Khobragade to USA: You have lost a good friend. In return, you got a maid and drunken driver

[Srinivas]

You are misrepresenting the facts.

She was NOT and Indian diplomat, only from 8 January she become a diplomat.

Diplomats enjoy immunity from prosecution not consul staff.

India cannot prosecute US diplomats, but can prosecute US consul staff.

The US government would not care about India prosecuting US consul staff for criminal offenses they have committed. Protecting criminals is not the concern of the US foreign policy.

She was given immunity after she was accredited to UN mission prior to that she is a consular general. In Diplomacy there are some unofficial rules of engagement between two nations , which USA violated.

If the same thing happened to USA consular general then USA would have done anything to get the consular out of India. USA has that track record .

 

[airpower183]

She was given immunity after she was accredited to UN mission prior to that she is a consular general. In Diplomacy there are some unofficial rules of engagement between two nations , which USA violated.

If the same thing happened to USA consular general then USA would have done anything to get the consular out of India. USA has that track record .

I repeat you are still misrepresenting the facts.

The UN is an organization not a country, no member of that organization is accorded with diplomatic immunity.

 

[Srinivas]

I repeat you are still misrepresenting the facts.

The UN is an organization not a country, no member of that organization is accorded with diplomatic immunity.

Yes Foreign service staff who are accredited to UN mission do have immunity.



Devyani Khobragade accredited to the UN before arrest: India tells US | NDTV.com

 

[Solomon2]

Only on Friday, with the reluctant agreement from the State Department to expel a diplomat of equal rank from its embassy in New Delhi, was the matter seemingly resolved.

It's not like the State Dept. had the right to refuse such a request! Nevertheless, there is a key difference between the conduct of the two consuls, Indian and American: the American was doing his duty for his country, while the Indian's duty was only for herself. The American's was covered by consular immunity, the Indian's was not.

As a matter of strict protocol the U.S. is therefore entitled to expel an Indian of its choosing. Whether the U.S. will do so or not, or whether the U.S. has already quietly done so, is not yet known.

Yes Foreign service staff who are accredited to UN mission do have immunity.

U.N. diplomatic immunity is not "full" like an ambassador's but partial. Most especially, there is the proviso that if it looks like immunity is being used for personal benefit to avoid the process of justice, it is the duty of the diplomat's country to waive immunity. The U.S. invoked this clause yet India refused to waive immunity. Requesting Khobragade's departure from U.S. soil - for this was not an "expulsion" - was probably the least the U.S. could do in response to India's misconduct.

What the U.N. will do, if anything, to punish India is another matter.

 

[OrionHunter]

“Devyani was seen off at the airport by an official of the State Department,” he told reporters Friday morning. “He told Devyani that, ‘Madam, I am sorry, and it was wrong.’ She told the official, ‘You have lost a good friend. It is unfortunate. In return, you got a maid and a drunken driver. They are in, and we are out.' ”

Well said! He sure did get some egg on his face!

 

[Srinivas]

It's not like the State Dept. had the right to refuse such a request! Nevertheless, there is a key difference between the conduct of the two consuls, Indian and American: the American was doing his duty for his country, while the Indian's duty was only for herself. The American's was covered by consular immunity, the Indian's was not.

What do you mean by that??

According to Vienna Convention consular s are given some privileges when they work in foreign countries and they are equal to all.

As a matter of strict protocol the U.S. is therefore entitled to expel an Indian of its choosing. Whether the U.S. will do so or not, or whether the U.S. has already quietly done so, is not yet known.

U.N. diplomatic immunity is not "full" like an ambassador's but partial. Most especially, there is the proviso that if it looks like immunity is being used for personal benefit to avoid the process of justice, it is the duty of the diplomat's country to waive immunity. The U.S. invoked this clause yet India refused to waive immunity. Requesting Khobragade's departure from U.S. soil - for this was not an "expulsion" - was probably the least the U.S. could do in response to India's misconduct.

What the U.N. will do, if anything, to punish India is another matter.

Yes India requested for the expulsion of diplomat from USA fearing the plan USA has had to humiliate her, considering the fact that USA already illegally deported the maids family with out Indian consent.

Speaking about UN laws, did USA got the UN permission to attack Iraq??

How did that happen??

why is USA following double standards here when it comes to UN laws??

I am not concerned about what US state department says since I only see this issue in the prism of bilateral relationship between two countries. And Local laws are next to negligible.

 

[kbd-raaf]

It's not like the State Dept. had the right to refuse such a request! Nevertheless, there is a key difference between the conduct of the two consuls, Indian and American: the American was doing his duty for his country, while the Indian's duty was only for herself. The American's was covered by consular immunity, the Indian's was not.

As a matter of strict protocol the U.S. is therefore entitled to expel an Indian of its choosing. Whether the U.S. will do so or not, or whether the U.S. has already quietly done so, is not yet known.

