India acting like a spoiled child

[Whereisup]

U.S.'s Kerry expresses regret to India over diplomat case

I'm actually more on India's side on this one. Strip searching a diplomat over a salary dispute sounds like overkill.

I think the context might indicate that this is much more serious than has been noted so far. India is in a special economic arrangement with China, Russia, and Brazil. We don't want to do anything that would turn that into a military alliance at this time of rapidly rising tensions between the US and China. See my message on the Asia board.

The important thing here is the massive public reaction among Indians, who will be pressuring their government to do something.

There is also discrimination involved. It is common for embassy personnel of all nations to be involved in espionage, which is a much more serious crime than just some visa fraud. When that happens, the host nation routinely just requires the individuals to leave the country. People involved with espionage are not strip searched, etc.

So in part, the Indian public is reacting to her being treated much much worse than diplomatic personnel who become involved in espionage. No wonder the Indian public is outraged.

I just hope that the Indian public isn't so outraged that they push India into a serious military alliance with China.

Jim

 

[Katzndogz]

That's a concern. Worse is that the diplomat has been moved to a UN post with full diplomatic immunity. The district attorney vows to continue prosecution looking for the maximum sentence. Either the local authorities are completely insane or there is something truly bizarre going on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's a concern. Worse is that the diplomat has been moved to a UN post with full diplomatic immunity. The district attorney vows to continue prosecution looking for the maximum sentence. Either the local authorities are completely insane or there is something truly bizarre going on.

Not bothering to read again I see. In order to move her the US has to AGREE, hence the entire point of my thread. She should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and we should not allow a back door deal to make her immune.

Besides emotional bullshit did you even read the article? Did you bother to engage the pea brain you have and analyze the fact she is accused of forcing a woman to work at slave wages?

 

[JoeB131]

India has a good reason to be angry. This was an illegal action by the US government. Liberals, your arguments for big government go out the window with incidents like these. Government can become so big that it infringes on the sovereignty of other nations. There's your sign.

Guy, this woman filled out a form saying she was paying her employee $4500 a month, and she was paying her less than minimum wage. That's fraud.

Now, the way the authorities handled it, that was kind of stupid. The proper response would have been to declare the diplomat unwelcome and order her out of the country.

 

[Katzndogz]

The housekeeper is Indian hired in India for an agreed upon wage. If it was slave wages the housekeeper could have declined the job. The essense of slavery is the slave doesn't get to quit. The housekeeper had enough money to bring her family here. She was already under a court order from a court in India that prohibited her from suing her employer. The housekeeper is a criminal. Flat out a criminal.

What the diplomat did was violate a regulatory law. There are numerous ways to handle these violations. If you are so concerned with the horrors of law breaking then you will understand when India starts prosecuting the same sex partners of Americans who break their sodomy laws. Certainly you will want these people, diplomats or not, put in prison. After we gave their diplomat a strip search and body cavity search the guards in the prisons in India should return the favor.

No I don't care that the housekeeper was making slave wages. Quit and ask the Indian government for a trip home. But she is a criminal in India. She should be returned to serve her sentence.

This kerfluffle is a good thing. We lost an ally, turned another friend into an enemy and made our state department look like the bumbling fools they are. That's priceless.

 

[JoeB131]

The housekeeper is Indian hired in India for an agreed upon wage. If it was slave wages the housekeeper could have declined the job. The essense of slavery is the slave doesn't get to quit. The housekeeper had enough money to bring her family here. She was already under a court order from a court in India that prohibited her from suing her employer. The housekeeper is a criminal. Flat out a criminal.

What the diplomat did was violate a regulatory law. There are numerous ways to handle these violations. If you are so concerned with the horrors of law breaking then you will understand when India starts prosecuting the same sex partners of Americans who break their sodomy laws. Certainly you will want these people, diplomats or not, put in prison. After we gave their diplomat a strip search and body cavity search the guards in the prisons in India should return the favor.

No I don't care that the housekeeper was making slave wages. Quit and ask the Indian government for a trip home. But she is a criminal in India. She should be returned to serve her sentence.

This kerfluffle is a good thing. We lost an ally, turned another friend into an enemy and made our state department look like the bumbling fools they are. That's priceless.

India needs us more than we need them.

