India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 27 Dec 2013 02:46

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Suraj wrote:I stated that she has immunity from the current proceedings and any judgement related to it, as long as she is a UN diplomat.
Yes, as long as she is a accepted UN diplomat. But the moment that status ends the judgment will be waiting for her.

Of course! That is why I said it would be stupid of her to stick around any longer than her diplomatic status permits, and definitely not come back in a personal capacity.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 27 Dec 2013 03:02

In that case there is nothing left but for MEA to issue a fresh passport, renege on any commitments and make a run for it. DK maybe waiting for the smoke to clear and things to cool a little, the sonar pinging to grow a little faint, before she bolts.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 27 Dec 2013 03:12

Suraj wrote: "Yes, as long as she is a accepted UN diplomat. But the moment that status ends the judgment will be waiting for her.

Of course! That is why I said it would be stupid of her to stick around any longer than her diplomatic status permits, and definitely not come back in a personal capacity."[/quote]
The complication in the matter is that of her US citizen husband. I think she was not withdrawn when things were heating up, because of his presence in US and her desire of living there. If she is withdrawn with anything less than clean chit (to use the popular Indian term) from the Gov of US, he has to leave US to be with her, she will not able to return.
Gautam

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 27 Dec 2013 03:13

Theo_Fidel wrote:Strip search most definitely is part of standard intake.

Sigh.

Strip Search: A complete search of a prisoner's attire and a visual inspection of the prisoner's naked
body, including body cavities. The following procedures are applicable to a strip search:
a. Strip searches on prisoners in custody are authorized when there is reasonable suspicion that
the prisoner may be (a) carrying contraband and/or weapons, or (b) considered to be a
security, escape, and/or suicide risk. Reasonable suspicion may be based upon, but is not
limited to, one or more of the following criteria:
1) Serious nature of the offense(s) charged, i.e., whether crime of violence or drugs;
2) Prisoner's appearance or demeanor;
3) Circumstances surrounding the prisoner's arrest or detention; i.e., whether the prisoner
has been convicted or is a pretrial detainee;
4) Prisoner's criminal history;
5) Type and security level of institution in which the prisoner is detained; or
6) History of discovery of contraband and/or weapons, either on the prisoner individually or
in the institution in which prisoners are detained.

b. When conducting a strip search, deputies shall ensure they have a private location that
prevents all but designated personnel from viewing the prisoner. All attempts to protect the
modesty of the prisoner will be made to include modifying viewing and recording of CCTV
(Closed Circuit Television).
c. A strip search should always be conducted by a deputy of the same sex, unless the person
conducting the search is a physician, physician's assistant, or nurse. A witness of the same
sex as the person being searched must be present during a strip search. If a deputy of the
same sex as the prisoner being searched is not available to serve as a witness, a deputy of
the opposite sex may be positioned outside the search room so as not to view the subject,
with the door ajar, for the purpose of corroborating the remarks made by the individuals in the
room and providing assistance in the event of an emergency (e.g., an assault on the deputy
conducting the search or a medical emergency).
d. A strip search (visual examination) should not involve touching the skin surface. If the prisoner
refuses to cooperate in removing any article of clothing or by otherwise impeding the deputy in
the search, reasonable force may be used to complete the search.
e. Once the decision has been made to conduct a strip search, it must be done in a professional
manner, causing the prisoner as little embarrassment as possible.
f. When conducting a strip search, the deputy will:
1) Instruct the prisoner to remove all loose articles (including valuables, hairpieces,
dentures, glasses, etc.). Separate the clothing and any other items from the prisoner
prior to the search, and conduct a thorough visual examination of the prisoner's body,
from the top of the head to the bottom of the feet.
2) Direct the prisoner to vigorously brush his or her hair with fingers to dislodge any
contraband. If the prisoner does not, to the satisfaction of the deputy conducting the
search, adequately brush his or her hair, the deputy will conduct the hair search by
using his or her hands or an item such as a pen or pencil.
3) Inspect behind each ear and look inside the prisoner's ear canals, nostrils, and mouth,
checking under the tongue, roof of the mouth, and between the lips and gums.
Visually inspect down the front of the body, paying close attention to areas such as
armpits, breasts; and genital area. Direct the prisoner to face in the opposite direction
and conduct a visual inspection of the upper back area.
4) Direct the prisoner to spread his or her legs and bend forward at the waist. Observe
the anus area and genitals from the rear. Conclude with an observation of the
bottoms and between the toes of both feet.
5) Conduct a thorough search of all clothing and property removed from the prisoner
before returning any of the items to the prisoner. The clothing inspection should
include any areas where contraband or weapons may be located (i.e., pockets,
linings, collars, cuffs). Items not returned to a prisoner are to be inventoried on form
l)SM:::18, Prisoner Property Receipt.
g. Prior to accepting a prisoner(s) from a detention facility, institution, or other inside or outside
source, deputies may perform their own strip search as necessary based on the factors (listed
above in D.3.a.) due to the prisoner's contact with individual(s) inside or outside the facility
and the need for a thorough search for contraband and/or weapons. If a deputy has
reasonable suspicion that a strip search is necessary, and is denied the opportunity or space
to perform a strip search, the deputy is authorized to refuse acceptance of the prisoner. The
United States Marshal (USM) and Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS)
(if a JPATS trip is involved) are to be immediately notified if a prisoner is not to be transported.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/foia/Directiv ... arches.pdf

