The United States federal officials demonstrate their lack of respect for the rest of the world:
India Is Furious Over US Strip Search Of Diplomat Facing Fraud Charges
The “fraud charges” consist of this:
US authorities say she not only paid a domestic servant a fraction of the minimum wage but also lied in a visa application for the employee, an Indian national who has since absconded.
@JustMe
One thing was not entirely clear in my earlier post.
Of course no law is on the books that mandates a cavity search on any person entering a detention facility. However, the practice of searching inmates (including pretrial detainees) to maintain the order and safety of the facilities for the benefit of both the detainees and the corrections officer. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the practice is acceptable and does not constitute a violation of the 4th amendment.
The question is then whether searches should be administered to all detainees or only a sub-segment of that population, and if one prefers the latter route, who should have authority to make the decision and on what basis. In my opinion, neither Americans (nor any Canadian willing to spend a few moments to think it through) would want to see an appointed civil servant with limited accountability entrusted with the power to make these determinations.
@Blaze
I do not know that case at all, so would be unable to opine on it.
@JE On what basis was Penny Pritzker not subjected to significant penalties or arrested for failing to report $80 million in income.
It is very clear from Pritzker this and many other cases that everyone is not treated the same under US laws. How someone who did this could be appointed to Cabinet while FATCA pursues stay at home mothers in Canada, a cancer survivor in France, a retired physician in Brazil and a junior college professor in Israel blows my mind.
If the US can justify a strip and cavity search for possible visa fraud and paying less than minimum wage, the country is even more corrupt than I thought. Victoria Ferauge tweeted that she is betting US will apologize. She has more faith in them than I do.
@Blaze
As per my earlier posts, I do not see why the US would apologize for applying their laws and practices irrespective of an accused’s background and I seriously doubt that the will.
What is somewhat perplexing from the posts on these threads is that NOBODY seems concerned about the rights of the victim, who was basically trafficked into the United States and forced to work as a slave. It seems that posters are too busy venting their vengeful anger at the United States to pause a moment to contemplate her rights.
@ J.E. Gutierrez,
I find behaviour such as that alleged of the diplomat to be extremely disturbing. I’ve both worked and volunteered in immigration law and have long been concerned about exploitation of live-in workers.
However, two wrongs don’t make a right.
The rights of both parties, the alleged victim and the accused, are important. The aspect of particular interest here is the US government’s handling of the matter. I think the comments here are focusing on the US government’s behaviour in this matter, rather than the diplomat’s or the employee’s, because what we generally deal with on this site is to related the US government’s behaviour, its use and abuse of power. (We do go “off topic” from time to time here, so there’s no problem with discussing the alleged behaviour of the diplomat and/or employee – just explaining why I think it hasn’t been turning up in the comments.)
Of course, the rights of the victim should be protected. That does not justify a strip and cavity search of a representative of a foreign government.
You are a strong proponent of your country’s laws and constitution. Likewise, we are strong proponents of the laws and constitutions of our countries.
The problem is US think only their laws reign supreme in the world. They demand financial institutions violate the laws of their home countries or that those countries change their laws and even their constitutions.
Quite simply, why should they. The only reason US seems to give is because they are the biggest bully of all.
Again, US efforts would be much better focused on the real tax cheats like Penny Pritzker and not on stay at home Canadian mothers or a Brazilian retired physician in his 80s.
It is clear the US does not treat everyone the same. It is also clear they have lost all sense of what is right, just and fair. This case if the Indian diplomat is just one example of that.
The thing I can’t figure out about this whole business is why. This seems to me to be a purposeful creation of an international incident. If US concern for the rights of the victim were paramount, a US official could have quietly contacted the Indian diplomat, explained that the US government was very displeased about the facts of the matter, and demanded that the situation be corrected forthwith. If the woman refused, a behind the scenes recall of her could have been arranged with the proper Indian authorities. All without making headline news. You can bet that the local remand authorities didn’t do this on their own initiative; they would have have had precise instructions from their higher ups….way higher up.
