I am stunned and without words at your confusion about how the world works. Terrorists don't sign agreements, they murder their opponents.
I was not trying to get into a classification as to who a terrorist is.
All I am saying is whether international law, i.e. VCCR and VCDR, should be respected or not. Should I take the liberty to assume that you are saying that it is ok if international law is violated by the US?
This was not a mistake by the US DoS. It was a willful and malicious violation. India formally informed the US about the wage relationship about the maid, which is exactly what Article 47 of VCCR says, which you have conveniently misrepresented as "Indian Ambassador ignored US." Even after that, the US DoS did what it did.
DK and her handlers were imprudent in ignoring DoS request for a meeting and should have not been surprised by her arrest 3 months later.
If you keep levelling false accusations against India, I will continue to counter it. India clearly explained, in its response (no,
India did not ignore it), that it is none of US' business to determine how much SR should paid. This is consistent with Article 47 of VCCR (which the US violated).
So, instead of saying "ignoring DoS' request," I say, "India refused to toe the US line," and the arrogants in US DoS decided to teach India a lesson.
If the statement that India "ignored" US DoS' request is repeated again and again, people will get the impression that India did "ignore" US DoS' request, when the truth is that India responded to the US DoS' request.
So, let's end this charade of "upholding the law" and "being law abiding," and say, the US has 51,000 odd nuclear warheads and so it can violate international law, and the rest of the world has to put up with it. At least that would be honest.
I'll tell you something - respect is commanded, not demanded.