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Dec 2013 03:15

The situation gets murky as DK husband and children are probably US citizens.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Dec 2013 03:20

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/justice/n ... h-lawsuit/

The above is an example in the US where a person was forced not to just a strip and cavity search, but was forced to take enimas and a colonoscopy!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Dec 2013 03:22

even the drug addicts rarely needs a cavity search.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 27 Dec 2013 03:23

g.sarkar wrote:The complication in the matter is that of her US citizen husband. I think she was not withdrawn when things were heating up, because of his presence in US and her desire of living there. If she is withdrawn with anything less than clean chit (to use the popular Indian term) from the Gov of US, he has to leave US to be with her, she will not able to return.
Gautam

Unfortunately, this is her personal issue. GoI can guarantee her safety through the process of diplomatic immunity, but if she chooses to remain behind and face the law because of family ties, this ceases to be a diplomatic problem anymore, but one where her personal ties prevailed. How is this murky ? From an Indian perspective, it is irrelevant what the nationality of her spouse is - we protected her well according to whatever options were available to us. If she chooses to decline them, it's no longer official business; she might be let go from the corps and simply told to fend for herself. So far, as a consular officer and diplomat, we have done our bit to protect her through this business.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Dec 2013 03:37

It's murky because DK needs to stay in the US for family reasons. Otherwise give the US federal prosecutor the finger and tell the court to keep its bail money and simply leave the country. How much will it cost to provide for a defense attorney? Probably $500/hour.

saip · Post by **saip** » 27 Dec 2013 03:52

In regard to Cavity search both may be telling the truth. DK meant they looked at the openings which would be cavity search as far as she is concerned and the US Marshall service said they did not which they understood to mean digital cavity search for which they would probably have needed a search warrant. Semantics!

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 27 Dec 2013 03:58

Every time the story of her husband comes along I keep thinking this is a simple case of Kanjusi… ..if uncharitable, I'd call it the jugaad mentality...
Somehow I think her husband put her up to all this. She doesn’t strike me as the sharpest tool in the jar.

Her husband undoubtedly makes a nice paychex as professor.
DK+hubby knew the laws and tried to get a nanny on the cheap. Too cute.
Personal error on her part. She/maybe hubby/ will pay a personal price one way or another.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 27 Dec 2013 04:04

I know someone familiar with the "cavity search" procedure (she is a prison guard).

There are people assigned to do this everyday on the 'intake/prison investigations/infirmary' department. When you have an assembly line of cavity search candidates, you stop caring about what the other person feels, both physically and mentally. And often it just turns into routine procedure of shoving your digits up someone's ***. Now If you are the person on the other side and the process hurts you .... well ... tough luck. If you piss the officer off by yelling and shouting (or in this incident by repeatedly claiming immunity)... they are gonna make sure it hurts bad.

Personally it can be one of the most dehumanizing experience one can go through, and it is designed to be that way.

It is dehumanizing even for a bikini wearing Amru. I cannot imagine what would go through the mind of an Indian woman when being subjected to such atrocity. This is another reason why I am inclined to believe her more. An Indian woman won't mention it unless it was really done and she felt that violated from it.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 27 Dec 2013 04:27

Theo_Fidel wrote:Every time the story of her husband comes along I keep thinking this is a simple case of Kanjusi… ..if uncharitable, I'd call it the jugaad mentality...
Somehow I think her husband put her up to all this. She doesn’t strike me as the sharpest tool in the jar.

Her husband undoubtedly makes a nice paychex as professor.
DK+hubby knew the laws and tried to get a nanny on the cheap. Too cute.
Personal error on her part. She/maybe hubby/ will pay a personal price one way or another.

Her husband has been a true "wildcard" on the whole issue. I have been wondering about this as well. Given that her kids are school-going, she might have met him quite a few years ago. Unless her marriage is recent and her kids are from another one (rare chance).

Regardless of all this, Theoji I have a pooch. Why do you seem to be salivating at the prospect of her getting punitive justice where there is not much of a case. In fact, the bias that is being built up by the western media about 'slavery' in India and the already existing racist jury system will make sure that she is punished with the harshest criminal sentence for what seems to be in all likelihood a civil payment dispute with an opportunistic maid out to get the greencard.

I agree that DK is not the sharpest tool in the box. If she was the sharpest tool in the box, she would not have hired SR and in addition completely see the ulterior motive that SR had. It still is a mystery to me why SR was by all accounts from third parties treated as a family member. SR herself seemed to be very happy, until she disappeared. Usually there is a progression of deterioration and escalation for events to reach where they are.

