India-US diplomat row escalates.

BBC News - Devyani Khobragade: India-US diplomat row escalates


India has ordered a series of reprisals against the United States amid a worsening row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in New York.

Security barricades around the US embassy in Delhi have been removed and a visiting US delegation was snubbed



Should be interesting to see how this plays out, I do have to question India's descion to remove the barricades around the US embassy. I hope they can protect the embassy because if its attacked during this time they will have a lot to answer for.

Higgins86 said:

I do have to question India's decision to remove the barricades around the US embassy.

Click to expand...

I do too.

We should sink their entire navy.

Other than that, this whole story is tragically comedic.

You get the impression from following it that India actually care about women and that the United States actually cares about illegal immigration.

In the end, I figure Obama will buckle and grant her full diplomatic immunity. Because she's brown and because she's a woman. If it were a while German guy he'd be going to jail. But once she's granted immunity she'll be invited to leave the country and never return.

Be aware of any spontaneous riots!

Higgins86 said:

BBC News - Devyani Khobragade: India-US diplomat row escalates


India has ordered a series of reprisals against the United States amid a worsening row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in New York.

Security barricades around the US embassy in Delhi have been removed and a visiting US delegation was snubbed



Should be interesting to see how this plays out, I do have to question India's descion to remove the barricades around the US embassy. I hope they can protect the embassy because if its attacked during this time they will have a lot to answer for.

Click to expand...

Higgins86 said:

BBC News - Devyani Khobragade: India-US diplomat row escalates


India has ordered a series of reprisals against the United States amid a worsening row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in New York.

Security barricades around the US embassy in Delhi have been removed and a visiting US delegation was snubbed



Should be interesting to see how this plays out, I do have to question India's descion to remove the barricades around the US embassy. I hope they can protect the embassy because if its attacked during this time they will have a lot to answer for.

Click to expand...

This is not the first case where there has been tit-for-tat with regard to treatment of diplomats and it most definitely won't be the last one. India's rationale is that the U.S. essentially denied the Indian diplomat the protections accorded her by her diplomatic status and it is responding in kind. Usually, such measures (aside from expulsions) are not permanent. So in time, U.S. diplomats would very likely have their priveleges restored.

The actual case is more complex.

First, did her treatment violate the norms of what would be permissible given her diplomatic status (and there is some question as to whether she enjoyed full or limited immunity)?

Second, for a suspected visa-related issue, was a cavity search even appropriate?

Third, was the issue one about wages vs. compensation; if, for example, one was dealing with a low wage, but other compensation (partial or full housing allowance, food allowance, etc.), one would be dealing with compensation that exceeded the minimum wage. How in kind compensation is treated could matter.

I don't know anything more than was reported, so I reserve judgment about the allegations and treatment. The one thing I will note is that arresting her in front of her daughter was not good timing and if she is ultimately not convicted--expulsion not conviction might be the appropriate measure depending on the outcome of the case and her diplomatic privileges--she might have a basis to proceed with legal action of her own.

In the end, dealing with diplomats is always a sensitive issue. Any perceived mistreatment (whether actual or not) almost always leads to some form of retaliation. I believe that this case could have been handled far better at a bilateral level between the U.S. and Indian governments rather than how it was handled.

Higgins86 said:

BBC News - Devyani Khobragade: India-US diplomat row escalates


India has ordered a series of reprisals against the United States amid a worsening row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in New York.

Security barricades around the US embassy in Delhi have been removed and a visiting US delegation was snubbed



Should be interesting to see how this plays out, I do have to question India's descion to remove the barricades around the US embassy. I hope they can protect the embassy because if its attacked during this time they will have a lot to answer for.

Click to expand...