So what did India do to piss off the US? We may never know but India/US relations are seriously damaged. I believe this is political theater but toward what end?
@maz: I suspect India will not be in a hurry to sign an IGA.
@Blaze
I find it difficult to follow your argument, assuming this is one.
The diplomat is a consul and as such only enjoys limited diplomatic privileges. Immunity only applies to whatever actions she performed as a consular representative. I hope we can agree that having a house slave fraudulently trafficked into the United States is not required for her consular position.
Whichever way you want to look at it, these are very serious charges, which would be viewed as such also in Canada. There is nothing special, or indeed extra-territorial about the laws that protect vulnerable home employees. It is perfectly just and fair that this (part time) diplomat should face charges for her actions.
I stand by the comment I made earlier that many posters here are so blinded by anger, frustration and (sadly) despair that they are unable to exercise sound judgment in what is a very straightforward situation.
@maz57
She is not a full-time diplomat but a consul with limited immunity. Her alleged actions fall under US jurisdiction and the DA has a duty to charge her.
@J.E.G.
I get your point and do not dispute it. My point is that there are a great many ways that this problem could have been quietly dealt with that would not have caused an international row. Instead somebody chose to proceed in as about as “noisy” a fashion as they could. Why? To what purpose? Where foreign diplomats and dignitaries are concerned the rules are often “bent” so as to avoid public disputes that can damage what are deemed to be the more important international relations.
In this case somebody obviously decided that India needed to be taught a lesson. Both the Indian diplomat and her nanny are mere pawns in this situation. Stuff like this does not happen by accident.
And yeah, I hope this scuttles a US/India IGA.
@J.E.G. You do seem an apologist. I wonder personally why you are on this forum because you do not seem personally affected by the laws that you purport to be justly applied against all, when in fact we know that if you have special connections within the government the laws probably don’t apply to you at all (think Jon Corzine). You seem particularly callous towards our plight, which I come to expect from ugly Americans who commit sexual assault (i.e., unwarranted cavity searches) against diplomatic guests from other countries and against their own people to boot (and this is what you are defending, really ugly behaviour).
The “victim” of whom you speak apparently has tried to commit visa fraud by using her a job working for a diplomat to make the US her permanent home and to bring her family to the United States–and she was blackmailing her boss–and this ends up being the reason why the Feds got involved in the first place. I think it is premature to call the nanny a “victim” in any case, because we don’t know whether she is really a victim or a manipulator. It depends on who you talk to. It becomes a Red Herring in any case. Was the Lady diplomat worthy of sexual assault because she paid her domestic at the normal level if she were at home in India? Is her form crime (form crime is incorrectly filling out paperwork for the US government) worthy of 10-15 years in jail? Those of us who are petrified to make a mistake on an IRS form are not in sympathy with your position.
When you call it human trafficking it certainly makes it sound terrible. But paying someone below minimum wage is not human trafficking–that is a huge exaggeration. For one thing, it doesn’t take into account whether she received room and board. In Canada, the law says that she must count the market value of the room and board as part of her before tax gross income and pay the CRA taxes on it. So let’s suppose she received a room at $1000 and board at $1000 per month (=$11.54 per month). So in addition to the three or so dollars per hour which was her monetary compensation, by Canada law, her lawful taxable compensation was probably pretty close to minimum wage. This is pretty normal by Indian standards too. So I don’t see how that equals slavery, unless you know far more about this case than you are admitting to us–it is not minimum wage in any case by Canada’s fine standards of law. Otherwise, your claim of slavery is an over the top apologetic for the Obama administration, and it suggests that you are a professional astroturfer.
All of this is irrelevant to whether we want a government that strip/cavity searches everyone brought into federal custody. That is intolerable. I want to avoid that so I think I will pretty much stay out the United States, especially Pennsylvania. But why would I want to visit a place where the ruling authorities have threatened to fine me up to 385% of my financial wealth and to throw me in a Federal Prison? And my only sin is “Form Crime”.
