Indian diplomat arrested, handcuffed in US for visa fraud

[ladder]

What UN immunity? She is an official of the Indian Consulate in New York not Indian Mission to the UN. The latter is what the Indian GOI is negotiating with the US, to allow her to transfer to the UN Mission of India so that she'll be given full immunity. The Americans agreed in theory but said that there's no rectroactive application of her UN immunity.

The same UN immunity that advisers at UN enjoy.As she was accredited as adviser to Indian mission to UN from 26th Aug to 31th Dec.Her accreditation was in addition of her role as deputy consul general and acting consul general.

What's so difficult to understand?

 

[ladder]

Here is an excerpt from the official website of the Department of Foreign Affairs of Australia on the Privileges and Immunities of foreign representatives:



The attached matrix of immunities of foreign representatives from the same web page expounds on this rule:



Privileges and immunities – Protocol Guidelines – Diplomatic, Consular and Other Representation in Australia – Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

The same webpage also quotes this

Australia has adopted the principle - widely accepted at international law - of restricted State immunity, by which a foreign State is allowed immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts except as provided for by the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (the "FSI Act"). The FSI Act sets out a number of categories which are exceptions to the immunity of a foreign state. These exceptions include contracts of employment.
Under the FSI Act a foreign state is not immune in a proceeding concerning the employment of a person under a contract of employment that was made in Australia, or was to be performed partly or wholly within Australia. The FSI Act does not apply to cases where the employee was, at the time of the contract, a national habitual resident of the foreign State, and not a permanent resident of Australia. Nor does it apply to the employment of diplomatic or consular officers, administrative and technical officers, consular employees and service staff as defined by the VCDR and the VCCR. Therefore, the FSI Act only extends to Australian citizens and permanent residents, generally employed as locally engaged staff in a foreign mission.

Locally engaged staff - Protocol Guidelines - Diplomatic, Consular and Other Representation in Australia - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

===============

Care to read in full.

 

[asianobserve]

The same page also provides this



Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

================
Care to read in full.

The portion you quoted does not apply to Khobragade dummy. The term "diplomatic missions" applied therein applies to "embassy" officials not "consular" officials. If you care to read what I quoted from the Canadian foreign office website specifically mentions only of "consular" officials. Khobragade is only a consular official not an embassy official. That's why the GOI is transferring her to its UN diplomatic mission in New York so that she will have "full immunity." Otherwise, if she has full immunity why transfer her to the UN? Have you even wondered why this is?

Clearly, you're one of those Indians who swallow hook, line and sinker the version of your opportunistic politicians who want to make a living out of this issue even though there is no basis for the outrage. Don't buy their stories fool they are aimed at winning Dalit votes this election!

 

[asianobserve]

Okay, to all still those still feeling embittered by this episode (don't be for you're only being fooled by your politicians), just consider this:

If Ms. Khobragade really has immunity against the case filed against her in the US then why is there a need to transfer her from her current assignment at the Indian Consular Office in New York to the Indian UN Mission (also in New York)?

 

[asianobserve]

The same webpage also quotes this



Locally engaged staff - Protocol Guidelines - Diplomatic, Consular and Other Representation in Australia - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

===============

Care to read in full.

Man, you are REALLY a dummy! If you only cared to understand what you quoted you'll realize that that does not help you position instead it blasted it up sky high!

Okay, I'll explain to you in plain English what it means:

1. The first sentence alone should already have put you to notice:

Australia has adopted the principle - widely accepted at international law - of restricted State immunity

"Restricted" according to Google is -

re·strict·ed
riˈstriktid/Isumite

adjective
1. limited in extent, number, scope, or action.
"Western scientists had only restricted access to the site"
synonyms: cramped, confined, constricted, small, narrow, tight More
limited, controlled, regulated, reduced, rangebound

The term "restricted State immunity" therefore means State immunity (of foreign states) is limited in extent. Get that?

Then the next sentence introduces the "immunity exceptions," which if stated in another war is "exceptions from immunity," under the Foreign States Immunities Act of 1985 (FSI). In other words there are "exceptions" to the immunity of foreign representatives in Australia.

The second paragraph talks of employment contracts entered into by the foreign State in Australia. Thus:

Under the FSI Act a foreign state is not immune in a proceeding concerning the employment of a person under a contract of employment that was made in Australia, or was to be performed partly or wholly within Australia.

Clearly, this provision does not apply of employment contracts made in Australia in the private capacities of foreign consular employees. Instead , this Australian statement applies exclusively to employment hirings of Australian citizens by the sovereign foreign states in Australia, like a foreign embassy there hiring local employees to work in its Australian embassy.

 

[happy]

What UN immunity? She is an official of the Indian Consulate in New York not Indian Mission to the UN. The latter is what the Indian GOI is negotiating with the US, to allow her to transfer to the UN Mission of India so that she'll be given full immunity. The Americans agreed in theory but said that there's no rectroactive application of her UN immunity.