It is again a mystery to me how a happy person suddenly turned hostile and escalated this to the level where the relationship b/w the two countries are jeopardized. Ofcourse, the rest of the circus in the US is definitely responsible for the deterioration of relationship, but why so fast and in such a severe manner. I am aware that the US is out to civilize the "savages" aka people of color. There is ample evidence for that. If they want this to be an example case for the rest of us uncivilized and unwashed to turn into civilized people, then this case is not the way to do it. Instead, unfortunately for the US, this case has made the US look like an emperor without clothes.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 27 Dec 2013 04:39

Theo_Fidel wrote:Every time the story of her husband comes along I keep thinking this is a simple case of Kanjusi… ..if uncharitable, I'd call it the jugaad mentality...
Somehow I think her husband put her up to all this. She doesn’t strike me as the sharpest tool in the jar.

Her husband undoubtedly makes a nice paychex as professor.
DK+hubby knew the laws and tried to get a nanny on the cheap. Too cute.
Personal error on her part. She/maybe hubby/ will pay a personal price one way or another.

Now her "kanjusi" husband is also guilty until proven innocent? Fair and balanced, just like Fox news indeed.

Newyork minimum wage is $7.25 till end of this month.
https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/l ... nwage.shtm

DK's side of story (who cares, right.)
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131224/main3.htm

From November 24, 2012 till June 22, 2013 when Richards went missing from Khobragade's house, the sources claim that the maid was paid by the diplomat as per the stipulations of the November 11 contract on the basis of actual hours for which she worked. At 9.75 per hour for 40 hours a week, the maid was entitled to about $ 1560 dollars a month. About 560 dollars (about Rs 30000) of this was being paid to her in India.

The remaining $ 1,000 dollars is said to have been paid to her monthly in New York on the following basis: about $ 375 monthly was deducted from the salary to pay for her chargeable utilities, telephone usage, her cable TV, her non work related conveyance and her non work related expenses. Some $ 625 were given monthly in cash, occasionally with signed receipts that will be produced in court as proof.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Dec 2013 04:40

svenkat wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: The lawyer for Richard is quoted in the story as saying that the Delhi High Court dismissed Richard's petition against DK (July 19) saying that it did not have jurisdiction for something that happened overseas. That is almost certainly wrong - I provided information about this , including the Delhi High Court ruling on the Richard's petition some pages ago on this thread. The Delhi High Court, as per its web-site, noted the withdrawal of the petition, and said it would take up the matter again if a petition was refiled.

A_Guptaji,
I see this assertion in a post you have made in page 178.But I dont see you having made any such post before the quoted post.OTOH,theres one immediately after this post,having a link to Delhi High Court website about the withdrawal of the petition.Is it just a typing error,or do you have some other information on DHC ruling.

Page 172.
Perhaps this link will work:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... b#p1564196

saip · Post by **saip** » 27 Dec 2013 04:41

A view point from a guy who worked at the Indian Embassy:

The Devyani Khobragade Affair – Analysis

Link

saip · Post by **saip** » 27 Dec 2013 04:47

Dk met her husband in Germany on her first diplomatic posting.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Dec 2013 04:50

So now we are passing judgements like "not the sharpest tool in the shed" on Dr. Khobragade. She is the victim here but now the forumers are insulting her. Further, we are also throwing aspersions on her husband. This is like reading some apologia on behalf of US behavior. I thought this was BRF.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Dec 2013 04:59

LokeshC wrote:Her husband has been a true "wildcard" on the whole issue. I have been wondering about this as well. Given that her kids are school-going, she might have met him quite a few years ago. Unless her marriage is recent and her kids are from another one (rare chance).

Actually all that information is on this thread, including how DK was posted abroad to study German, how her husband is a philosopher as well as a oenophile, and how they met. I won't repeat it here.

I agree that DK is not the sharpest tool in the box. If she was the sharpest tool in the box, she would not have hired SR and in addition completely see the ulterior motive that SR had.

Sorry to say this, but any objective observer has to agree. There were already two cases - of Prabhu Dayal and of Neena Malhotra, recent enough that all IFS officers must be aware of it - that make it clear that in the US, consular officers are not immune from civil suits.

1. Either the IFS "believes" that Dayal and Malhotra are guilty of mistreating their servants, and DK thought that not mistreating SR would be sufficient to immunize herself from a civil suit;

2. Or the IFS "believes" that at least one of {Dayal, Malhotra} did not mistreat their servants and so DK should know she is at risk, too, and has to take great care in this situation.

3. DK with her US citizen husband undoubtedly would want to keep long term US ties. That is further reason to be more careful than the usual IFS person.

4. Yes, the unexpected twist in this case is a criminal rather than civil suit.

5. If a person in the foreign service is unable to discern "I'm in a hostile situation and need to protect myself", what does it take to for them to detect hostility? A declaration of war??????

