of the Member the immunity would impede
the course of justice, and it can be waived without prejudice to the purpose
for which the immunity is accorded.

- but I'm learning that India claims its own path on such matters.

Hey clown, why did you release her then?
From the start we told she has dip immunity...

 

[Solomon2]

India's justice system ? No. Her being a diplomat does not give her immunity from India's justice system. Certainly not for the Adarsh scam.

If Khobragade's new position is that of a U.N. representative stationed in New Delhi it may:

SECTION 12. In order to secure, for the representatives of Members to
the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences
convened by the United Nations, complete freedom of speech and ind
pendance in the discharge of their duties, the immunity from legal process
in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in discharg
ing their duties shall continue to be accorded, notwithstanding that the per
sons concerned are no longer the representatives of Members.

link

If the Indian media decides to take a stand against her, she is screwed big time. You obviously don't know the way things work here.

What I'm learning so far makes a really poor impression.

 

[JayAtl]

I know what dip-immunity normally means:

Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representa
tives of Members not for the personal benefit of the irdividuals themselves,
but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in
connection with the United Nations. Consequently a Member not only
has the right but is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representative
in any case where in the opinion of the Member the immunity would impede
the course of justice, and it can be waived without prejudice to the purpose
for which the immunity is accorded.

- but I'm learning that India claims its own path on such matters.

solomon, don't get cute . giving me a definition of what it means does that absolve your statement that her immunity status equals to her being immune from any crimes in India.

You have convoluted diplomatic status to mean it extends immunity to her on crimes locally in India too. You have further done what others do to you ( jews and zionist conspiracies they levy)and given this one person some superpower over all of India.

Just stay out of it...is my advice.

If Khobragade's new position is that of a U.N. representative stationed in New Delhi it may:

SECTION 12. In order to secure, for the representatives of Members to
the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences
convened by the United Nations, complete freedom of speech and ind
pendance in the discharge of their duties, the immunity from legal process
in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in discharg
ing their duties shall continue to be accorded, notwithstanding that the per
sons concerned are no longer the representatives of Members.

link

What I'm learning so far makes a really poor impression.

How does it give her immunity from crimes committed in India?

 

[Solomon2]

From the start we told she has dip immunity...

According to the State Dept. India only applied for her immunity on Dec 20th. The U.S. was, as near as I can tell, under no obligation to grant this but did so.

However, India, under the 1946 Convention with the U.N., then had the duty to waive Khobragade's immunity. India refused to do this, so it was requested Khobragade leave the U.S. asap.

solomon, don't get cute . giving me a definition of what it means does that absolve your statement that her immunity status equals to her being immune from any crimes in India. You have convoluted diplomatic status to mean it extends immunity to her on crimes locally in India too.

It depends. That's what we're going to see in the next few weeks, I suppose.

How does it give her immunity from crimes committed in India?

Under Section 15 of the 1946 agreement they aren't supposed to. But India is ignoring other provisions of the Convention, so why wouldn't India ignore Section 15 as well?

Think of all the things Khobragade pulled off: a flawed or defective FIR, an arrest warrant based on the FIR, the flats she wasn't supposed to have, twisting her country and gov't to get her out of the U.S. when Conventions say she either doesn't have immunity (if she's consular) or India's supposed to waive it (if she's a U.N. diplomat.) Why wouldn't she be able to claim immunity from Indian courts as well? What other purpose is there, once she gets home, for India to keep her on the U.N. payroll?

 

[JayAtl]

According to the State Dept. India only applied for her immunity on Dec 20th. The U.S. was, as near as I can tell, under no obligation to grant this but did so.

However, India, under the 1946 Convention with the U.N., then had the duty to waive Khobragade's immunity. India refused to do this, so it was requested Khobragade leave the U.S. asap.

no, again ignorance. India applied for UN immunity and that is their right, but to get it US had to agree to it. The US agreed to it. what you doing here is absolutely idiotic and challenging all Indians here with ridiculous assumptions.

vast majority here have no issue with her being charged with a crime, its the fact the the jailing authorities made her change in jail uniforms, that even our state department said was excessive and not needed under our laws, that they( indians) object to.

you are needling them indians here, like others do to zionists like you.

 

[dontsuspendme]

According to the State Dept. India only applied for her immunity on Dec 20th. The U.S. was, as near as I can tell, under no obligation to grant this but did so.
However, India, under the 1946 Convention with the U.N., then had the duty to waive Khobragade's immunity. India refused to do this, so it was requested Khobragade leave the U.S. asap.

So your justice system is not that strong as you claimed...
What made you to send her to india when she does not have diplomatic immunity during arrest...

 

[JayAtl]

According to the State Dept. India only applied for her immunity on Dec 20th. The U.S. was, as near as I can tell, under no obligation to grant this but did so.

