India-US Strategic News and Discussion

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 01 Feb 2014 18:54

Its rubbish.US Senator John Kerrorist cares enough to humiliate a female diplomat.The US cares enough to spy on India big time.India is a nation of 1.2 billion people.The US is pumping money into pakistana for decades to 'ensure' that India does not come out top.The US encouraged genocide in BD because they wanted pakistan to prevail and they have turned a blind eye to OBL and nuclear proliferation because they care.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 01 Feb 2014 19:03

The State Department and BDS and their Central Park associates will care.. and sooo many diplomatic nannies and their ambu-chasers..

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 01 Feb 2014 19:19

UlanBatori wrote:The State Department and BDS and their Central Park associates will care.. and sooo many diplomatic nannies and their ambu-chasers..

I wonder if some kind soul will bare unto the heathen, what has transpired so far and the rules that bind the future progress. Not news, but the binding rules. Instructions unclear, so far.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Feb 2014 19:49

TSJones wrote: Most people in the US flat don't care.

Why would they care, as long as there are no significant consequences for the US ? The US is not exactly known for its fine appreciation of geography or culture beyond its boundaries....

What matters is not what the US public thinks, but whether the US SD cares enough about reciprocal measures taken on its diplomats.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Feb 2014 20:16

There seems to be a confusion between the state and the people. TSJ is right that most people "flat don't care". Most Americans don't give a crap. It's true. And it's better that way. Ditto Indians. Most Indians couldn't care less if the entire US embassy was packed up and sent home. More room for manoeuvre for both parties.

Svenkat and Ulanbatori are right that the state does care, on both sides. If anyone is suggesting that, today, the US does not care about what the government of India thinks, that would really not be very accurate. India of course does care what the US thinks. We are weaker. It is natural. As the balance shifts, and it will, we will begin to care less and the US to care more.

saip · Post by **saip** » 01 Feb 2014 21:01

TKiran wrote:My prediction was correct. PB is arguing that at the time of her arrest she was not working for UN. She was only doing Consular function with limited immunity so she could be prosecuted for 'criminal charges' done on personal capacity. So the only option left is to fight the case on merits. What is the procedure for that? PB should get egg on his face for his actions while he is in power , not after he is somewhere else. He should loose the case against DK.

What they are arguing is their side of the case. The judge has to determine whose argument is valid. DK's case was as she had full immunity from July 2013 on wards (being accredited to the UN) no charges should have been filed. I believe arguments before the magistrate will be made on 2/3/14. If DK's argument wins then the charges will be dismissed and if PB's argument wins then they will continue and the case will resume once DK's comes into the jurisdiction of the court.

Then there are couple of more points
When and where did the offence take place?
First offence of Visa fraud took place in India when DK allegedly executed the second contract. US is claiming extra territorial jurisdiction for that.
The second offence of underpayment of wages took place in New York prior to July 2013.

DK's attorney is arguing:

In court papers, Ms Khobragade attorney Daniel Arshack said that diplomatic immunity granted to her by the U.S. State Department gave her absolute immunity from U.S. prosecution, even for suspected acts committed earlier.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/devya ... ors-478024

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2014 21:29

TSJones wrote:..Face it, we're never going to see eye to eye. Most people in the US flat don't care.

Who are "we" here? I hope you are not speaking for Americans, because if you are, you will be wrong. You (or me, or any other brf jingo) are not exactly a spokesperson, or "all knowing" expert like so many people pretend here. Even if you consider a very small sample - say american among brfites -- they do not think as a one unit. So please let us not make a fool of ourselves when we say "Americans do this..and Indians do that..".

Just a small example -- If you ask Birthers, (or some brf posters

), "most Americans" think Obama is illegitimate (born in Kenya, you know etc.) while for others he is a POTUS. Likewise if you ask me, or many others (as much authentic Americans, as any one else), most Americans actually care a lot. (That US is a nation of laws, we value human decency etc, and will treat others the way we wanted to be treated by others..etc)

Make no mistake, they are as disgusted with barbaric treatment of DK, or abuse of power of PB, as any decent person of any nation will be. DK may be a diplomat but she is also a decent person, a wife and mother of an American Citizen (as authentic as, TSJ or Amber G, or UlanBatori or any one else in US), and IMO any one who pretends otherwise is letting his/her racist instinct color his understanding of what US actually stands for. (Even if you worship PB, the charges against DK are just that, allegations..In US one is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise and no court has convicted her of any crime)

Think for a second. Same PB who prosecuted Time square bomber is now using resources, paid by Taxpayers like me, to "prosecute" DK's "high crimes". How does it even make sense?

Enough is enough.

member_28380 · Post by **member_28380** » 01 Feb 2014 21:39

TSJones wrote:
Pooch for this thread is, what will happen to India-US Strategic whatever?
Oh, it will go along as usual, half-a**ed, stumbling, unless some emergency of unusal importance threatens both countries at the same time, which frankly, is unlikely to happen. Face it, we're never going to see eye to eye. Most people in the US flat don't care.

Sure..pretending very hard

US doesn’t care about India’s reaction has been the primary strategy of response so far.
Considering the power differential between India and US, India being the weaker power has retaliated and embarrassed the US with in its capacity. It is not the Indian diplomat but the US which has been stripped and exposed to the international community for everyone to see its duplicity and hypocrisy.

To quote Professor Kishore Mahbubani (Dean and professor in the practice of public policy of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore):

http://akividu.blogspot.com/2014/01/two ... unity.html

“Few governments in the world have the geopolitical heft or the moral legitimacy to look the American government in the eye and demand such absolute reciprocity. India does.

American government officials continue to insist on feudal-type privileges while serving in other countries.