Go back and read the last few pages and enlighten yourself. It seems that you are reading only selective posts.

There is a saying .... After reading the entire Ramayana, one asked what relationship Sita had with Rama.

You are sounding like that.

 

[happy]

Okay, to all still those still feeling embittered by this episode (don't be for you're only being fooled by your politicians), just consider this:

If Ms. Khobragade really has immunity against the case filed against her in the US then why is there a need to transfer her from her current assignment at the Indian Consular Office in New York to the Indian UN Mission (also in New York)?

Dont try to be clever. Previously she was accredited to the UN. Now she is being shifted there permanently. Go and brush up your english skills, if you dont understand the difference between the two.

BTW, in both cases, she had immunity, duffer.

 

[happy]

The term "diplomatic missions" applied therein applies to "embassy" officials not "consular" officials. If you care to read what I quoted from the Canadian foreign office website specifically mentions only of "consular" officials. Khobragade is only a consular official not an embassy official. That's why the GOI is transferring her to its UN diplomatic mission in New York so that she will have "full immunity." Otherwise, if she has full immunity why transfer her to the UN? Have you even wondered why this is?

Clearly, you're one of those Indians who swallow hook, line and sinker the version of your opportunistic politicians who want to make a living out of this issue even though there is no basis for the outrage. Don't buy their stories fool they are aimed at winning Dalit votes this election!

You are a self righteous hypocrite. Why dont you say the similar way about the american consular workers ?? You term all consular workers even if he is a hired mercenary and has killed two people in the local market in broad daylight as a diplomat.....Dont give us that BS. Are you ready to be treated in the same level that you are crying out for DK ?? I guess not.

 

[pmaitra]

What UN immunity? She is an official of the Indian Consulate in New York not Indian Mission to the UN.

Read this post: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...d-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-76.html#post832198

If you need to take a coffee break, do so.

 

[pmaitra]

Okay, to all still those still feeling embittered by this episode (don't be for you're only being fooled by your politicians), just consider this:

If Ms. Khobragade really has immunity against the case filed against her in the US then why is there a need to transfer her from her current assignment at the Indian Consular Office in New York to the Indian UN Mission (also in New York)?

Because no one trusts the US. Everyone is not like you. The circumstances of this case display every indication of a conspiracy, as is usual with most scandals where it involves the US.

 

[asianobserve]

Read this post: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...d-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-76.html#post832198

If you need to take a coffee break, do so.

What is not included in that article (you think its an excuse? not really) are 3 very important things:

1. The appointment of Ms. Khobragade as stated in that electronic copy of UN accreditation took effect only on August 26, 2013 or after the complained acts were performed by her on October 15, 2012 thus already consummated before her UN immunity took effect. (I would dare speculate that this UN adviser accreditation to Indian UN Mission was a belated scheme to give Khobragade some semblance of immunity should the Americans file a criminal case against her since at that time (August 2013) the issue with her made was already out of hand.)

2. The appointment of Ms. Khobragade to India's UN Mission ended last December 31, 2013, that's why the Indian government was seeking her permanent transfer to the Indian Mission in the UN. The problem here is until when can she stay with the UN? Remember that ultimately she has to stay in the US since her husband and children are living there.

3. What is explained in your sources is that the Indian government did not notify the Americans of Khobragade's adviser status to the Indian Mission in the UN which under international law is required. To me this is an indication of the bad faith in her appointment to the UN, which by all indications appear to be an attempt at giving her a temporary full immunity route (note that on (note that in July 2013 the issue between Ms. Khobragade and her maid was already in full swing at the NYPD). They cannot send her appointment to the US Ministry of State because they knew that Ms. Khobragade at that time already have a pending compliant there. Haven't you noticed that this supposed cover is not being exhaustively used by the Indian government?

Anyway, as I said the insistence on transferring Ms. Khobragade from her Consular position in New York to India's UN Mission in New York is a recognition that she only have "limited immunity" in her latter position.

Here is a helpful material on this matter:

Devyani's full shield that India forgot to tell US

But the officials accepted that they had not informed the US state department — either directly or through the US embassy here — about Khobragade's additional role at India's UN mission before her arrest.

India is now arguing that Khobragade enjoyed the immunity she now gets as a diplomat at the UN mission already at the time of her arrest, and that her full-time shift there is only to safeguard against any "interpretation-based adventurism" by US authorities.

 

[asianobserve]

Because no one trusts the US. Everyone is not like you. The circumstances of this case display every indication of a conspiracy, as is usual with most scandals where it involves the US.

I keep repeating this, conspiracy for what? What is it that the US is trying to achieve by filing a case against Khobragade. And are you saying that it is a lie by the Americans about Khobragade's VISA fraud and false statements?