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 27 Dec 2013 05:01

Arunji,

My post was sarcastic (about her not being the sharpest tool in the box).

I was, however, genuinely curious about her husband and did miss out the posts explaining their personal situation.

saip · Post by **saip** » 27 Dec 2013 05:07

If she did not join the IFS she could have practiced medicine and emigrated to and settled in the US and would have easily afforded a livin maid and all this case would not have happened.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 27 Dec 2013 05:39

Most doctors in USA do not have and can not afford 'livin' maids. Emigrating to USA as doctor is not so easy. DK income in NY meant a solid middle class living nothing more, certainly no maid.

The whole point of living in USA is that all the day today difficulties of India are taken care off. Water, electricity, school, food, washer/dryer, house, etc works automatically. Why do you need a 24/7 maid? One is baffled. Women/men work 12 hour days quite easily and take care of kids. Indian consulates strike as quite chalta hai with tons of holidays/vacation and no fear of being fired. So what was so desperate to demand a maid.

A_Gupta wrote:5. If a person in the foreign service is unable to discern "I'm in a hostile situation and need to protect myself", what does it take to for them to detect hostility? A declaration of war??????

Very few Americans will take what DK did in an understanding manner. You can walk down the street and try it out. Many folks will be down right hostile. This not something people who have lived in America can take sympathetically. Under paying a desperate person who is expected to live with you 24/7 and then hiding behind diplomatic cover. And then expect to keep your links with USA?

Not on. It is best she return to India permanently and not be welcome back.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 27 Dec 2013 05:44

Suraj wrote:A significant number of institutions look rather bad, all for a few thousand dollars in alleged wage payment irregularities. Just the annual costs of managing the changes at the New Delhi embassy will probably be much more.

Suraj, it is definitely not a money matter - this business.

That brings me to chinna's contention that espionage is just a CT. I argue that espionage angle cannot be taken out of the realm of possibility for the following reasons.

1. The complaint against Dr. DK had been received several months back. Considering her being a DCG the case would have been referred to US DoS and consequently all the US agencies involved would have known about what level immunity Dr. DK has including her advisory role to the Indian permanent ambassador to the UN.

2. US with 100% certainty has humint and elint. There would CIA station chiefs. A mole or two at lower levels cannot be ruled out.

3. The US might be suspecting that one or more people in their humint chain have been turned and/or their elint has been compromised. They cannot trust their information any more.

4. What better way than to have Ms. SR to spy on Dr. DK? She fits the bill in several ways - has access to hard-copy documents (easily photograph and pass them onto her controls/contacts during her periodic forays into the city for real or presumed church visits), perfectly positioned to listen at the keyhole of the Dr. DK and her Pof. Rathore's bedroom and record if Dr. DK discusses any thing related to Iran with Prof. Rathore (remember? DK was an old Iranian hand and Prof. Rathore was also in Iran doing wine research - it is possible that Prof. Rathore is on DoS's radar - we don't iknow), and being semi-literate she would not have the expertise to doctor any of the information.

5. Something has gone wrong in the whole operation - DoS might have decided that their moles are uncovered or they are being fed cr*p by Indian intelligence and immediately pulled out Mr. Richards who might just be a mule (a simple robot like go-between with neither the knowledge to manipulate nor an interest in doing so and probably even fearful of "baDE lOGOn kE baat")for exchange of important information. But how to explain pulling him out? Viola, the ground was already prepared through Ms. SR. So it is a simple matter of fast tracking Dr. DK's arrest and make a big "nau tanki" of "oh we are so very concerned about bonded \lLabor, human trafficking, slavery blah blah blah" to shift public's attention to a minor side issue. The stakes would have been very high because the US was willing to take the expected blow back on their brazen disregard of Vienna Convention.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 27 Dec 2013 05:50

I think that there was a tacit understanding between the State Department and the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on various issues, one of them being, you can bring in your duty free booze, cheese and fine foods, and in return you can bring in your maids and pay them what you want. Remember, the State Department is not law enforcement in the US. So long as there was no stink, it was a quiet arrangement that worked well. It is human nature that even if a maid was getting Rs 8000 per month in India which was increased to Rs 30,000 per month in the US, resentment will build up when she sees what the prevailing wage rates are in NY. So she rebels and wants to migrate, approaches DK, and DK refuses for various reasons. If the maid did not have her husband in India working in the US embassy or if DK did not have a powerful ex IAS officer father, the matter would never have got this explosive, it would have been resolved with either the maid being sent back or DK backing down and paying her what she wanted. But DK's father used his connections and clout to try and silence the maid via threats to the husband and the maid's child in Delhi and then in response the maid's husband used his US connections to get DK arrested. At some point when it was too late the State Department realized that this was now a law enforcement issue, and out of its hands. Probably only US national security considerations would trump the normal course of law enforcement actions e.g. unless it was a Saudi royal family member involved....flow of oil or a very high level Russian bureaucrat with very close ties to Putin etc. etc. And that is where the current situation stands.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 27 Dec 2013 06:11

eklavya: Dr. DK's past and current legal cases have no bearing on her arrest and US allegations (unless you are incorrectly assuming that US is still a colony of UK

World has moved on). In US legal system accused is "innocent until proven guilty" (or insert the equivalent Latin phrase, if you prefer).