It is normal for American diplomats to receive diplomatic immunity. Rather abnormally, the American government expects that even its non-diplomats should receive immunity. In some cases, they have literally gotten away with murder. Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor, was whisked away from the Pakistani judicial system after shooting and killing two Pakistani citizens. In the ancient days, only feudal lords stood above the laws of the land. Today, American government employees also enjoy feudal immunities overseas.

The American government practices double standards in the application of laws. It allows no foreign government officials any immunity from American laws. Yet it expects its government officials to be — in theory and in practice — immune from other countries’ legal courts. Whenever any US government official faces the threat of prosecution in a foreign legal court, he or she is quietly whisked away.

The Indian government’s success in persuading the American government to allow Khobragade to return home and not face charges in an American court will therefore be cheered all around the world. Most countries realise that they would not have had the weight to shift the US government. India is one of the few who could do so. And in doing so, India has also enhanced the rights and standing of other foreign diplomats on American territory.”

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2014 21:43

Sravan - A short note to say thanks. Enjoyed reading your perspective.. please keep contributing (in this or other threads)

member_28380 · Post by **member_28380** » 01 Feb 2014 21:44

^^^^
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crash.html

It has been only five months since Joshua Walde evacuation...

>>Joshua Walde, an American diplomat stationed in Kenya, who was allegedly speeding, crashed his SUV into a full mini-bus, killing one and injuring eight more

>>Walde and his family were rushed out of the country the next day by U.S. Embassy officials

>>The crash victims were left destitute without any financial assistance to help pay their hospital bills

>>The Kenyan man killed in the crash leaves behind a pregnant widow and three children

>>>Walde may not being held accountable for the accident due to his diplomatic immunity

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2014 22:01

Interesting tidbit - saw in WSJ..
Alan Dershowitz (those who do not know, is an extremely famous Harvard Law professor) has weighed on Preet Bharara's prosecution style. (Not mentioning DK's case in particular, but DD's case I think) He is a big supported of PB but in his interview in a law blog he calls his recent cases a "selective prosecution"

He said some thing to the effect: (Not exact quotes)

Have high regard for Manhattan U.S. attorney Preet Bharara, ... under his watch has won corruption convictions against nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers in New York...I’m a big of supporter. I think he’s doing a great job, but this is a mistake.

..The idea of charging with a felony .. doesn’t sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion...can’t help but think that politics have something to do with it. . . . It smacks of selective prosecution

disha · Post by **disha** » 01 Feb 2014 22:12

Guys,

Major issue here: "US Downgrades Indian Aviation safety rating below bakis

e US has said that it was committed to work with India to help it get back the Category 1 aviation safety rating "as soon as possible", a day after Washington downgraded India's ranking, bringing it below Pakistan and at par with countries like Ghana and Bangladesh.
"Both the US and India are fully committed to restoring India to a Category 1 rating as soon as possible," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf told reporters here.
"There is currently a Federal Aviation Authority (FAA team in India, in part to discuss how to go about doing just that," she said yesterday.
"When a foreign country's civil aviation authority has international flights into the US, the FAA is required to periodically evaluate whether that CAA is overseeing the safety of its international civil aviation operations according to the ICAO standards," she said.
Earlier, the FAA announced that India is not in compliance with international safety standards set by the UN agency International Civilian Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
"The FAA therefore downgraded India from a Category 1 to a Category 2 rating," Harf said.

It has nothing to do with diplomatic row., that means it has *everything* to do with diplomatic row.

Air passengers to and from the US may have to face the brunt as Indian airplanes would have to go through more engineering and other safety checks on the American soil.
Responding to questions, Harf said this is a process with consultations and discussions that began many months ago and it has nothing to do with the recent diplomat row.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Feb 2014 22:21

Sravan wrote:
Here is another example, go to any five star or expensive restaurant in India. You will have overstaffed servers, one guy takes your order, one guy who comes in between and takes another order, and eventually they play telephone and mess up your order. This has happened to me on 4 different occasions during the course of one week in Delhi. In some circumstances, the order had extra items which we didn't order, and when I raised an issue the server initially disagreed but then removed the items. If the same event, happened in the US the restaurant would be closed the next day. The lackadaisical attitude of Indians towards dishonesty and scams is the true problem. Citizens need to be fiercely aggressive in getting what they want and what they deserve based on what they pay. The basic problem is obfuscation of responsibility.

Since we are talking of restaurant practices and I have largely good experience in Indian restaurant right from road side dhaba to five star restaurant barring occasional goof ups and no experience in US restaurant as vouchsafed here I thought to look for other consumer experiences and look what I found

The Rev. Henry Harris, 55, also African-American, says that at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Arkansas two years ago, he and his family watched for 35 minutes as white diners in parties of the same size who arrived after him were escorted to tables. He wound up in the smoking section "with other African-American patrons," even though he had requested non-smoking and tables were open there. When he appealed to a manager, he "politely looked at me and said if we were dissatisfied ... there was a Burger King" around the corner.

Hargrove says they waited 45 minutes and were never served, even as others who arrived after them received food. "It was flagrant. ... Those people discriminated against me, my wife and my little boy," he says.

Experiences like theirs were not aberrations, the Justice Department said this week in a lawsuit against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, whose 497 restaurants and gift shops are familiar sights near interstates in much of the country.

The government said its investigations showed that Cracker Barrel segregated customers by race; allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; and seated or served white customers before seating or serving similarly situated African-American customers. Justice further alleged that, in many cases, managers directed, participated or acquiesced in those practices.

A group of 25 Black people waited two hours to get in a Wild Wing Cafe restaurant in North Charleston, South Carolina,only to be asked to leave almost immediately after entering the restaurant because a white customer felt “threatened” by their presence. One member of the group, MIchael Brown, took his complaint to Facebook when the corporate office of the restaurant did not call him back after placing several calls.