@Petros: Don’t you know? JE is here to show us how superior, arrogant and “constitutional” the US is compared to the rest of the world. And, how angry, frustrated and despaired we all are in comparison. All over the trivial matter of objecting our financial privacy being invaded by a foreign government in contravention of our nation’s laws and constitutions.
This case contrasted to the Penny Pritzker case is an example that everyone is not treated the same under US laws and the US constitution.
Even John Kerry expressed “regret” over the treatment of this young woman and said he empathized as the father of two daughters about the same age.
But, for JE it’s OK because it is “constitutional.” I just wish he or she would show a fraction of that respect for the constitution of other countries.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/12/john-kerry-expresses-regret-over-indian-diplomats-arrest/
@Petros
I am saddened to say that the only element of your comment that makes any sense is your stated intention to stay away from the United States. If you believe that you cannot abide by the laws of the land, as derived from the Constitution, you should indeed stay away.
The rest is really not worth debating any further. It is preposterous to equate sexual assault, a heinous crime, with an act performed by an officer of the law and specifically allowed by the Supreme Court.
The same applies to your attempts to somehow make it acceptable that privileged foreign nationals compensate their staff in the United States like they do in their home country. For the duration of their stay in America, they are subject to US law and should accept the consequences of breaking it. I am certain that you would feel the same if the events had taken place in Canada.
Finally, regarding my participating on this site, people are affected in very different ways by the issues that are regularly discussed. The fact that I do not exhibit uncontrolled rage at anything American does not mean that I do not have a stake in the debate.
@Blaze
You obviously seem to have an axe to grind regarding the Penny Pritzker situation, and frankly I have no idea of the circumstances of that case, and what connection if any it may have with the Indian consul. I am not sure what else I could add about this.
I have not made a single comment regarding FATCA in this thread, so I do not understand why it is being brought up in the context of an ad hominem attack.
I suggest we agree to keep things civil and then move on.
J.E. Gutierrez
Under similar circumstances Canada has quietly declared Consular officials persona non grata and shipped them out of the country NOT arrested them in public. So to argue Canada would wish the same treatment as the US in similar circumstances is incorrect. The US wanted to prove a point and make a big scene Canadians by their nature do not wish to do so on most occasion. You can criticize Canada for “being soft on crime” and I suspect many Brockers would gladly engage in that discussion.
@JEG, so what is your stake in this debate? It would appear to me as an apologist for the abuser. Otherwise, come out and say how you are being threatened by the United States. I said how I am: 385% fines of my financial wealth.
No one can abide by the laws of the United States. Have you checked to see how many damn laws that there are in the country. My understanding is that many illegal aliens receive lower compensation than minimum wage. That failure to pay minimum wage can become a major felony is almost unbelievable. Why pick on this lady from India?
But still, you don’t really respond to my points. And that is the point when a person who is wrong and without arguments withdraws. First, I think it is right for you to withdraw, if you cannot respond to the points I made earlier. I said that there are different ways to determine what is “Constitutional”. One is to assume that the Supreme Court, politically appointed hacks for the president, get to decide what the Constitution means. That appears to be your position. Mine is the position that an exegetical approach is preferable: if the People had wanted rectal and vaginal examinations, they would have put that explicitly in the text with language like this: “This Constitution specifically authorizes the Federal Government to carry out rectal/vaginal examinations.” Nay, the Constitution rather explicitly says that all rights of the People and the States are retained, and just because they are not listed in the Constitution explicitly, does not mean that they do not retain them. This I take to mean that the punishment of a rectal/vaginal examination is not authorized without a warrant or without first convicting the person of a crime. The Constitution says furthermore that only the powers given explicitly to the Federal Government are allowed to it.
I would thus be very happy to enter the United States if the Constitution was actually in style. Since it is a completely dead document, then I will not enter because I cannot be sure of my own safety. Thus, I must have a compelling reason to enter the United States, like losing my father in the Alaskan forest. But now that that issue is passed, I think it more reasonable to remain outside of a country with has become a serial human rights abuser. When you say that the laws must be applied equally to all people (whether or not they are a foreigner sojourning in the land, which I find quite abusive, since these people enjoy the protection of their respective countries, notwithstanding their diplomatic status), you do not really understand that the laws themselves are unjust and thus, their enforcement is by definition, human rights abuse.