Wikipedia has this to say on UK

In the United Kingdom changes have been made affecting this principle. Defendants' previous convictions may in certain circumstances be revealed to juries. Although the suspect is not compelled to answer questions after formal arrest, failure to give information may now be prejudicial at trial. Statute law also exists which provides for criminal penalties for failing to decrypt data on request from the Police. If the suspect is unwilling (or even unable) to do so, it is an offence.[22] Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any evidence that the encrypted material was unlawful. Further, the onus is on the defendant to decrypt the data, and having lost the key or the password is not considered reasonable excuse.

Quite barbaric if you ask me. Thank goodness legal systems of US and India are more just.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 27 Dec 2013 06:20

As posted earlier by a few, it seems that Preet Bharara office goofed big time, as DK had had full immunity when she was arrested.

She was accredited as advisor on August 26 and as such had full immunity till she held that post (until Dec 31)

the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations Article 4 Section 11A specifies "immunities from personal arrest or detention and from the seizure of their personal baggage" of all representatives of members to the United Nations.

...Representative shall be deemed to include all delegates, deputy delegates, advisors, technical experts and secretaries of delegations. She was accredited as advisor on August 26

Link: here

Because she was attached to the permanent mission only temporarily (until December 31), the State Department was not required to issue its own identity card and it is possible that they may not have known about Khobragade's status. Sources said this was all the more reason for the State Department to have informed India about the move to arrest Khobragade. As the diplomat was working as acting consul general, the US ought to have notified India about her arrest under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The MEA joint secretary who handles the US, Vikram Doraiswamy, was in that country on the day Khobragade was arrested, but he wasn't informed about it.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 27 Dec 2013 06:40

According to Wall Street Journal (and a few blogs) looks like Federal Judge Richard J Sullivan is not too impressed with Mr. Preet Bharara habit of issuing silly press conferences ..

Judge Richard J Sullivan Preet Baharara recent press release on public corruption calling it set for tabloid consumption"

Judge Sullivan scolds Preet by reading aloud his recent press release and compares it to a theme for Mighty Mouse.

Finally!! Preet's sensationalism gets questioned .. by US's own federal court.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 27 Dec 2013 06:41

^^Aah, now that Bharara's office has goofed up, at the least an unconditional apology from DK, GOI and the framers of the vienna convention to the state dept, NYPD, Bharara's office and most importantly, to Bharara personally is in order in order to bring the matter to a satisfactory close. At the very least.

P.S.
'Bhara' in Hindi means full. Bharara prolly means full of oneself. Onlee.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 27 Dec 2013 06:44

Some excerpts from a booklet published by the State Department to guide law enforcement in how to deal with various levels of diplomatic and UN staff in determining immunity.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf

Personnel of National Missions to International Organizations.

The United Nations and the Organization of
American States are headquartered in the United States, and most of their member States maintain permanent missions
to the headquarters in the United States. Th e permanent representatives staffing these missions are accredited to the
international organization concerned (not to the United States), but their privileges and immunities are nonetheless
often defined by reference to the status of diplomatic personnel who are accredited to the United States.
As is the case with diplomatic missions, the assignment of privileges and immunities is differentiated generally on the
basis of the functions performed. The most senior representatives in these missions to international organizations
have privileges and immunities equivalent to those afforded diplomatic agents. The remainder of the staffs of these
missions have only official acts immunity pursuant to the International Organizations Immunities Act and no
personal inviolability.
Short-term official visitors from other States to the United Nations or to international conferences convened by the
United Nations may enjoy full diplomatic immunity equivalent to that afforded diplomatic agents. Owing to the
temporary nature of their visit, such officials will normally not have the usual official identity documents recognizable
in the United States. Law enforcement officials (particularly in New York) should be sensitive to the existence of this
situation and always coordinate with the U.S. authorities indicated in the list of Useful Phone Numbers if confronted
with an apparent offender appearing to fall into this category

It should be emphasized that even at its highest level, diplomatic immunity does not exempt diplomatic officers from
the obligation of conforming with national and local laws and regulations. Diplomatic immunity is not intended
to serve as a license for persons to flout the law and purposely avoid liability for their actions. The purpose of these
privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient and effective performance of their
official missions on behalf of their governments. This is a crucial point for law enforcement officers to understand in
their dealings with foreign diplomatic and consular personnel. While police officers are obliged, under international
customary and treaty law, to recognize the immunity of the envoy, they must not ignore or condone the commission
of crimes.