[/quote]

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 01 Feb 2014 22:24

Sravan: A request. Could you please continue in Understanding US and Indian Economy threads? That would be helpful to a lot of people including people like me who have stayed in US for a longish time but who still do not have an understanding of how the younger generations who spent their formative years in US think about India. My kids are born here but they are not old enough to have grown-up (> 21 year old) views.

If "the younger generation" is an incorrect presumption I apologize and also would like to say that is a compliment. People of my generation are set in their world view and sometimes it is hard for them to get out of the rut.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2014 22:40

UlanBatori wrote:Ooo! My sources are faster than PeeAref's usual Anmol-speed sources.

Muggers Have Not Grown Brains

One interesting (at least to me) point..(with respect to PB's response)

1. Interesting to note that PB did not object (and actually agreed) to DK lawyers demand of removing the $250,000 bail as it is no longer necessary..(If you ask me, rather funny, when he agrees that "she is no longer a flight risk".. and if "she comes back to US and becomes a flight risk again the court can decide on bail at a later stage..

" (He did not even complain that DK's passport, which was taken away from her so that she can not leave US, was given back to her on Jan 9 by the court's order.. wonder if SD thought DK's immunity was not valid, how SD recommended that passport was to be returned to her?)

(There are a few other laughable points in PB's brief (actually a legal memo submitted by SD - which Judge ought to pay most attention) ... like pointing out "technical reasons, why the immunity is not a immunity (eg - arrival date of DK in US was not correct in her UN document obtained in July - or her new immunity was assigned till 2016 - even though she clearly wanted to run away within a day etc")

Time will tell but I think, some time from now, instead of PB known as the guy who prosecuted the Time Square bomber, he will go down in history for other reasons)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2014 22:55

Another article, where author (Professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) is concerned about misuse of prosecution power.. and need for more checks and balances..

A Law Unto Themselves

Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, made front-page news in December when he booked an obscure Indian diplomat—deputy consul general Devyani Khobragade—for underpaying her maid. The foreign policy headache from the arrest ended when Khobragade left the country, but the more serious domestic hazard remains: that of the expanding latitude of U.S. attorneys in battling crime, which too often results in unchecked power that jeopardizes the public good.

The number of offenses classified as crimes in federal statutes has grown enormously from a few dozen at the turn of the twentieth century to several thousand today. Some of the expansion was warranted by new forms of criminality. International mobsters and terrorists, child ***** on the Internet, income-tax evasion, and Medicare fraud didn’t exist in 1790, when the first criminal statute was signed into law. Unfortunately, busybody Congresses have also criminalized acts whose harm is far less clear. “Individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions,” as an American Bar Association report put it. Many crimes on the books now are not well-defined, and prosecutors often don’t have to show criminal intent to secure convictions. False statements or denials to a federal agent—uttering a simple “no” will do—now count as crimes, too, even if the underlying offense isn’t criminal.

Federal prisons and courts are strained to their limits, and American society could not long function if we convicted and imprisoned the perpetrators of all acts now deemed criminal. If our drug laws were fully enforced, for example, the current president and his two predecessors would be convicted felons. If we were as serious about unreported income as, say, Norway or Sweden have proved to be, Timothy Geithner wouldn’t have served as Treasury secretary. And so on.

Bharara’s law-and-order battles against terrorists, criminal networks, and drug traffickers have surely advanced the public good. But it was his insider-trading convictions that got the prosecutor on a Time cover with the headline, THIS MAN IS BUSTING WALL STREET. Bharara has secured more than 70 convictions and pioneered the use of wiretaps—traditionally used against organized crime—to catch insider traders. The harm of insider trading turns on contestable economic theory rather than a serious observable injury. As I have long argued, insider-trading laws promote excessive trading and liquidity and undermine good corporate governance. In any case, promoting speculative capitalism seems hardly worth full-tilt criminal prosecution—especially when top executives of banks that have admitted to the outright fraud at the heart of the 2008 financial collapse have escaped prosecution.

The arrest (and alleged strip-search) of Khobragade was particularly puzzling. She’s accused of paying her live-in maid a below-minimum-wage salary of $500 per month. Assuming that the allegation is true, is the harm punished or deterred commensurate with the costs of the prosecution? No U.S. citizens—the presumed beneficiaries of minimum-wage laws—were underpaid or potentially deprived of a job paying legal wages. Khobragade couldn’t have paid the minimum wage on her $4,180 monthly salary. The maid was not imprisoned or abused. And while $500 a month for live-in help might seem scandalously low to a New Yorker, it’s several times what the maid would have earned in India.

Now suppose an all-out campaign against diplomatic scofflaws halts the import of low-cost maids: this would hardly be a boon to those deprived of a once-in-a-lifetime employment opportunity in the U.S. Or perhaps the Indian government will increase allowances to its diplomats so that they can pay their maids higher wages. But what moral advantage does a transfer from impoverished Indian taxpayers to a few lucky maids provide? In a New York Times op-ed, Ananya Bhattacharyya portrayed Indian outrage at its consul’s arrest as complicity in an exploitative system. Chances are that she composed her column at a computer assembled by workers paid a lower wage than the maid and toiling under harsher conditions. Yet she presumably does not regard herself as complicit in exploitation of sweatshop labor.

The political costs of such overreach aren’t trivial. The arrest damaged relations with a generally friendly Indian public and government. Asserting the unqualified primacy of domestic laws can jeopardize the safety of our diplomats. U.S. embassies in India and elsewhere are often shielded by protective barriers that could be removed because they were erected in violation of the local rules, for instance. Scarce prosecutorial, judicial, and diplomatic resources are consumed in such episodes. Replicating witness-protection programs for Mafia informants, the maid’s family was preemptively spirited out of India, supposedly to protect against retribution and brought to the United States—at considerable cost to American taxpayers.