I agree, the authorities overreacted, but the treatment of this housekeeper was obscene and the diplomat lied on her application papers.

 

[Peterf]

Bingo! Someone in the State Department didn't think this through at all. And the mess was so avoidable if the police hadn't become involved.

There are two sides to this story and it wasn't like the diplomat was going to go on the run. She was logically expecting the situation to be resolved by the proper channels.

And it appeared to be moving forward. How bizarre. Now you have the maid and her family with freaking visas!!!

YIKES!

A good post, like your previous ones on this thread. You did well to point out the distinction between Consular and Diplomatic immunity.

The initial fault was that of the Indians who should have ensured that their deputy Consul General had full diplomatic immunity. Easy, especially in New York, where she could have listed as concurrently a member of the Indian UN Mission. (They have now so appointed her. Too late).

The greater mistake imo (an opinion derived from 30 years diplomatic service, including spells as Consul when I always had diplomatic immunity) was that of the US State Department who could have simple declared her persona non grata, without publicity, and given her a week or two to leave the US. To have created a major incident, seriously damaging US/Indian relations, was an act of sheer folly. The responsible officials should be disciplined.

Would I be right in thinking, a quiet word in the correct ear would probably have saved even that?

You would indeed be quite right.

 

[Peterf]

The housekeeper is Indian hired in India for an agreed upon wage. If it was slave wages the housekeeper could have declined the job. The essense of slavery is the slave doesn't get to quit. The housekeeper had enough money to bring her family here. She was already under a court order from a court in India that prohibited her from suing her employer. The housekeeper is a criminal. Flat out a criminal.

What the diplomat did was violate a regulatory law. There are numerous ways to handle these violations. If you are so concerned with the horrors of law breaking then you will understand when India starts prosecuting the same sex partners of Americans who break their sodomy laws. Certainly you will want these people, diplomats or not, put in prison. After we gave their diplomat a strip search and body cavity search the guards in the prisons in India should return the favor.

No I don't care that the housekeeper was making slave wages. Quit and ask the Indian government for a trip home. But she is a criminal in India. She should be returned to serve her sentence.

This kerfluffle is a good thing. We lost an ally, turned another friend into an enemy and made our state department look like the bumbling fools they are. That's priceless.

India needs us more than we need them.

I agree, the authorities overreacted, but the treatment of this housekeeper was obscene and the diplomat lied on her application papers.

You say "India needs us more than we need them" as though it was an obvious truism. What is it, exactly, that you think India gets from the US? Certainly not security.

 

[JoeB131]

The housekeeper is Indian hired in India for an agreed upon wage. If it was slave wages the housekeeper could have declined the job. The essense of slavery is the slave doesn't get to quit. The housekeeper had enough money to bring her family here. She was already under a court order from a court in India that prohibited her from suing her employer. The housekeeper is a criminal. Flat out a criminal.

What the diplomat did was violate a regulatory law. There are numerous ways to handle these violations. If you are so concerned with the horrors of law breaking then you will understand when India starts prosecuting the same sex partners of Americans who break their sodomy laws. Certainly you will want these people, diplomats or not, put in prison. After we gave their diplomat a strip search and body cavity search the guards in the prisons in India should return the favor.

No I don't care that the housekeeper was making slave wages. Quit and ask the Indian government for a trip home. But she is a criminal in India. She should be returned to serve her sentence.

This kerfluffle is a good thing. We lost an ally, turned another friend into an enemy and made our state department look like the bumbling fools they are. That's priceless.

India needs us more than we need them.

I agree, the authorities overreacted, but the treatment of this housekeeper was obscene and the diplomat lied on her application papers.

You say "India needs us more than we need them" as though it was an obvious truism. What is it, exactly, that you think India gets from the US? Certainly not security.

Trade, for starters.

Now, frankly, I would love to cut off trade with India, so when I call for customer service, I don't get Pradip passing himself off as "Bobby" and not understanding my problem after I've explained it to him SIX FUCKING TIMES. (Seriously, I had this experience lately with Google AdWords.)

But I still think strip-searching this lady was out of line.

 

[Katzndogz]

That's a concern. Worse is that the diplomat has been moved to a UN post with full diplomatic immunity. The district attorney vows to continue prosecution looking for the maximum sentence. Either the local authorities are completely insane or there is something truly bizarre going on.