Based on a reading of these excerpts, I doubt whether DK has immunity as an advisor attached to the UN mission or as the deputy consul general on the maid issue as seen from the viewpoint of US law enforcement.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 27 Dec 2013 07:02

Rather than having goofed up, it is more likely that Bharara is being set up. He has made a lot of enemies in high places and many of them may be not only angry and vengeful but also wary of their past coming under the scanner. The Strauss-Kahn episode where a hotel maid alleged sexual assault could easily have been straight up false entrapment and has similarities to the Khobragade case. It is a fact that the Americans and some of their friends in France never liked the guy in the IMF.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 27 Dec 2013 07:02

ldev wrote:Based on a reading of these excerpts, I doubt whether DK has immunity as an advisor attached to the UN mission or as the deputy consul general on the maid issue as seen from the viewpoint of US law enforcement.

I agree. The problem seems to be more systemic than just the Devyani incident alone....In essence the problem is the sub-standard and faulty training and interpretation of Vienna Convention rules imparted by the US to its local law enforcement.

Anand K · Post by **Anand K** » 27 Dec 2013 07:08

EDITED: ldev just beat me to it

PS: Lots of ace-in-the-holes in that document - no way heads in DSS/SD are going to roll.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Dec 2013 07:15

saip wrote:In regard to Cavity search both may be telling the truth. DK meant they looked at the openings which would be cavity search as far as she is concerned and the US Marshall service said they did not which they understood to mean digital cavity search for which they would probably have needed a search warrant. Semantics!

Even mere inspection of the cavities, without insertion of digits, is a cavity search indeed.

Anand K · Post by **Anand K** » 27 Dec 2013 07:20

Semantics, eh? The Kerala Police interpretation of cavity search is on strict aperture diameter basis - 100% organic coconut-leaf stalk or bamboo lathi, with generous use of organic Parachute hair oil.

If reciprocity is what is being sought, the "S.O.P" written by S.I. Pulikkodan can be dusted off anytime. What to do... law of the land onlee. No friendship-schrendship!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Dec 2013 07:25

As I read the last few pages, one thing stood out on how a mutually beneficial resolution can be worked out between India and the US. That will be still a huge blow for truth, for India and the victim DK after all that had happened.

The US has violated various clauses of the diplomatic convention, has wrongly accused a diplomat and caused her immense personal harm and anguish, has sullied her fair name, has cast aspersions on the fairness of the Indian judiciary, has helped an accused to abscond in the US, and has hit the state-to-state relationship. The US has to pay a fair price for all these misadventures.

A mutual and amicable resolution would have been on the cards much, much earlier in the game; but, not after all that has happened.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 27 Dec 2013 07:27

Anand K wrote:Semantics, eh? The Kerala Police interpretation of cavity search is on strict aperture diameter basis - 100% organic coconut-leaf stalk or bamboo lathi, with generous use of organic Parachute hair oil.

If reciprocity is what is being sought, the "S.O.P" written by S.I. Pulikkodan can be dusted off anytime. What to do... law of the land onlee. No friendship-schrendship!

^^^^^

---------------------------------------

BTW here is the full state department requirements for A-3 Vijaz'.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types ... 7.html#how

It is clear reading it that a LOOOT of abuse of these laws has gone on over years and the entire enforcement types have had it up to here with it.

Look at how year after year they have removed every exemption from wages. Finally including food as well. Undoubted folks were claiming wild food exemptions to avoid paying fair wages.

It also clear that the laws intent is that the Domestic should be able to live independently from the employer.

Why on earth are you dragging DK's husband into all this? Do you have any iota of evidence either ways to point towards husband's involvement into all this? As one of the newspaper pointed out, MEA was going slow after the incident exploded because there were cases of maids working with other diplomats as well. Do all these diplomats have American husband/wife? Please stop creating canards. - rohitvats.

It is best not to live for these sorts of perks. Beg for nothing and gift nothing should be GOI policy. A few IFS types doing their own domestic chores will raise not lower Indias image.

Personal Employees

Personal employees, attendants, domestic workers, or servants of individuals who hold a valid A-1 or A-2 visa may be issued an A-3 visa, if they meet the requirements in 9 FAM 41.22 N4. As part of the application process, an interview at the embassy or consulate is required. Proof that the applicant will receive a fair wage, sufficient to financially support himself, comparable to that being offered in the area of employment in the U.S. is required. In addition, the applicant needs to demonstrate that he/she will perform the contracted employment duties. The consular officer will determine eligibility for the A-3 visa. Applicants for A-3 visas must apply outside the United States.

If the employer does not carry the diplomatic rank of Minister or higher or hold a position equivalent to Minister or higher, the employer must demonstrate that he or she will have sufficient funds to provide a fair wage and working conditions, as reflected in the contract. Consideration is also given to the number of employees an employer would reasonably be able to pay.

To apply for an A-3 visa, the visa applicant must submit each of the items explained in the How to Apply - Required Documentation section above, as well as the following.

The employment contract must be in English and, if the employee does not understand English, also in a language the employee understands.