These circumstances are unusual but the general problem is not. Congress has greatly expanded the discretion of unelected federal officials. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this mandate, all should be alarmed by the absence of a commensurate increase in accountability or oversight. Thus we can debate whether an audacious monetary experiment, “quantitative easing,” is worthwhile; that it can be undertaken by twelve unelected members of the Federal Open Market Committee, without any Congressional review, undermines the checks and balances so foundational to our democracy. In the argot of modern economics, good governance, even in large private organizations, requires separation of management and control.

Expanded prosecutorial discretion rarely gets as much attention as abuses by the Fed or the NSA, but the problem of unchecked power is no less acute. Federal prosecutors, unlike their state counterparts, remain unanswerable to voters. Their decisions can technically be contested on grounds of selective prosecution or vindictiveness, but such challenges are difficult to sustain. Department of Justice guidelines place few practical constraints on the charges prosecutors can press.

A legal code that criminalizes so much that isn’t blatantly criminal must also require more independent ratification and review of prosecutorial choices by the Justice Department or by Congress. U.S. attorneys should not be a law unto themselves.

(Before some one jumps on me, let me say that the Author seems not only a MxMx, but has gone to the same infamous institute (IIT) as some of the much maligned postors here..

)

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 01 Feb 2014 23:03

matrimc wrote:Sravan: A request. Could you please continue in Understanding US and Indian Economy threads? That would be helpful to a lot of people including people like me who have stayed in US for a longish time but who still do not have an understanding of how the younger generations who spent their formative years in US think about India. My kids are born here but they are not old enough to have grown-up (> 21 year old) views.
.

Yes, i second this. I just dont agree with discussing that May's may feel encouraged to break laws in India because others break laws; and yet claim some trumped up charges against DK using a minute, one sided reading of the visa documents. Your thoughts and insights will be useful in other threads.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Feb 2014 23:11

Devyani Khobragade enjoys no immunity in visa fraud case, US tells court

The declaration, dated January 29 and signed by Attorney-Advisor in the Office of the Legal Advisor of the Department of State Stephen Kerr, was submitted in court on Friday by Manhattan’s federal prosecutor India-born Preet Bharara in support of his memorandum opposing 39-year-old Khobragade’s motion to dismiss the indictment against her.

It concludes that federal authorities were not wrong in arresting and detaining Khobragade on visa fraud charges on December 12, 2013 since she did not have full diplomatic immunity in her capacity as India’s Deputy Consul General.

“The Department of State concludes that Dr Khobragade did not enjoy immunity from arrest or detention at the time of her arrest in this case, and she does not presently enjoy immunity from prosecution for the crimes charged in the indictment,” the State Department declaration said.

The declaration is part of eight supporting documents that Bharara has submitted in court as proof that Khobragade is not immune from prosecution and that the indictment against her should not be dismissed.

Bharara’s motion is in response to a request made by Khobragade’s lawyer Daniel Arshack on January 14 that asked the court to dismiss the indictment and terminate any “open” arrest warrants or requests for her extradition.

Arshack argued that Khobragade was “cloaked” in diplomatic immunity and cannot face prosecution in the US.

Bharara said the State Department, “whose views must be given great weight”, has “unequivocally concluded” that Khobragade did not employ her domestic worker Sangeeta Richard in her capacity as Deputy Consul General and so does not enjoy immunity from prosecution for the “crimes” for which she was arrested in December.

The State Department also determined that her immunity in connection with her short-lived stint at the Indian mission to the UN from January 8 to January 9 before she was asked to leave the US “is no bar to prosecution.”

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Feb 2014 23:22

More Detailed
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/in ... /1222322/0

It concludes that federal authorities were not wrong in arresting and detaining Khobragade on visa fraud charges on December 12 last year since she did not have full diplomatic immunity in her capacity as India's Deputy Consul General.

"The Department of State concludes that Dr Khobragade did not enjoy immunity from arrest or detention at the time of her arrest in this case, and she does not presently enjoy immunity from prosecution for the crimes charged in the indictment," the State Department declaration said.

The declaration is part of eight supporting documents that Bharara has submitted in court as proof that Khobragade is not immune from prosecution and that the indictment against her should not be dismissed.

Bharara's motion is in response to a request made by Khobragade's lawyer Daniel Arshack on January 14 that asked the court to dismiss the indictment and terminate any "open" arrest warrants or requests for her extradition.

Arshack argued that Khobragade was "cloaked" in diplomatic immunity and cannot face prosecution in the US.

Bharara said the State Department, "whose views must be given great weight", has "unequivocally concluded" that Khobragade did not employ her domestic worker Sangeeta Richard in her capacity as Deputy Consul General and so does not enjoy immunity from prosecution for the "crimes" for which she was arrested in December.

The State Department also determined that her immunity in connection with her short-lived stint at the Indian mission to the UN from January 8 to January 9 before she was asked to leave the US "is no bar to prosecution."

A 1999-batch IFS officer, Khobragade was arrested on visa fraud charges, strip-searched and held with criminals, triggering a row between the two sides with India retaliating by downgrading privileges of certain category of US diplomats among other steps.

She was indicted on visa fraud and making false statements by a US grand jury. She returned to India after she was asked to leave the US by the State Department.

"From the time of her departure from the US on January 9 through the present, Khobragade enjoys residual diplomatic immunity only for acts she performed in the exercise of her functions as a member of the mission from January 8 to January 9.

"The acts giving rise to the charges in the indictment were not performed in Khobragade's exercise of her functions as a member of the mission both because they were performed well before her assignment to the Permanent Mission of India to the UN and because the hiring of Richard was not an official act," Bharara said, quoting the declaration.