U.N. diplomatic immunity is not "full" like an ambassador's but partial. Most especially, there is the proviso that if it looks like immunity is being used for personal benefit to avoid the process of justice, it is the duty of the diplomat's country to waive immunity. The U.S. invoked this clause yet India refused to waive immunity. Requesting Khobragade's departure from U.S. soil - for this was not an "expulsion" - was probably the least the U.S. could do in response to India's misconduct.

What the U.N. will do, if anything, to punish India is another matter.

How do you feel about your diplomats posts here:

http://racistdiplomatsusa.tumblr.com

 

[airpower183]

What do you mean by that??

According to Vienna Convention consular s are given some privileges when they work in foreign countries and they are equal to all.

Correct

Yes India requested for the expulsion of diplomat from USA fearing the plan USA has had to humiliate her,

This doesn't make any sense, India doesn't need to request the expulsion of one of its diplomats from the US. India simply withdraws like it has done.

considering the fact that USA already illegally deported the maids family with out Indian consent.

US does not need India's consent to deport anybody other than diplomats.

why is USA following double standards here when it comes to UN laws??

I say this for 10th time. THE UN IS AN ORGANIZATION, IT'S LAWS HAVE NO JURISDICTION IN THE US

 

[Solomon2]

What do you mean by that?? According to Vienna Convention consular s are given some privileges when they work in foreign countries and they are equal to all.

A consul's immunity extends only to his or her official duties. A consul acting on his or her own behalf does not have immunity under the Vienna Convention.

Yes India requested for the expulsion of diplomat from USA fearing the plan USA has had to humiliate her, considering the fact that USA already illegally deported the maids family with out Indian consent.

India requested Khobragade's expulsion? No, sir, India refused America's request to waive Khobragade's immunity once it she received U.N. accreditation. The Americans then did not formally expel Khobragade, but requested that the Indians remove her from U.S. soil. By contrast, the American really was expelled.

...why is USA following double standards here when it comes to UN laws -

I understand, looking at Khobragade's conduct in baselessly accusing her maid of the very crimes evidence points to Khobragade having committed, that many Indians believe "the best defense is a good offense" even if it runs on empty. This dishonesty does not go down well with Americans.

I am not concerned about what US state department says since I only see this issue in the prism of bilateral relationship between two countries. And Local laws are next to negligible.

That may be how it works in India but not in the U.S., where privileges beyond those granted in diplomatic conventions are regulated more by law than by official whim.

 

[Srinivas]

This doesn't make any sense, India doesn't need to request the expulsion of one of its diplomats from the US. India simply withdraws like it has done.

Yes India can do that, but in this case since the official was arrested and under US's jurisdiction India followed the procedure.

US does not need India's consent to deport anybody other than diplomats.

In this case USA deported Indian citizens to arrest on of its diplomatic staff, those Indian citizens are under Indian jurisdiction.

I say this for 10th time. THE UN IS AN ORGANIZATION, IT'S LAWS HAVE NO JURISDICTION IN THE US

Vienna convention and all comes under UN

 

[Solomon2]

How do you feel about your diplomats posts here:http://racistdiplomatsusa.tumblr.com

"Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension."

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I don't think she has to worry about seeing her children again. Isn't her husband a college professor or something. He is going to be put under an ethics microscope after all the facts come out about this. I think he is going to be forced to move to India as a result.

 

[kbd-raaf]

"Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension."

Ah so that's what it is. Irony?

Not utter contempt for their host country. You guys needs to look at the kind of diplomats you're hiring, they're not very diplomatic at all.

 

[Srinivas]

A consul's immunity extends only to his or her official duties. A consul acting on his or her own behalf does not have immunity under the Vienna Convention

.

Yes I agree but your previous statement is contradictory regarding consular staff of India and US.

India requested Khobragade's expulsion? No, sir, India refused America's request to waive Khobragade's immunity once it she received U.N. accreditation. The Americans then did not formally expel Khobragade, but requested that the Indians remove her from U.S. soil. By contrast, the American really was expelled.

In both the cases both Indian and US consular staff got expelled. India knew if Devyani stays there in USA she will be in trouble so they refused to waive the immunity so that she will be expelled.

I understand, looking at Khobragade's conduct in baselessly accusing her maid of the very crimes evidence points to Khobragade having committed, that many Indians believe "the best defense is a good offense" even if it runs on empty. This dishonesty does not go down well with Americans.

Americans and honesty!!!
Take an example of Iraq war, US went to war with Iraq citing there are chemical weapons, Some say US knew there are no chemical weapons. where is the US Govt. honest in that??

That may be how it works in India but not in the U.S., where privileges beyond those granted in diplomatic conventions are regulated more by law than by official whim.

Diplomacy has some privileges both official/unofficial some times they are immune to local laws, She is not an ordinary US citizen she is Indian citizen working on behalf of India.

 

[kbd-raaf]

I don't think she has to worry about seeing her children again. Isn't her husband a college professor or something. He is going to be put under an ethics microscope after all the facts come out about this. I think he is going to be forced to move to India as a result.

He's an American citizen.