Employment Contract signed by both the employer and the employee which must include each of the following items:

Description of Duties. The contract must describe the work to be performed, e.g., housekeeping, gardening, child care, and also must include a statement that the domestic employee shall work only for the employer who signed the contract.
Hours of Work. The contract must state the time of the normal working hours and the number of hours per week. It is generally expected that domestic workers will be required to work 35-40 hours per week. It also must state that the domestic employee will be provided a minimum of one full day off each week. The contract must indicate the number of paid holidays, sick days, and vacation days the domestic employee will be provided.
Minimum Wage. The contract must state the hourly wage to be paid to the domestic employee. The rate must be the greater of the minimum wage under U.S. Federal and state law, or the prevailing wage for all working hours. Information on the prevailing wage statistics by occupation and metropolitan area is available on the Department of Labor's Online Wage Library & Data Center website.

The contract must state that wages will be paid to the domestic employee either weekly or biweekly. As of March 2011, the Department determined that no deductions are allowed for lodging, medical care, medical insurance, or travel. As of April 2012, deductions taken for meals are also no longer allowed.
Overtime Work. The contract must state that any hours worked in excess of the normal number of hours worked per week are considered overtime hours, and that hours in which the employee is “on call” count as work hours. It also must state that such work must be paid as required by U.S. local laws.

NOTE: Under Federal law, the rate of overtime pay need not exceed the regular hourly rate if the employee resides in the home of the employer, but State law governing overtime rates also applies and must be checked. If the employee does not reside with the employer, overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per week must be paid at the rate of time and a half.
Payment. The contract must state that after the first 90 days of employment, all wage payments must be made by check or by electronic transfer to the domestic worker’s bank account. Neither Mission members nor their family members should have access to domestic workers' bank accounts. In addition, the Department requires that the employer retain records of employment and payment for three years after the termination of the employment in order to address any complaints that may subsequently arise. Further, the bank account must be in the United States so that domestic workers may readily access and utilize their wages.
Transportation to and from the United States. The contract must state that the domestic employee will be provided with transportation to and from the United States.
Other Required Terms of Employment. The contract must state that the employer agrees to abide by all Federal, State, and local laws in the United States. The contract also must include a statement that the domestic worker’s passport and visa will be in the sole possession of the domestic worker. In addition, the contract must state that a copy of the contract and other personal property of the domestic employee will not be withheld by the employer for any reason. The contract must include a statement that the domestic worker's presence in the employer's residence will not be required except during working hours. The contract must also include a statement by the employee, promising not to accept any other employment while working for the employer.
Other Recommended Terms of Employment. The contract may include additional agreed-upon terms of employment, if any, provided they are fully consistent with all U.S. Federal, State, and local laws. Any modification to the contract must be in writing.

Important Notices - for Employers and Personal Employees/Domestic Workers - Personal employees are advised to keep their passport and a copy of their contract in their possession. They should not surrender their contract and passport to their employer under any circumstances. Personal employees and domestic workers are advised that they will be subject to U.S. law while in the United States, and that their contracts provide working arrangements that the employer is expected to respect.

Recent changes to U.S. law relate to the legal rights of certain employment-based nonimmigrants under Federal immigration, labor, and employment laws, and the information to be provided about protections and available resources. As a temporary visitor to the U.S., it is important that you are aware of your rights, as well as protections and resources available when you come to work or study here. Before your interview, review the Nonimmigrant Rights, Protections and Resources pamphlet and learn about additional information on our webpage.

The U.S. Government considers "involuntary servitude" of domestic workers, as defined under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), to be a severe form of trafficking in persons (TIP) and a serious criminal offense. Victims of involuntary servitude are offered protection under the TVPA. "The term 'involuntary servitude' includes a condition of servitude induced by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraints, or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process." While in the U.S., domestic workers are advised that the telephone number for police and emergency services is 911, and that the U.S. Government maintains a telephone hotline for reporting abuse of domestic employees and other TIP-related crimes, 1-888-373-7888.
Additional Information

No assurances regarding the issuance of visas can be given in advance. Therefore final travel plans or the purchase of nonrefundable tickets should not be made until a visa has been issued.
Unless previously canceled, a visa is valid until its expiration date. Therefore, if the traveler has a valid U.S. visitor visa in an expired passport, do not remove the visa page from the expired passport. You may use it along with a new valid passport for travel and admission to the United States.

Misrepresentation of Material Facts or Fraud

Attempting to obtain a visa by the willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or fraud, may result in the permanent refusal of a visa or denial of entry into the United States. Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas provides important information about ineligibilities.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 27 Dec 2013 07:32

Anand K wrote:EDITED: ldev just beat me to it

PS: Lots of ace-in-the-holes in that document - no way heads in DSS/SD are going to roll.