Not bothering to read again I see. In order to move her the US has to AGREE, hence the entire point of my thread. She should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and we should not allow a back door deal to make her immune.

Besides emotional bullshit did you even read the article? Did you bother to engage the pea brain you have and analyze the fact she is accused of forcing a woman to work at slave wages?

The US has no right to agree to any internal assignment that a foreign country might make to its foreign nationals. What the US has to agree to is admitting a foreigner to the country. It has to agree and issue a visa. The US could revoke the visa of any foreigner at any time, but it has no right to agree to assignments that a foreign entity might make.

 

[Peterf]

India needs us more than we need them.

I agree, the authorities overreacted, but the treatment of this housekeeper was obscene and the diplomat lied on her application papers.

You say "India needs us more than we need them" as though it was an obvious truism. What is it, exactly, that you think India gets from the US? Certainly not security.

Trade, for starters.

Now, frankly, I would love to cut off trade with India, so when I call for customer service, I don't get Pradip passing himself off as "Bobby" and not understanding my problem after I've explained it to him SIX FUCKING TIMES. (Seriously, I had this experience lately with Google AdWords.)

But I still think strip-searching this lady was out of line.

Yes, trade is a fair point. Without looking up the numbers I too would guess that India sells more to the US than it buys.

 

[Peterf]

That's a concern. Worse is that the diplomat has been moved to a UN post with full diplomatic immunity. The district attorney vows to continue prosecution looking for the maximum sentence. Either the local authorities are completely insane or there is something truly bizarre going on.

Not bothering to read again I see. In order to move her the US has to AGREE, hence the entire point of my thread. She should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and we should not allow a back door deal to make her immune.

Besides emotional bullshit did you even read the article? Did you bother to engage the pea brain you have and analyze the fact she is accused of forcing a woman to work at slave wages?

The US has no right to agree to any internal assignment that a foreign country might make to its foreign nationals. What the US has to agree to is admitting a foreigner to the country. It has to agree and issue a visa. The US could revoke the visa of any foreigner at any time, but it has no right to agree to assignments that a foreign entity might make.

Not quite right I think. The US has the right to veto the assignment of any particular person to, say, the Indian Embassy in Washington. Assignments to a country's Mission to the HQ of the UN in NY are a different and rather special case. In return for having the UN on its territory the US has sacrificed - at least to some extent - its right to refuse admission. The US regularly allows people it would normally exclude entry to attend UN conferences etc.

 

[Katzndogz]

The housekeeper is Indian hired in India for an agreed upon wage. If it was slave wages the housekeeper could have declined the job. The essense of slavery is the slave doesn't get to quit. The housekeeper had enough money to bring her family here. She was already under a court order from a court in India that prohibited her from suing her employer. The housekeeper is a criminal. Flat out a criminal.

What the diplomat did was violate a regulatory law. There are numerous ways to handle these violations. If you are so concerned with the horrors of law breaking then you will understand when India starts prosecuting the same sex partners of Americans who break their sodomy laws. Certainly you will want these people, diplomats or not, put in prison. After we gave their diplomat a strip search and body cavity search the guards in the prisons in India should return the favor.

No I don't care that the housekeeper was making slave wages. Quit and ask the Indian government for a trip home. But she is a criminal in India. She should be returned to serve her sentence.

This kerfluffle is a good thing. We lost an ally, turned another friend into an enemy and made our state department look like the bumbling fools they are. That's priceless.

India needs us more than we need them.

I agree, the authorities overreacted, but the treatment of this housekeeper was obscene and the diplomat lied on her application papers.

Your mistake is in thinking that ANY country needs us as we spin down the drain. It's a big world, no one needs us anymore. China has a better economy and more people too.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not bothering to read again I see. In order to move her the US has to AGREE, hence the entire point of my thread. She should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and we should not allow a back door deal to make her immune.

Besides emotional bullshit did you even read the article? Did you bother to engage the pea brain you have and analyze the fact she is accused of forcing a woman to work at slave wages?

The US has no right to agree to any internal assignment that a foreign country might make to its foreign nationals. What the US has to agree to is admitting a foreigner to the country. It has to agree and issue a visa. The US could revoke the visa of any foreigner at any time, but it has no right to agree to assignments that a foreign entity might make.