Because nine fallible men and women who are political appointments say that said action is constitutional does not make it so. Nor does it make it right. Otherwise, Kim Jong Un was right to execute his uncle.
@JEG, This thread is about FATCA. I saw in the original post an analogy to FATCA: It is a law unilaterally imposed upon all the nations of the world. It is abusive and arrogant. The United States doesn’t give a damn about its relations with its allies in the world–and abuses them serially through FATCA. The abuse of Lady Diplomat is only a more visible sign of the arrogance of the United States which in manifestly on display in its imposition of FATCA upon the rest of the world.
@Tim
I have no interest in starting a general debate about the merits of US vs Canadian law enforcement philosophies. I already have a couple of highly charged posters on my case and that is plenty to handle.
The problem with the approach you suggest is that it introduces highly arbitrary judgements into the system: assume we deport the Indian (part-time) diplomat, then what do we do next time a similar (part-time) diplomat beats up his/her staff. Do we also deport? What happens if the (part-time) diplomat commits murder? Do we deport or indict?
More importantly, what do we say to the victim. Do we say ‘sorry, we did not do anything, but if you turned up with a few broken bones, things would have been different’? Or do we say ‘sorry, as long as you are not dead, there is really nothing that we are inclined to do’?
I do not think that the police force and the DA cared one bit who the Indian (part-time) diplomat was. They saw it as just another case of abusive employer-employee relationship, and acted accordingly. Frankly, I like this ‘blindness’.
@JE The comparison to Pritzker is merely to show how US applies laws and constitution very differently to different people. Pritzker was not arrested and strip searched for failing to report $80 million in income to IRS.
In any case, congratulations to US for alienating one more ally on what some believe is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/opinion/navarrette-india-strip-search/
@Petros
This is getting surreal.
The Constitution does not specifically forbids driving under the influence, so I assume that we allow drunk drivers.
Right?
Classic American Double Standard?
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/US-Action-Against-Indian-Diplomat-Classic-American-Double-Standards/2013/12/20/article1956015.ece1
Now the war of words. This CNN writer criticizes India as acting immaturely for a superpower, has overreacted and shows a poor understanding of diplomacy by in turn putting US diplomats in danger:
“First, whether or not the charges and manner of arrest were proper, the intemperate reaction of the Indian government in response shows that, despite its status as an aspiring great power, India still frequently lacks the maturity on the world stage to behave like one.
In the wake of the arrest, India announced a number of steps against U.S. diplomats, including revoking government-issued IDs for U.S. diplomats in India, stopping the U.S. Embassy from importing most goods, and most provocatively removing a concrete security barricade at the U.S. Embassy in Delhi.
The sensitivity of such a threat to the embassy cannot be taken lightly, and the willingness of the Indian government to take such a step indicates a situation in which politics has run roughshod over any sensible understanding of diplomacy.”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/opinion/carl-india-dispute-privilege/
I’d be walking the straight and narrow if I was a US diplomat in India right now.
@bubblebustin..
Thanks for the link to the CNN article. I haven’t had time to keep with with the interesting discussion with JE here, but I understand the point the writer is making. Of course, we do know that what is seen as an over reaction by an American writer is sometimes just blow back from many unilateral, arrogant and insensitive actions of the “Hegemon ” that are never fully appreciated by it at the time. Resentment does grow which plays into this type of “over reaction”. Who in America really considered that having troops stationed in Saudi Arabia might upset one of our close mujahideen allies from the Russian / Afghanistan fight? It is hard for Americans to understand how anyone could perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves?
Now, National Pride is at play, and responding to a local constituency anger is over coming better judgement on India’s part, it would seem. I am sure these Indian government reactions are popular with many Indians, but maybe not those at the call centers answering American citizen software support needs! 🙂
@J.E. Gutierrez
What is your stakes concerning FATCA?
Please tell us.
I want to know very, very much.