Sorry for robbing you of your thunder

At a more general level even if countries disagree with US interpretations of UN laws regarding diplomatic immunity, are they going to vote with their feet and actually leave the US? No way Jose!! Quite a few years ago there was some move by some leftist loony to move the UN from New York. Representatives of most countries, third and first world, overwhelmingly were against it, imagine the horror of living in Upper Mongolia or North Korea, instead of the upper East side of Manhattan. For the same reasons that HIB visa holders flock to the US to get the coveted Green Card and the US passport, diplomats also do, the lure is the same. The rest is all hot air and talk!!

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 27 Dec 2013 07:50

ldev wrote:At a more general level even if countries disagree with US interpretations of UN laws regarding diplomatic immunity, are they going to vote with their feet and actually leave the US? No way Jose!! Quite a few years ago there was some move by some leftist loony to move the UN from New York. Representatives of most countries, third and first world, overwhelmingly were against it, imagine the horror of living in Upper Mongolia or North Korea, instead of the upper East side of Manhattan. For the same reasons that HIB visa holders flock to the US to get the coveted Green Card and the US passport, diplomats also do, the lure is the same. The rest is all hot air and talk!!

The US is considered a hardship posting by Indian diplomats, sirji.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 27 Dec 2013 09:33

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... bassy.html

India tells the US it means business: Tough-talking Delhi sets the taxmen loose on the American Embassy

After the nuclear tests in 1998, the US put severe sanctions against India.

In a role reversal, it's the American embassy in New Delhi feeling the pinch of "sanctions" imposed by the Indian foreign ministry, including an impending visit by the taxman.

The foreign ministry has asked the Central Board of Direct Taxes to make an unprecedented scrutiny of tax returns, salaries and employment details of embassy employees, as well as exemptions claimed by establishments allied to the mission.

Mail Today has also learnt that US ambassador Nancy Powell had to cancel a scheduled trip to Nepal after the foreign ministry refused to extend her special privileges that usually come with the job.

Powell had notified the foreign ministry about her trip and asked for the use of the protocol lounge and other privileges like security and immigration assistance, but she was curtly reminded that all of these had been withdrawn as a retaliatory measure to protest the treatment of Khobragade.

The US Embassy did not reply to Mail Today's email for a response on this issue.

To make its displeasure even clearer, US deputy chief of mission Michael Pelletier was summoned on Christmas eve - a time when most Americans would be having a traditional turkey dinner with the family - and served a demarche or diplomatic protest by Vikram Doraisamy, the head of the Americas desk at the external affairs ministry.

This was yet another note to protest the unsatisfactory US response to India's request for dropping of charges against Khobragade and signal that Washington needed to speed up her diplomatic identity card in New York.

The US also has to change her visa status now that she is accredited to India's mission to the UN.

New territory

But, such is the anger in South Block over the treatment of Khobragade that ministry mandarins are going where they have never gone before.

The foreign ministry has now set the taxman loose against the American mission and its employees.

The foreign office has asked the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to send a tax notice to the US Embassy seeking details of the tax returns, taxes paid and employment details of all the family members and local staffers at the embassy and its consulates in India.

Sources say the department will also do a 360 degree mapping of the diplomats and their families with a finetoothed comb now, something which has never been done for diplomats.

"The US has been claiming tax exemption for the American School and its staffers. They also run a club inside the US Embassy premises as well as a beauty salon and a café. We need to know why this should be exempted from paying taxes," a source told Mail Today.

New Delhi also turned down the US's assertion that it needs prior permission from Washington before submitting such details, telling the US that they need to act fast.

Two-pronged

While India keeps up the heat on Washington, it is also strengthening its legal case.

Sources say that the US goofed up yet another point, as Devyani was covered under the Vienna Convention on diplomatic immunity of 1946 even on the day she was arrested.

Khobragade was accredited to the UN and was accorded adviser status by the US State Department, which was recognised by its Office of Foreign Missions, till December 31.

The adviser status is provided to all the officials part of the official delegation to the UN.

In this case, Devyani was assigned certain official duties during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to the US for the UN General Assembly session in September 2013.

"So the question of her arrest did not arise as she enjoyed diplomatic immunity even then," a source explained.

The Indian foreign ministry has also mapped out a Plan B, which includes stopping the working of diplomats' spouses and relatives without requisite permits.

There is also likely to be close scrutiny of the diplomatic status of those working in United States Information Service and American Centre in the country.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 27 Dec 2013 09:48

LokeshC wrote:I agree that DK is not the sharpest tool in the box. If she was the sharpest tool in the box, she would not have hired SR

Live in maids aren't that uncommon here. And since most immigrants to the USA are unskilled, in the urban areas there is a ready supply of US citizen women from Indian villages willing to work for room and board with minimal pay. The most that is required on top of that is the occasional trip to India to take care of health issues.

There must be other motivations for bringing in a maid on the visa. Either security reasons or perhaps just altruistic reasons in helping the existing help share the money from the US posting. I'm discounting MEA naivety, because just asking local Indian community organizations / grocery stores would throw up a large number of applicants.