"The defendant currently enjoys no diplomatic status and at the time of her arrest the defendant's position as a consular official gave her immunity from prosecution for official acts only.

"It did not extend to the crimes charged in the indictment, private acts taken in relation to the employment of a domestic worker and a visa application submitted to the US government in connection with that employment," he said.

Bharara has alleged that the indictment charges offenses based on Khobragade's private conduct and not her official conduct. "Her domestic worker was not an employee of the Consulate General of India and did not perform work related to consular functions," he added.

He said Khobragade's motion is an attempt to "concoct a theory of immunity" by using a UN accreditation that she had for a brief time during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister for the annual session of the General Assembly last year.

"That attempt fails both factually and legally and it gives her no added immunity from the charges here," Bharara said, adding that her motion is based exclusively on the "unsupportable claim" that she "somehow obtained and retains" full diplomatic immunity from supposedly assuming a position as 'Special advisor to the UN' on August 26, 2013.

Khobragade's assertion that the UN card gave her immunity is "both convoluted and baseless," Bharara added.

He said that Khobragade's claims that she had diplomatic immunity from August to December 2013 as a member of India's delegation to the UN is "incorrect and is flatly rejected by the State Department."

The State Department declaration notes that Khobragade was "not exercising any function" related to the UN at or immediately before or after the time of her arrest.

Neither did she travel from India to New York for business related to the UN, a condition that could have accorded her full diplomatic immunity.

The State Department further noted that the UN accreditation record submitted by Khobragade's lawyer in court shows Khobragade's date of arrival in the US as August 26, 2013 and her departure date as August 31, 2013.

"These dates are plainly wrong since she was present in the US both before and after that date," it said.

Bharara said the State Department declaration also makes it clear that while Khobragade's name appears on a list sent to the US Mission to UN as part of the Indian delegation for the main part of the regular session of the UNGA, the dates given for her appear as August 2013 to August 2016.

"Such a date range is incorrect and meaningless," since the UNGA meeting was not going to extend past December 2013.

The State Department said her name does not appear on the consolidated list of UNGA delegation members produced by the UN since Khobragade was serving as the Deputy Consul General and not as a Special Advisor.

Further "no dual-accreditation request" for Khobragade was sent to the State Department.

Bharara said at the time of her arrest Khobragade was not exercising any function as member of the Indian UN delegation nor was she travelling to or from the place of a UNGA meeting.

While she is asserting that she was special advior to the UN during the Indian Prime Minister's visit, the visit concluded three months before her arrest.

"For a myriad of reasons, the defendant's assertion that she had diplomatic immunity as a result of some accreditation she had as a member of India's delegation to UNGA from August 26, 2013 through December 31, 2013 is wrong," he said.

The government, however, has not objected to Khobragade's request to exonerate her bail conditions.

"Although ordinarily a defendant is not entitled to litigate issues like bail without actually appearing before the court, because the defendant has left the country, the issue of bail is now moot for all practical purposes.

"If she appears before the court to face the charges at a later date - either following an arrest on the outstanding warrant or upon a decision by her to return to confront the charges - the court will set new bail conditions at that time," Bharara said

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2014 23:30

Just for perspective it is important to remember that people can say almost anything.. for example..

New York: Devyani Khobragade, the Indian diplomat whose December arrest led to a major international dispute, holds no immunity from US prosecution and should continue to faces charges of visa fraud, Manhattan federal prosecutors said in court papers filed Friday.

Preet Bharara( the above prosecutor) is wrong on facts and law: Devyani Khobragade's lawyer says

This whole thing is a very simple event: a mugging. Just like the Central Park muggers, except in this case by State Dept employees. They did it twice to Indian diplomats, the GOI showed no spine, so they did it again. It is extortion, and when the victim resisted, they went to extreme physical measures, far outside the bounds of international law. - World Famous Authority oldn3 said..

Preet.. we all know, as you tell everyone every time , you wanted to become Atticus Finch, but see what you have become.. said PB's conciseness..

[/quote]

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Feb 2014 23:33

Hmmm, is our new ambassador to the US a bit of an idiot or what ?....http://www.siliconindia.com/news/usindi ... id-49.html

India's rise poses no challenge to American values and to achieve its national security and developmental goals, the U.S. is the 'indispensable partner', top Indian diplomat here said.

I can understand an ambassador making the usual relationship-building noises - but surely, stating that the US is "indispensable" to India's security at the juncture where we stand today is highly inopportune from a negotiation standpoint. Wouldn't be surprised if PB had picked up cues from this abject display...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2014 23:50

^^^ Thanks for the Financial Express story ,,,Just for perspective and clarity in the story posted above ...

Much of PB's argument references to a memo by some one named Stephen Kerr. (A Legal Advisor in SD- me thinks this guy's memo will get as much notoriety as the famous "torture memo" which was used to justify water boarding)

Also kind of strange that instead of owning those arguments, PB was referring to that memo and arguing that that memo's "views must be given great weight" .. (And not saying that it is law or PB's understanding of Law, he was just saying .. listen to SD's Kerr's memo)

The memo, IMO, is kind of rambling and really not clear cut.. let us see if the Judge falls for that... DK's attorney has come out with quite a strong message.. ("PB is ignorant of Law as well as facts".. that ought to hurt)

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 01 Feb 2014 23:55

Arjun wrote:Hmmm, is our new ambassador to the US a bit of an idiot or what ?....http://www.siliconindia.com/news/usindi ... id-49.html

India's rise poses no challenge to American values and to achieve its national security and developmental goals, the U.S. is the 'indispensable partner', top Indian diplomat here said.
I can understand an ambassador making the usual relationship-building noises - but surely, stating that the US is "indispensable" to India's security at the juncture where we stand today is highly inopportune from a negotiation standpoint. Wouldn't be surprised if PB had picked up cues from this abject display...