I agree. India may well have agreements with the US that require such situations to be handled differently. And it really makes no sense whatsoever for India to get so pissy, if indeed what the US spokesperson has said is true. But removing protections from our embassy is the response?!?!?!

donsutherland1 said:

This is not the first case where there has been tit-for-tat with regard to treatment of diplomats and it most definitely won't be the last one. India's rationale is that the U.S. essentially denied the Indian diplomat the protections accorded her by her diplomatic status and it is responding in kind. Usually, such measures (aside from expulsions) are not permanent. So in time, U.S. diplomats would very likely have their priveleges restored.

The actual case is more complex.

First, did her treatment violate the norms of what would be permissible given her diplomatic status (and there is some question as to whether she enjoyed full or limited immunity)?

Second, for a suspected visa-related issue, was a cavity search even appropriate?

Third, was the issue one about wages vs. compensation; if, for example, one was dealing with a low wage, but other compensation (partial or full housing allowance, food allowance, etc.), one would be dealing with compensation that exceeded the minimum wage. How in kind compensation is treated could matter.

I don't know anything more than was reported, so I reserve judgment about the allegations and treatment. The one thing I will note is that arresting her in front of her daughter was not good timing and if she is ultimately not convicted--expulsion not conviction might be the appropriate measure depending on the outcome of the case and her diplomatic privileges--she might have a basis to proceed with legal action of her own.

In the end, dealing with diplomats is always a sensitive issue. Any perceived mistreatment (whether actual or not) almost always leads to some form of retaliation. I believe that this case could have been handled far better at a bilateral level between the U.S. and Indian governments rather than how it was handled.

Click to expand...

What's the better political position for the US (because we know truth doesn't trump anything) for the US to acknowledge that arresting officers were inappropriate to perform a cavity search, apologize and try to move on, or insist that all foreign diplomats on her level would receive the same treatment in such situations?

Montecresto said:

What's the better political position for the US (because we know truth doesn't trump anything) for the US to acknowledge that arresting officers were inappropriate to perform a cavity search, apologize and try to move on, or insist that all foreign diplomats on her level would receive the same treatment in such situations?

Click to expand...

If the visa fraud allegations are the sole basis for her being charged, a cavity search should not have been performed. Such a search was inconsistent with the allegations at hand and not germane to the legal issues involved. We don't know if those allegations are accurate, as the individual who made the claim has since "disappeared" according to some news sources and we don't know if payments were made in cash or by some method that could substantiate them.

IMO, the better procedure would have been:

1. Notify the Indian government of the allegations.
2. Ask the Indian government to withdraw her or allow her to be charged. The latter would essentially be a request for a waiver of immunity under the Vienna Convention.
3. If a waiver were granted, proceed with a legal case by asking her to appear in court.

This case was handled badly. I'm not at all surprised by the retaliation that has occurred. Indeed, given some of high profile abuses of women that have occurred in India (gang rapes, etc.), the Indian government had to act decisively when one of its women was allegedly mistreated. In other words, there was a 100% probability of retaliation and a fairly high probability that the retaliation would be more than proportionate.

To avoid further damage, the U.S. should terminate the case and ask her to leave the country. India would almost certainly respond by expelling a U.S. diplomat at her level (or several lower-ranking ones). However, that would be the end of the matter.

soot said:

I do too.

We should sink their entire navy.

Other than that, this whole story is tragically comedic.

You get the impression from following it that India actually care about women and that the United States actually cares about illegal immigration.

In the end, I figure Obama will buckle and grant her full diplomatic immunity. Because she's brown and because she's a woman. If it were a while German guy he'd be going to jail. But once she's granted immunity she'll be invited to leave the country and never return.

Click to expand...

Nothing funny about removing security barriers from our embassy.

From today's edition of The Washington Post concerning the Indian diplomat in question:

Her relationship with the babysitter, Sangeeta Richard, had been troubled almost from the time Richard arrived in the United States to begin working for her as Khobragade started her new job as deputy consul general for political, economic, commercial and women’s affairs at the consulate general in New York in November 2012. Khobragade’s father, Uttam, said the babysitter tried to extort money from her employer — now the subject of a pending case in the Delhi High Court — and disappeared completely in June.