Not quite right I think. The US has the right to veto the assignment of any particular person to, say, the Indian Embassy in Washington. Assignments to a country's Mission to the HQ of the UN in NY are a different and rather special case. In return for having the UN on its territory the US has sacrificed - at least to some extent - its right to refuse admission. The US regularly allows people it would normally exclude entry to attend UN conferences etc.

You are understanding it right, but applying it wrong. The US has the right to refuse to issue a visa of a particular person, but no right once that visa is issued to determine what the internal employment assignments are of any country. If a foreign country promotes, demotes or reassigns an individual, the US has no right of veto over that decision. If the US really doesn't like the assignment it can only revoke the visa.

The US state department can issue a formal complaint as to the assignment of an individual but can't veto it.

 

[BullKurtz]

The caste system rules India....this woman's assistant is little more than a servant. The arabs are even worse...they OWN their help. India is "important" alright...they ignore the boycott and buy Iranian oil, they move troops to be ready to retaliate against Pakistan when al-Qaida needs to move some VIP over the Afghan border. They are exempt from the Kyoto Treaty. They just pulled the cement barriers in front of our embassy in New Delhi...an open invite to a car-bomber. This latest deal just shows they have nothing but contempt for the US even though we've off-shored almost every Fortune 500 company's customer service lines to them. FUCK EM WHATEVER is exactly the policy we should use. But Barry will probably send them a couple billion dollars and some free F-16s to smooth things over.

 

[Katzndogz]

Pulling the barricades was the right thing to do. I was glad to see them do it so quickly. Now if they would just start those arrests of American violating India's anti sodomy laws it would be even better.

There are consequences to actions. Liberals will NEVER get this. They think that consequences only happen to other people, not to them and certainly not to Americans.

 

[BullKurtz]

Pulling the barricades was the right thing to do. I was glad to see them do it so quickly. Now if they would just start those arrests of American violating India's anti sodomy laws it would be even better.

There are consequences to actions. Liberals will NEVER get this. They think that consequences only happen to other people, not to them and certainly not to Americans.

WTF? Haven't we just lost an ambassador and other personnel to political expediency? You wouldn't say such a thing if you had a Marine relative serving to protect that building.

 

[Whereisup]

You say "India needs us more than we need them" as though it was an obvious truism. What is it, exactly, that you think India gets from the US? Certainly not security.

Trade, for starters.
.

Yes, trade is a fair point. Without looking up the numbers I too would guess that India sells more to the US than it buys.

China could simply offer to replace the US as a trade partner. For the last decade, China has been offering other nations much, so that would be no different.

As for China's trade with the United States, a couple of years ago, China said that she could from that time end the trade relationship wth the US, and still do well economically herself. By now, China has acquired almost all Western technology and manufacturing techniques, and has factories going in all economic sectors.

Remember also that if China wanted to, she could just nationalize all the property and plants of American corporations in China.

Jim

 

[BullKurtz]

Trade, for starters.
.

Yes, trade is a fair point. Without looking up the numbers I too would guess that India sells more to the US than it buys.

China could simply offer to replace the US as a trade partner. For the last decade, China has been offering other nations much, so that would be no different.

As for China's trade with the United States, a couple of years ago, China said that she could from that time end the trade relationship wth the US, and still do well economically herself. By now, China has acquired almost all Western technology and manufacturing techniques, and has factories going in all economic sectors.

Remember also that if China wanted to, she could just nationalize all the property and plants of American corporations in China.

Jim

Yep, and we should PULL THE PLUG on them right now and crash the yellow bastards through the floor. They have a very fragile economy because they have no experience with free enterprise and have gone half-cocked into every sector of commerce. They still have to manipulate their currency to keep labor prices down, while at the same time they just landed a vehicle on the moon. All they can to is copy, they innovate nothing. It would be easy to throw them into depression and a worker uprising by slamming the door shut and demanding our corporations return production to US soil. China has gotten a free taste of economic freedom....what they don't realize is that they let our wolf in the door and it could be on their throat before they look up. heh heh

 

[HenryBHough]

A country that can demand corporations "return production" has a COMMAND ECONOMY. So somebody's advocating punishing a command economy nation by establishing, right here, a new and more obnoxious command economy.

Sounds like Harry Reid on his best of days.....