He probably has more than a few servants here in the US.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 02 Feb 2014 00:15

Amber G. wrote:Another article, where author (Professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) is concerned about misuse of prosecution power.. and need for more checks and balances..

A Law Unto Themselves

Thanks for that find!!

Now about this whole business of "maids" and "servants" and how much they are paid, I want to start a line of exploration that might bring down some of these "don't care" American middle-classers a bit.

Anyone here heard of the snooty term "au pair"? How much are those people paid? And what are their working hours and conditions?

Ooops! I find that I have suddenly become ultra-liberal
Most of these au pairs are very physically attractive. Of course I am SURE that is not a consideration applied when they are "hired"

This sounds very encouraging already: unfortunately I don't have $89.99 to spend on reading the "how" article below.

Au Pairs Cut Childcare Costs
Au Pairs Cut Family Childcare Costs!

One of the top expenses for families today is childcare - after the house mortgage, paying for childcare is the largest payout in most family budgets. Coupled with lay-offs and higher food & gas prices, parents are scrambling to find affordable childcare.

What can parents do?

Au pairs are a very affordable option today for parents who are trying to cut childcare costs without reducing the quality of those who watch their children every day when they are at work

However, if you have never hosted an au pair before, you need to know the basics first. This article presents several important tips to help you get started.

Read now

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 02 Feb 2014 00:21

TSJones wrote:He probably has more than a few servants here in the US.

Maybe he has an interest in keeping his cavities private - unlike the vast majority of Americans....but hardship posting does not mean he gets to be exempted from the duties of his job.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 02 Feb 2014 00:25

A paper on the situation

The U.S. Au Pair Program: Labor Exploitation and the Myth of Cultural Exchange
Janie A. Chuang, American University - Washington College of Law, August 15, 2012
Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, Vol. 36, 2013, Forthcoming. American University, WCL Research Paper No. 2012-46

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 02 Feb 2014 00:34

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 02 Feb 2014 01:09

Thanks to Mike(jmm99) at small wars journal council.

Details of Krittika Biswas case:
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/att ... 1390428922

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 02 Feb 2014 01:14

UlanBatori wrote:A paper on the situation

The U.S. Au Pair Program: Labor Exploitation and the Myth of Cultural Exchange
Janie A. Chuang, American University - Washington College of Law, August 15, 2012
Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, Vol. 36, 2013, Forthcoming. American University, WCL Research Paper No. 2012-46

According to the WSJ article New Push to Protect Au Pairs as U.S. Program Is Reviewed, the au pair agency is paid a bulk $7000 (don't know how much ends up with the actual provider), then a stipend of ~ $200 a week, plus up to $500 per year towards some educational course. Workdays should be no more than 10hrs/day, and 45 hrs per week.

In contrast, SR was reportedly paid Rs. 30000/month (~$500 at Rs. 60/USD) PLUS ~570/month as stipend. Fundamentally, I don't see how different this is from the au pair program, except that the SD for some reason removed room and board from the itemizable list of exemptions, and applied worker rules to A-3 visa holders, something it does not do for the au-pair workers.

Last year, au pair agencies successfully lobbied against a provision in the Senate immigration bill that would have defined J-1 Exchange Visitor visa recipients, including au pairs, as workers. Advocates say this would have ensured they receive more protections under U.S. labor law.

See the SD's regulations here: Au Pair Program.

Financial Value: Receive up to $500 toward the cost of required academic course work. Room and board plus compensation for childcare work.

Host families and Au Pairs must sign an Agreement detailing the au pair’s obligation to provide child care prior to the Au Pair's placement in the host family's home. In the event of questions regarding refunds or other adjustments, host families and au pairs should refer to their agreements. The Department of State does not have jurisdiction over contractual obligations.

Fundamentally, I don't see any difference between the au paid program and SR's condition, in fact, SR had a better deal as she had to deal with DK directly than some private corporation acting as middleman. Secondly, the au pair program could be construed as slavery and exploitation too, as they are tied to their employer, except that it is restricted to (added later) hosts who are citizens (maybe that's why it is not slavery?) and the SD has no jurisdiction over contractual disputes.

While I am not asking for this program to be extended to diplomats, this exposes the double standard of the US regarding the DK case.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Feb 2014 01:20

Guys, I keep challenging you with Gadanken experiments

. Here is one more, not so much an experiment, but rather some introspection as a fellow SDRE. The main protagonists in the DK saga are all SDRE (Indian). DK, SR, PB, ND etc with whites and their SDRE MUTUs and MATAs as the judge and jury. What does it tell the world about us SDREs?

And one more. The whites are posing as the self righteous "savior" on the side of the so called "victim", SR, and mocking all of us SDRES and laughing their asses of as to how come us SDREs can be sooooo callous as to show no empathy for the "victim" SR, and be so "elitist" as to side with the oppressor, DK. Now, in an ideal situation where us SDREs can also mock the whites in the same vein through a reverse gaze or purva paksha (to borrow from mistro Rajiv MalhotraJi's narratives); I mean mock in the sense that whites take notice just as we SDREs do when whites mock us, then how about this: SDREs like me wonder why whites go so bersek with all kinds of emotions and outpouring of sympathy and sorrow when one of their boys/gals gets killed in a war of greed and aggression of their own volition against Iraq, while showing no sympathy, none whatsoever for the 100s of 1000s if not millions of Iraqi Muslim who perished and their lives destroyed?

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 02 Feb 2014 01:23

http://www.telegraphindia.com:8080/1140 ... u0wiPmSzKc

BIG BROTHERLY POSTURING

Kanwal Sibal

The Devyani Khobragade affair that has rocked India and the United States of America’s relations so unexpectedly carries many lessons. It has highlighted the inherent difficulty in forging an equal relationship with the US. The US’s attitude towards other countries is conditioned by its status as the world’s pre-eminent power, its view of itself as the repository of the best political, economic and human values which it seeks to universalize, its urge to constantly judge others and rank countries in accordance with the degree to which they measure up to its values and its willingness to impose these by force if necessary, even if that entails terrible misery for others.