India says it will transfer deputy consul at center of crisis over strip-search arrest - The Washington Post

And from the Indian media:

...India has accused US authorities of conspiracy and immigration fraud by allowing the family of Sangeeta Richard, the domestic help of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, to move to America.

Devyani Khobragade arrest row: India accuses US of immigration fraud | NDTV.com

Right now, what is known is that the U.S. handling of what may be a highly complex case has sparked a diplomatic dispute. However, at this point in time, there are only allegations concerning the legal cases. The facts remain to be examined.

Apparently we're doing a good job of pissing off the World lately.

Montecresto said:

Apparently we're doing a good job of pissing off the World lately.

Click to expand...

Thats OK...at least we have a solid lock on that whole Syria thing...

VanceMack said:

Thats OK...at least we have a solid lock on that whole Syria thing...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel better now that you mention that.

Montecresto said:

Yeah, I feel better now that you mention that.

Click to expand...

I know. Remember when it was so important we were literally on the brink of military intervention there?

From Reuters:

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara defended the treatment and questioned why there wasn't as much sympathy for the housekeeper. He said it was standard practice for any defendant to go through a full search, "rich or poor, American or not".

India says U.S. must drop case against diplomat to defuse row | Reuters

Several points:

1. Public sympathies are wholly irrelevant to the case.

2. Evidence and facts, not public sympathy, determine the credibility of charges and whether a conviction is obtained.

3. The allegations made against the Indian diplomat have nothing to do with narcotics smuggling and there was no basis for a strip search and possible cavity search. Appeals to "standard practice" don't change that. With diplomats, nations have to exercise extra caution to avoid creating larger problems beyond case-related legal issues.

4. Despite the allegations, the facts in this case have yet to be examined. Prior to this case, the diplomat in question had filed complaints in New York and New Delhi concerning the housekeeper's possibly extorting her. All of this will need to be examined before one knows whether the allegations in question are credible. That's, of course, a separate issue from the reported mistreatment of the diplomat.

5. The case was mishandled and in a fashion that could only have created a diplomatic issue and tit-for-tat retaliation.

In short, I don't think the U.S. Attorney's posturing is constructive nor is it consistent with what is supposed to be a focus on evidence in the U.S. legal system. If anything, it risks further inflaming U.S.-India tensions and it makes it more difficult to find an impartial jury should the case go to trial. Given recent news reports about the housekeeper's possibly having tried to engage in extortion against the diplomat with the diplomat having filed complaints both in New York and New Delhi well prior to her arrest, along with the growing bilateral strains, odds are increasing that the U.S. Government will move to quash the case.

As for the allegations against the diplomat, I reserve judgment. Until the evidence is made available and examined, one won't know whether the case was credible.

This whole thing is a farce, as are all of these "diplomatic incidents." My fix for it is very simple..... Throw the Indian delegation out of the US and shut down their embassy. Close the US Embassy in Dehli. Force ALL foreign diplomats in the United States (as well as all US politicians) to follow the exact same laws every US Citizen is expected to obey.

India is saying (for what it's worth) that the house keeper was being treated just as she would if she were in India, that being pretty standard procedure there. So they assert that as they overlook diplomats at the US embassy in India who bring in same sex lovers, (which isn't lawful there) that we should have afforded them equal treatment.

It has now been 10 days since the story first made headlines in the U.S. At this point in time, one still does not know the credibility of the allegations against the Indian diplomat, despite an early burst of bluster by the U.S. Attorney who seems keen on prosecuting the case. At the same time, the reaility has not changed that any such charges--and the credibility remains uncertain--were not of a nature to justify a strip search. None of the allegations have anything remotely to do with smuggling. No strip search should have been performed.

In the meantime, almost in an eerie repeat of a policy that amounted to the "Great Hesitation" in Egypt that has undermined U.S.-Egypt bilateral relations, the U.S. has yet to adopt a coherent policy response concerning the diplomat. As a response, India is poised to take additional measures according to Reuters:

India has sought details about staff in American schools in the country for possible tax violations and revoked ID cards of U.S. consular officials and their families, retaliatory steps for the arrest of an Indian diplomat in New York...

