Hi everybody; and thank you for the welcome back.
@W.G.Ewald raises some points also material to comments by others:
[1] What about a civil suit by DK against the prosecutor; is that feasible?
[2] Are Chuck Schumer's fingerprints on any of this? I may contribute to a DK legal fund myself.
[3] I would like to see an explanation for Democrat antipathy against the accused, or against India for that matter.
1. The best civil suit avenue would be a
Federal Tort Claims Act action for damages against the United States. Suits against individual Federal officers are possible under special ("Bivens") circumstances; see
CRS report, Federal Tort Claims Act (2007) (especially pp.18-29). That being said, an FTCA action must be brought in Federal District Court (SDNY would be a proper venue). You can see the difficulty presented for DK to appear personally in that action, given the presently outstanding "new" indictment. So, that indictment would seem more of a protective barrier for the USG, PB, etc., than a serious attempt at prosecuting DK.
Civil actions against other sovereign states are normally barred in US courts by the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (mentioned in some recent posts in this thread). That US law does not confer absolute immunity (
Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York), especially with respect to individuals holding office (
Samantar v. Yousuf). That raises the question whether the US or US officials can be sued in Indian courts - does India have a similar "foreign sovereign immunities" doctrine (not my area of competence) ?
2. Chuck Schumer's fingerprints are all over this. I presented the evidence of the connections in this post (
#3407), linking PB and Sen. Schumer, the East Coast and West Coast Demos - and even Tom Lantos' daughter's vendetta vs Mr Modi. I've also stated that all of these people are gun-banners; I'm a life member of the NRA and a patron member of the Second Amendment Foundation; and these folks are not of my community.
3. Their antipathy is not against Indians in general, or against India itself. In fact, I'd wager that each and every one of the persons I name in post #3407 would say - if asked - that they are acting in the best interests of India and Indians. Their antipathy is for anyone whom they perceive as standing in the way of their liberal-progressive globalist interventionist goals. Just as examples, we can take Tom Lantos and his daughter. Rep. Lantos introduced the existing "human trafficking" legislation in 2007; see, e.g.,
U.S. Congress Bill to Stem the Scourge of Human Trafficking (19 Oct 2007):
Washington, DC – Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today introduced a bill to step up U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking worldwide.
Lantos co-authored the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 3887) with Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI). Nine other House members are original co-sponsors of the bill, which is named for the parliamentarian whose work led to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in the early 19th Century.
"This legislation addresses the fundamental right of every human being to live in freedom and safety," Lantos said. "More and more countries are failing to make any effort at all to combat human trafficking. Many of them are at the same time seeking to improve their relations with the United States. We should be sure they understand that doing so will require demonstrating a shared interest in wiping out slavery and trafficking in our times."
...
At a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on human trafficking this morning, members heard testimony from a young Tanzanian woman who had been forced to work without pay for four years for a diplomat from her country working at the embassy in Washington.
"We were all moved by the experiences of the courageous young woman who told us today of how she was forced to work in atrocious conditions for zero pay," Lantos said. "Her tragic story should inspire all of us to do everything in our power to put an end to the disgrace of human trafficking around the globe – and starting in our own back yard."
DK was simply the latest diplomat of whom an example was sought to be made.
Tom Lantos' daughter is involved in religious interventions - and I'm sure she'd say all for humanitarian reasons and in the best interests of the indigenes. Mr Modi ran afoul of her cannons and she is not about to back down; see, e.g.,
A Conversation With Katrina Lantos Swett, on Religious Freedom in India (NYT, by Maroosha Muzaffar, 13 Aug 2013):
Q. Indian courts have not yet found any evidence of Mr. Modi's involvement in the 2002 violence in Gujarat. You say that there are still some grave allegations, some doubts hanging over his role in the 2002 riots.
A. As you know, one of his ministers (Maya Kodnani) was recently convicted for her role in these events. Given the nature of the way the governments function, it is highly unlikely at the very least that this minister would have been engaged to the degree that she was without the knowledge, without the direction from Mr. Modi. There is of course the very damning sworn notarized affidavit of former deputy commissioner of police Sanjeev Bhatt, which is really an eyewitness account. He is not simply providing sworn testimony as to events that happened on the streets. His testimony is also regarding things that were said by Mr. Modi in his presence. There are very powerful letters that were signed by 65 members of the lower house and upper house and they cite a number of grave concerns.
And let's set aside, just for a moment, whether or not Mr. Modi was directly complicit in the events of 2002. There is a lot to be troubled about what has happened since or what has failed to happen. Legal accountability, you know, when you think of the numbers that were killed, the incredible number of rapes, the vast displacement, the burning and trashing of property, there should have been by now significant numbers of people held legally accountable. We find that that really hasn't happened.
There have been very few convictions. One of the things that concern us is that Mr. Modi seems more concerned with rehabilitating his own reputation than with providing recompense and rehabilitation for the surviving victims of those terrible events. Where are the reparations that have been paid? Where are the public apologies, public accounting for what went on? These to me are all indications that to some degree we are seeing a very ambitious man more focused on his political rehabilitation than on really righting the wrongs.
I think there is a difference between whether or not one can be held legally liable or accountable for something and going so far as to say a clean bill of health, a clean chit. Certainly in our system of justice you can be found not guilty, which is not the same thing as found innocent.
Under these circumstances we should follow our laws, which say that we should not give a visa. Of course Mr. Modi wants us to reverse our position because that would be part of his rehabilitation process. But perhaps it would be more instructive for observers and analysts and voters in India to have that piece of information as they evaluate whether or not he is the man who should lead India.
In Mr Modi's case, the targeting was selective - based on his high profile.
Regards
Mike