The US has escalated a minor wage dispute between an Indian diplomat and her India-based maid beyond all proportion in a stubborn bid to apply its labour laws to domestic staff of foreign diplomats as if they are immigrants and employed from the local labour pool. If US society was perfect, without any exploitation, injustice and discrimination, if its institutions protected unfailingly the dignity and human rights of every individual, if its police forces were exemplary in their conduct, then the obstinate efforts to ensure that a foreign diplomat conformed to its pristine standards might make some sense. The Devyani episode shows that at the highest level US decision-makers are willing to jeopardize an important relationship on a narrow point of law applied arbitrarily. India could also face unpredictable US behaviour tomorrow on some other issue on which the Americans mulishly uphold some principle of their own making. This makes the reliability of the US as a partner uncertain. If the US political class can allow, as we have seen, a significant relationship to be gratuitously buffeted by secondary issues, it would be unwise to become over-dependent on it. We should keep enough distance from the US so that our ability to resist its encroachment on our rights and sovereignty is not lost.

American rhetoric about India should be discounted. Grandiloquent language comes easily to the Americans, and flattering phrases from the world’s foremost power can be beguiling. How can the US talk of helping India become a great power — a patronizing attitude in the first place — if it is ready to humiliate India on a minor wage issue? The Devyani affair and the decision to evacuate Indian nationals was not simply a mis-step by some overzealous individuals, the US ambassador in India and the state department were involved in it over months. The inability of the secretary of state and the White House to appreciate properly the consequences of US action on India-US relations and the unwillingness to intervene in a timely manner points to serious deficiencies in political monitoring of the processes of decision-making in the state and justice departments.

For all the inflated talk of India and the US being the world’s largest and oldest democracies and sharing the same values, the reality is that the US internally scoffs at the institutions of democracy in India, as the egregious act of evacuating Indian citizens from the purview of Indian courts shows. Indians have been the largest recipient of US visas that are associated with severe sex or labour trafficking. That our authorities have not monitored such an assault on our legal system is inexcusable. With the pervasive view that the US and India were now genuine strategic partners, our inclination has been not to disturb the relationship and even overlook objectionable US behaviour. In spite of Edward Snowden’s revelations about India being the fifth largest victim of US snooping, we have preferred to bury the issue. Time has now come to clamp down hard on the US embassy by warning it in writing that such evacuation amounts to interference in India’s internal affairs and, if continued, will expose their diplomats to legal action. The credentials of the expelled US diplomat’s replacement should be scrutinized carefully and the visa granted on the specific condition that he will not be involved in such activities.

Beyond this, we should move towards reducing the size of the US missions in India. Our most important relationship in many ways is with the US, but we have a small embassy there. India is by no means the most important country for the US but it has one of its largest embassies here — 10 times the size of our embassy in Washington. One clear explanation for the discrepancy in size is that we do not monitor US internal affairs on a scale that the US does or try to penetrate its political and administrative structures. We should ease out surplus US diplomats dealing with human rights and trafficking issues as well as those handling communications to prevent snooping. Besides imposing security burdens on us, an over-staffed embassy gives the US means to more easily penetrate our system, influence and monitor decision-making, create lobbies that will advocate the US viewpoint even against our national interest and shield the US from retaliatory action for unacceptable conduct. The cover of intensive friendly engagement and numerous dialogues gives the US key platforms to push their agenda; we should not increase our vulnerability unwittingly.

The commentary in the mainstream US press on the Devyani affair carries a lesson for us too. It has been parochial, full of condescension, narrow political thinking and cultural insensitivity. Editorials have poured scorn on Indian reactions as being petty, unbecoming of a democracy and a would-be great power. If India had dutifully accepted the affront as well-deserved and applauded the application of US humane laws to one of our erring diplomats, we would have, of course, proven our democratic and potential big power credentials. Our reflexes have been compared to those of Russia and China. India, it seems, cannot aspire to great power status outside US control of its world-view. The US press has also scoffed at the addiction of our middle class to domestic servants, its maltreatment of the underclasses — a harking back to attitudes before the nuclear deal, India’s growth story and its success in information technology. If tomorrow there are substantive policy differences with the US, the American press will unleash itself against us, distorting our case with the American public.

The US manipulation of our own media puts us at a double disadvantage. Its tactics in highlighting the removal of barricades around the US embassy as a vengeful act threatening the security of US diplomats — which is false — succeeded partially. In a bid to isolate the external affairs ministry, US-linked editors have launched tirades against the Indian Foreign Service by imputing that the IFS is merely seeking to protect its feudal privileges, no question of principle is involved, even suggesting that the IFS was placing its parochial interest above the national interest. We have had a long history of Indians selling their own country’s interest and it is not surprising that this venerable tradition continues.

Unless India reacts strongly to US high-handedness when required we will neither have self-respect nor will we be respected by the international community as a country with an independent foreign policy.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 02 Feb 2014 02:09

sivab wrote:Thanks to Mike(jmm99) at small wars journal council.

Details of Krittika Biswas case:
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/att ... 1390428922

thank you sivab. this is a service.

I asked this before but did not receive a clear answer. Although Amber G is vocal, there is not enough legalese in the language to suspect bar admission. are there no civil/criminal resources on this forum?

ps - patience appears prudent. paperwork appears to be just prelim. posturing. what real issue is driving this train?
ps2 - not a lawyer (or IANAL as they say in legal for), the prosecutor wins this round except in the rarest of rare cases. that is just how the system is setup to my extremely limited understanding. pay the defense lawyer, a motion later in the process could succeed.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 02 Feb 2014 02:16

Prof. Amar Bhide wrote:If our drug laws were fully enforced, for example, the current president and his two predecessors would be convicted felons.