However, India, under the 1946 Convention with the U.N., then had the duty to waive Khobragade's immunity. India refused to do this, so it was requested Khobragade leave the U.S. asap.

It depends. That's what we're going to see in the next few weeks, I suppose.

Under Section 15 of the 1946 agreement they aren't supposed to. But India is ignoring other provisions of the Convention, so why wouldn't India ignore Section 15 as well?

Think of all the things Khobragade pulled off: a flawed or defective FIR, an arrest warrant based on the FIR, the flats she wasn't supposed to have, twisting her country and gov't to get her out of the U.S. when Conventions say she either doesn't have immunity (if she's consular) or India's supposed to waive it (if she's a U.N. diplomat.) Why wouldn't she be able to claim immunity from Indian courts as well? What other purpose is there, once she gets home, for India to keep her on the U.N. payroll?

What F___ nonsense, you are an embarrassment to us americans now, and making assumptions as being the standard. Utter embarrassment. You deserve everything that others levy on you here.

 

[Thirdfront]

India is grossly over reacting, the issue could have been solved by negotiations. Childish tit for tat wasn't necessary.

It wasn't childish. It was one of them who helped in trafficking Indians out.

 

[Solomon2]

no, again ignorance. India applied for UN immunity and that is their right, but to get it US had to agree to it. The US agreed to it.

Sure, but India was immediately supposed to waive Khobragade's immunity. The onus is now on India, not the U.S., for Khobragade escaping justice.

what you doing here is absolutely idiotic and challenging all Indians here with ridiculous assumptions.

If she get indicted in India for the flats case I'll take it all back, you know.

vast majority here have no issue with their being charged with a crime, its the fact the the jailing authorities made her change in jail uniforms, that even our state department said was excessive and not needed under our laws, that they( indians) object to.

State could have requested "special handling".

you are needling them indians here, like others do to zionists like you.

Oh, please. Am I "needling" Indians by claiming that Arabs Pakistan or China have the right to invade Israel India and that Israel India should vanish from the face of the Earth for its "oppression" of Arabs Muslims?

What F___ nonsense, you are an embarrassment to us americans now, and making assumptions as being the standard. Utter embarrassment.

I doubt any U.S. diplomat would make the claim I'm making, that Kho will be granted immunity from her own country's courts. But all-in-all, I guess they would likely think it.

You deserve everything that others levy on you here.

Even if it turns out I'm correct?

 

[dontsuspendme]

Sure, but India was immediately supposed to waive Khobragade's immunity. The onus is now on India, not the U.S., for Khobragade escaping justice.

It would have been better if america behaved like that from start...

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

What F___ nonsense, you are an embarrassment to us americans now, and making assumptions as being the standard. Utter embarrassment. You deserve everything that others levy on you here.

Ignore Solomon , he has no idea what he is talking about. He is just angry and arguing for the sake of it.

 

[JayAtl]

Sure, but India was immediately supposed to waive Khobragade's immunity. The onus is now on India, not the U.S., for Khobragade escaping justice.

If she get indicted in India for the flats case I'll take it all back, you know.

State could have requested "special handling".

Oh, please. Am I "needling" Indians by claiming that Arabs Pakistan or China have the right to invade Israel India and that Israel India should vanish from the face of the Earth for its "oppression" of Arabs Muslims?

Why the F would india waive anything. did we waive it with Raymond Davis, do we waive when our spies get caught in other countries? This is idiotic.

whether she gets indicted for flats depends on the evidence. It has no bearing on your ridiculous assumptions of what diplomatic status and immunity means to local crimes in India.

 

[dontsuspendme]

If she get indicted in India for the flats case I'll take it all back, you know.

We can prosecute her, but cannot indict her unless guilty...
Indian judicial system is different...
It cannot be changed now and then like you bananas did...

 

[Thirdfront]

According to the State Dept. India only applied for her immunity on Dec 20th. The U.S. was, as near as I can tell, under no obligation to grant this but did so.

However, India, under the 1946 Convention with the U.N., then had the duty to waive Khobragade's immunity. India refused to do this, so it was requested Khobragade leave the U.S. asap.

It depends. That's what we're going to see in the next few weeks, I suppose.

Under Section 15 of the 1946 agreement they aren't supposed to. But India is ignoring other provisions of the Convention, so why wouldn't India ignore Section 15 as well?

Think of all the things Khobragade pulled off: a flawed or defective FIR, an arrest warrant based on the FIR, the flats she wasn't supposed to have, twisting her country and gov't to get her out of the U.S. when Conventions say she either doesn't have immunity (if she's consular) or India's supposed to waive it (if she's a U.N. diplomat.) Why wouldn't she be able to claim immunity from Indian courts as well? What other purpose is there, once she gets home, for India to keep her on the U.N. payroll?

Wrong. She had full immunity since Aug, till Dec 31.
Rights are enforceable, duties are not....