In a new twist, India now argues that Khobragade was accredited to the United Nations at the time of her detention, giving her immunity from arrest.

India seeks possible U.S. tax violations as stand hardens in diplomat row | Reuters

In short, there has been ample time for the U.S. Attorney to move ahead if the allegations are credible. Nothing further has happened as far as assessing the credibility of the allegations in recent days.

More importantly, the U.S. Department of State has had ample opportunity to squash the charges and, given the lack of effort to even assess the credibility of the allegations and a strip search that was wholly unnecessary and had nothing to do with the allegations, I believe that is the only proper response at this time. If, as part of a resolution, the U.S. obtains India's agreement to drop its investigation against the maid, that's not a big deal.

The India-U.S. bilateral relationship is strategically important. That importance will likely grow in maintaining a stable balance of power what could become a largely two-power-dominated Asia in coming years. Hesitation only further inflames tensions and reduces the vitality of the relationship.

Finally, I have no issues with India's desire for reciprocity as it relates to diplomatic privileges. Reciprocity is a staple currency of diplomacy. It is the substance that allows for the pursuit of mutual benefit in agreements and asking for reciprocity vis-a-vis one's diplomats is not unreasonable.

From Al-Jazeera:

Amid a relentless Indian diplomatic offensive, the United States has started an internal review of the circumstances that led to the arrest of New Delhi diplomat Devyani Khobragade.

The move is being interpreted as an acknowledgement by the US that there was a judgemental error in handling the Khobragade case. Further, the review is under process round –the-clock with a view to resolving it as soon as possible, reports said.

US acts to defuse diplomatic row with India - News - Al Jazeera English

I strongly welcome this badly delayed step. To date, no credible evidence has been furnished that the Indian diplomat committed any wrong, much less was involved in any offence that warranted a strip search. More than ample time has been available to examine the credibility of the allegations. To date, no credible evidence has been revealed to substantiate the allegations despite the gravity of those allegations and the important U.S. interests involved. That outcome increasingly suggests overreach in which sweeping allegations were made far beyond what the available evidence supported.

Given that gap and the time that has been available to reconcile the allegations with the evicence, I believe all the charges should be dropped and without condition. Moreover, given the damage that has been done to date and the risks to the bilateral U.S.-India relationship that were needlessly created, those responsible for the strip search over allegations that clearly were non-germane to such searches should be disciplined if the ongoing review finds that the strip search was wrongful. Finally, the U.S. Attorney who attacked the diplomat's character in his press conference should be required to apologize. His only proper role was to lay out the charges involved and evidence, but only if the evidence were sufficient and credible and, the odds increasingly appear that is was not.

In the end, this has now become a multi-faceted case. The first aspect deals with clearing the diplomat from what increasingly appears to have been baseless allegations. That should be done swiftly. The second deals with disciplining actors who may have gone to excess, risking material damage to important U.S. interests. Any disciplinary action should rest objectively upon the findings of the review, not sentimentalities. The third deals with a Prosecutor who chose to go before the media, when it increasingly appears the evidence did not justify charges, much less a press appearance.

donsutherland1 said:

If the visa fraud allegations are the sole basis for her being charged, a cavity search should not have been performed. Such a search was inconsistent with the allegations at hand and not germane to the legal issues involved. We don't know if those allegations are accurate, as the individual who made the claim has since "disappeared" according to some news sources and we don't know if payments were made in cash or by some method that could substantiate them.

IMO, the better procedure would have been:

1. Notify the Indian government of the allegations.
2. Ask the Indian government to withdraw her or allow her to be charged. The latter would essentially be a request for a waiver of immunity under the Vienna Convention.
3. If a waiver were granted, proceed with a legal case by asking her to appear in court.