 

[pmaitra]

@asianobserve,

Yes, the prior to above post is correct. The earlier posts of yours were simply wrong.

 

[asianobserve]

You are a self righteous hypocrite.

And your a blind fool and an unwitting pawn by your politicians. Davies credentials as Technical Staff of the US EMbassy in Pakistan was duly communicated to the Pakistani authorities before he arrived. No less than the Pakistani INterior Minister declared this (I now forgot the article but I cited it earlier).

 

[asianobserve]

@asianobserve,

Yes, the prior to above post is correct. The earlier posts of yours were simply wrong.

Are you saying that I'm wrong in declaring that as a Consular Official Ms. Khobragade only has "limited immunity" under the VCCR? Because at the time her complained acts were committed she was not yet an Indian UN Mission adviser.

 

[pmaitra]

I keep repeating this, conspiracy for what? What is it that the US is trying to achieve by filing a case against Khobragade. And are you saying that it is a lie by the Americans about Khobragade's VISA fraud and false statements?

• The US case is bonafide and the diplomat was indeed paying her less than what she should have. (You are free to believe this.)
• The maid was trying to extort money and due to her connections with State Department got to use the law to her advantage.
• The nanny stole sensitive documents and GoI put an injunction on her family and then she resorted to blackmail and got the US to evacuate her family and now US is trying to hide the spying using this fake case. The maid is said to have been trafficked, yet, enjoyed medical benefits and airfare paid for by GoI. (I am more likely to believe this.)

 

[pmaitra]

Are you saying that I'm wrong in declaring that as a Consular Official Ms. Khobragade only has "limited immunity" under the VCCR?

I am saying what I am saying. Read my post again where I quoted you. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-102.html#post834976

 

[asianobserve]

*The US case is bonafide and the diplomat was indeed paying her less than what she should have. (You are free to believe this.)

Good at least you admit that. Now if the case against Ms. Khobragde is bonafide according to your own words then where's the conspiracy (by saying it's a conspiracy this is implying that the case against her is bogus or that she is only being set up)?

*The maid was trying to extort money and due to her connections with State Department got to use the law to her advantage.

You also said before that the maid was trying to get a US visa by cunningly using as an excuse Khobragade's illegal acts in the maid's visa application. Surely you should know that these two motivations cannot co-exist since the maid cannot ask for money from somebody that she is no longer going to see.

*The nanny stole sensitive documents and GoI put an injunction on her family and then she resorted to blackmail and got the US to evacuate her family and now US is trying to hide the spying using this fake case. The maid is said to have been trafficked, yet, enjoyed medical benefits and airfare paid for by GoI. (I am more likely to believe this.)
[/LIST]

This is new. Based on the events that happened after her maid has gone missing she first reported it to the NYPD for assistance to locate her (June 25, 2013). It was not until June 8, 2013 that Khobragade's husband reported to the NYPD Richard's theft/alleged larcency but did not complete the complaint process. Then neither her husband or Khobragade went to the NYPD to complete the complaint against their maid r follow up the case.

Now you might ask, why did Ms. Khobragade not immediately report to the NYPD on June 25, 2013 the alleged theft/larcency of her maid. Why only for missing persons report? Why did it take 2 weeks for them to finally report this alleged crime of the maid? Clue, these allegations are merely after-thoughts and are not true. They were maid so that they can get their hands on her maid.

And you might ask further, what sensitive information/document could the maid have gotten from the residence of Khobragde? Is Khobragade an Indian spy in the US and she was able to get sensitive American secrets that her maid got wind of? Or that she got the list of all Indian spies in the US from Khobragade's residence? Spies don't bring their secrets home you should know that by now.

Below is a link to a Reuters timeline article on the Khobragade drama, please do read it:

Timeline: Case of Devyani Khobragade, Indian diplomat arrested in New York | Reuters

 

[asianobserve]

I am saying what I am saying. Read my post again where I quoted you. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-102.html#post834976

And I'm saying that you're wrong to argue with me about Khobragade's diplomatic immunity when she only have limited immunity.

Even granting that her appointment to India's UN Mission does give her full immunity, still she cannot claim immunity against her case because the act complained of there was done prior to her appointment. Further, not even her arrest was illegal since India did not notify the Americans of her appointment to the Indian UN Mission. As far as the Americans are concerned their record at their Protocols Section indicate that Ms. Khobragade was only a consular official thus not immune from arrest.

 

[pmaitra]

Good at least you admit that.

No, I do not admit that. That is just a possibility. We do not know.

And I'm saying that you're wrong to argue with me about Khobragade's diplomatic immunity when she only have limited immunity.

You are saying a lot of things. It has been proven she had UN accreditation prior to her arrest. If not as Consular Officer of India, she had full immunity as advisor for India's UN mission.