I wonder what Prof. Bhide means by this. Does he mean that they should not have been allowed to become presidents or that some people are above the law and lowly attorney cannot and should not apply the law to these elites (two of them themselves are lawyers educated at elite universities of the country and one of them is able to parse the English language better then the English).

But a re-reading will tell us something about Prof. Bhide himself.

Prof. Amar Bhide wrote:he booked an obscure Indian diplomat

That pot shot at the diplomat makes it clear that he thinks some people by their being elite are above the law. Where did we see that before? Yes, PM Indira Gandhi imposed emergency in India instead of stepping down. Bhutto became PM of Pakistan even after losing to Mujibur Rehman.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 02 Feb 2014 02:21

except that it is restricted to citizens (maybe that's why it is not slavery?)

Not sure I understand what you meant. The au pairs themselves are not US citizens, they are European women imported into servitude. The "hosts" are typically US families, and there is an equivalent system in UK. I think these systems were started after the system of importing "au pairs" from West Africa was sort-of stopped in UK, and maybe after 1865 in the US.

Interesting language:

UPTO $500 towards education?

Oh! An UPPER limit?
What "education" can what one buy for $500 in the US for a teenaged Oiropean woman?

If the au pair Resources site (I linked above) describes them as a low-cost alternative for childcare, definitely that means they are paid less than US citizen childcare workers.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 02 Feb 2014 02:23

chaanakya wrote: Since we are talking of restaurant practices and I have largely good experience in Indian restaurant right from road side dhaba to five star restaurant barring occasional goof ups and no experience in US restaurant as vouchsafed here I thought to look for other consumer experiences and look what I found....

Things have improved a lot since the time of Nonigopal and Amargopal Bose, when they did not serve at all. You could sit and wait all day at the restaurant and then return back.
Gautam

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 02 Feb 2014 02:26

UlanBatori wrote:
except that it is restricted to citizens (maybe that's why it is not slavery?)
Not sure I understand what you meant. The au pairs themselves are not US citizens, they are imported European women. The "hosts" are typically white US families, I guess, and there is an equivalent system in UK. I think these systems were started after the system of importing "au pairs" from West Africa was sort-of stopped in UK, and maybe after 1865 in the US.

Interesting language:
UPTO $500 towards education?
Oh! An UPPER limit?
What "education" can what one buy for $500 in the US for a teenaged Oiropean woman?

The au pair system is not pretty as it exists or is used by employer or employee. Enntirely dependent on individuals, some wommen just want to take some time off and travel. Others have a very difficult time and dont understand what they are getting into when the take up the job. Then there are real abuse cases, on both sides.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 02 Feb 2014 02:34

TSJones wrote: He probably has more than a few servants here in the US.

Is that a crime in the USA? Do the Cracker Barrel preferred customers feel its a crime?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 02 Feb 2014 02:36

chaanakya wrote:
matrimc wrote:In February DCG denied. IBDA went back in June. Was she wearing a wire in June?...
Well the indictment does not even indicate that DSS adopted such a course of action. Second point is that by doing that to a person who is about to enter a diplomatic premises of another country you are violating the VCDR and I doubt such an evidence could be admissible at all , if it existed. It would amount to spying and would lead to bigger stand off if revealed. Let them do that first.

That is premised on DCG was under the cloak of diplomatic immunity. Which is India's argument. On the other hand it would be admissible if Attorney PB's contention that she does not enjoy immunity is accepted.

Here is what I think. As long as India/DCG/attorney ~~Ashrach~~Arshack are arguing that DCG had immunity, what PB does is completely irrelevant. He has put a the legal process in motion and I doubt he has a chioce other than to push it forward. It is in the power of DoS to resolve the deadlock.

But what has been revealed yesterday (and the Indian Express story you posted) point to DoS thinks that there is no immunity. In that case , DCG DK is wide open for prosecution.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 02 Feb 2014 02:37

That pot shot at the diplomat makes it clear that he thinks some people by their being elite are above the law

Oh come on! The prof wrote that at substantial risk and cost to himself - read the comments below his article.
That sentence just means that Khobragade was by no means a Strategic anything. Her job was "womens affairs" and some form of economic issues, at the CONSULATE, not in the EMBASSY. Had you heard of her before this issue came up? Any announcement saying: "DR. KHO... PRESENTS CREDENTIALS TO SECRETARY CLINTON"? I had not heard of her. Hence the term "obscure"

His article is well-aimed and well-framed. I may not agree with everything there. Insider trading is bad. The whole US economy hangs on the stockmarket balloon, and the belief that there is something fair about stock growth is what keeps that balloon up. So it is important to prosecute the ones that can be caught for insider trading.

I cannot blame PB for (yet) failing to nail other top entities. It is just not easy to get evidence that will stand up all the way to the Supreme Courts, which is a given if he gets any conviction at all. Remember that the guy who trapped Al Capone, did so on tax evasion because there were signed forms submitted (or not submitted).

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 02 Feb 2014 02:52

chaanakya wrote:More Detailed
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/in ... /1222322/0

The government, however, has not objected to Khobragade's request to exonerate her bail conditions.

"Although ordinarily a defendant is not entitled to litigate issues like bail without actually appearing before the court, because the defendant has left the country, the issue of bail is now moot for all practical purposes.

"If she appears before the court to face the charges at a later date - either following an arrest on the outstanding warrant or upon a decision by her to return to confront the charges - the court will set new bail conditions at that time," Bharara said

I am not going to put rofls for the above. What Bharara says here is completely logical.