This case was handled badly. I'm not at all surprised by the retaliation that has occurred. Indeed, given some of high profile abuses of women that have occurred in India (gang rapes, etc.), the Indian government had to act decisively when one of its women was allegedly mistreated. In other words, there was a 100% probability of retaliation and a fairly high probability that the retaliation would be more than proportionate.

To avoid further damage, the U.S. should terminate the case and ask her to leave the country. India would almost certainly respond by expelling a U.S. diplomat at her level (or several lower-ranking ones). However, that would be the end of the matter.

Click to expand...

I think authorities asume everybody has drugs on them.

I think that is how they are going to justify the body cavity search.

Mason66 said:

I think authorities asume everybody has drugs on them.

I think that is how they are going to justify the body cavity search.

Click to expand...

When one is dealing with a diplomat and circumstances that could create an international incident, one can't blindly assume. If the review finds that the strip search was not warranted, those who administered it should properly be held accountable. Objective evidence toward that end should determine whether or not disciplinary action is taken, be it reprimands or some other form.

She should be expelled and the case terminated. This has become a ridiculous distraction that should never have happened.

Sherman123 said:

She should be expelled and the case terminated. This has become a ridiculous distraction that should never have happened.

Click to expand...

I don't think she should be expelled. No credible evidence has been made available to support the allegations that she did any wrong, allegations made by an individual against whom the diplomat had complained both in New York and New Delhi regarding extortion, etc.

Instead, it appears that she was a target of overreach--in terms of how her apprehension was executed (given the allegations, there is no possible justification for a strip search), in the charges that were filed, and the bluster of the U.S. Attorney's news conference. If he had credible evidence, he would have furnished it rather than showboating and going off on extraneous tangents to question public's sympathies. More than likely, his showboating was aimed at masking his lack of credible and sufficient evidence to support the allegations. The U.S. Attorney probably calculated that the diplomat would quickly fold following the unnecessary and deliberate humiliation to which she was subjected and the pressure that was brought to bear. He likely expected a plea deal and easy "win" to bolster his credentials. That didn't happen.

His inability to furnish credible evidence and his noted silence since the press conference despite rising public questions about the affair makes it increasingly clear he doesn't have much of a case, if any. If he did, India would have understood the realities of the matter and would have sought a face-saving exit for the diplomat (probably offering to pay a fine and withdraw the diplomat). Instead, India knows that the case is flawed. In those flaws, it has the necessary leverage to sustain its tough posture.

The indictment against Ms. Khobragade was thrown out. I'm not surprised, as the prosecutor's theatrics suggested a weak case.

Reuters reported:

An Indian diplomat charged in New York with visa fraud and making false statements about a domestic worker she employed has won dismissal of a federal indictment, ending a chapter in an dispute that frayed U.S.-Indian diplomatic relations.

Devyani Khobragade, who was India's deputy consul-general in New York, had diplomatic immunity when she sought on January 9 to dismiss the indictment, and thus could not be prosecuted, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.

Indian diplomat in U.S.-India row wins indictment's dismissal | Reuters

Hopefully, in the weeks ahead, the diplomat will seek recourse against those who conducted the strip search, as the strip search was wholly inappropriate and completely unrelated to the allegations against her. Such a move could establish a precedent that could lead to reforms that reduce the probability of such abuses in the future. It could also help safeguard U.S. foreign policy from needless damage.

Apparently, the diplomat was re-indicted with exactly the same charges:

New indictment filed against Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade in U.S. visa-fraud case - The Washington Post

No fresh evidence was provided. Engaging in a personal crusade is not consistent with the principles of the rule of law and it does not bolster the credibility of the American legal system.

In the end, I have little doubt that the U.S. Attorney will lose his case. The evidence is weak. Nevertheless, his actions again threaten to interfere with American foreign policy and risk undermining U.S. interests. They also invite similar tit-for-tat pettiness directed at U.S. diplomats, which is also unproductive. The White House should squash the case, based on the legal ruling that dismissed the initial indictment.