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.
I don’t see how such accusations can possibly justify the treatment of a diplomat with any kind of indignity whatsoever–but to force her to submit to a cavity search? Give me a break. Does the US Marshal Service humiliate members of the US government who commit the same level of so-called “fraud”. Hardly. This appears to be a very selective application of the “law”.
One protestor sums up the outrage:
“We say if any American official comes to India, even if it is the American President himself, then he should be stripped down and mistreated in the same way.”
FATCA is the proof that the United States is arrogant and disrespects the rest of the world. But actions like this are far more visible, more concrete expressions of how ugly Americans have become. This strip searching of a Indian diplomat has taken place under the watch of the administration which claimed that it would restore the US’s relations with the other nations. During Obama’s reign, however, the United States has become demonstrably more arrogant and less respectful of all the other nations of the world.
I am ashamed of this. I am ashamed of this even though I am only an ex-America.
Consider this treatment of an Indian diplomat in light of the Federal government crackdown against Indian immigrants in the United States. Through FBAR laws, the IRS has been going after their life’s savings, which they earned in India. You get the impression that this administration holds a grudge against India.
Update: India has taken away diplomat cards from the personnel in India. They have also removed security barriers leading to the embassy. Rick Moran threatens:
Removed security barriers? That’s not retaliation. That’s acting as an accessory to terrorism. The Indian government better hope no passing terrorist attacks our embassy before they come to their senses and restore the barriers.
Americans rather should be asking how high this outrage goes. Remember, Obama once visited Pakistan and his college buddy was a Pakistani. Did the US Marshals act on orders from the Nobel Peace laureate?
126 thoughts on “United States authorities stripped and cavity searched Indian diplomat”
@Petros thats “Form Crime” (with the punctuation and caps)
@All
As this thread has been unfolding I have been reading Jimmy Carter’s (as in the former president) book: Our Endangered Values – America’s Moral Crisis . I would recommend it to all. In particular I suggest chapter’s 11 (The Distortion of American Foreign Policy) and Chapter 12 (Attacking Terrorism, Not Human Rights?) President Carter concludes Chapter 12 with the following:
“It is an embarrassing tragedy to see a departure from our nation’s leadership as a champion of human rights, with the abandonment legally defended by top officials. Only the American people can redirect our government’s legal, religious and political commitments to these ancient, unchanging moral principles.”
This thread is discussing the fact that all persons – whether citizen or non-citizen – are subjected to a body cavity search:
– without having been convicted of a crime
– regardless of the crime they are charged with
First, JE notes that this thread has not spoken about the ALLEGATION (this would need to be proven in a trial) that there is a victim:
“who was basically trafficked into the United States and forced to work as a slave”.
Agreed (assuming this is true) this is a bad thing. I remind JE that in the United States that people are innocent until proven guilty (or at least we maintain the legal fiction). Hence, we must wait and see how the facts come out at trial.
But, inconveniences like burden of proof aside:
1. The treatment of the “alleged victim” is completely and absolutely irrelevant to the real issue. The real issue is whether ALL people who have been arrested, regardless of the crime alleged, should be subjected to a body cavity search, without having been convicted of that crime.
2. This continual focus of JE on the fact that the woman was NOT a full fledged diplomatic officer is also completely irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because, as I have said before, this practice, to the extent that it subjects ALL people to the cavity search is absolutely wrong and is an offense against humanity and NOT just against this woman.
Many of the previous comments have confused this issue by:
A. Focusing on the woman herself – somehow suggesting that people believe the issue is the propriety of the search of this particular woman (should she have diplomatic immunity?);
B. Confusing the substance of the practice (the content of the law) with the procedure employed (because its applied to everybody it okay).
Both substantive and procedural issues must be considered
First – The Substance Of The “Strip Search” Practice
Whether legal or not it is wrong to subject all people charged, but not convicted, regardless of the crime, to a body cavity search. The fact that the Supreme Court says it is – in certain cases – constitutional is only the beginning of the inquiry. At best it answers the question of whether government is allowed, under certain circumstances, to do the search. It doesn’t answer the question of whether it should do the search. (Remember President Clinton notes that to justify an action on the basis that you can do it is NOT a morally defensible reason to do it.)
Now, JE says that law has nothing to do with morality. Once we have the law that’s it – in fact the whole reason we have law is to remove morality from the equation. He/she then makes the assertion (in response to my suggestion that “empires crumble when law becomes a substitute for morality” that):
“Its precisely when morality, subjective judgment and other arbitrary forms of justice substitute for the rule of law that we lose the freedom we so much love.”
JE:
Those Americans subjected to this body cavity search have just lost the freedoms that we so much love. I imagine Lord Acton would say:
Laws restrict freedom and immoral laws restrict freedom immorally!
Second – The procedure
JE attempts to justify this offense against humanity on the basis that:
Since the practice is applied to all equally, it is just. In other words, we don’t care about the content of the law that is applied. We care only about whether it’s applied uniformly. Or to put it another way:
Government can abuse its citizens as long as it abuses all its citizens equally.
This is precisely the kind of thinking that leads to Americans Abroad being treated the same way as Homeland tax cheats. (Unless of course they are a Geithner or a Pritzker). Should a law requiring all detainees to stand and salute be applied to somebody with no legs? Should a law be applied to people equally who simply cannot comply with the law? (Think of Nina Olsen stating that Americans abroad cannot comply with U.S. tax laws.)
To apply a law uniformly is often to apply it unequally. And as the cases of Geithner and Pritzker demonstrate, the government does not apply the law to everyone (equally or not) anyway.
A Charter/Bill of Rights and Morality
The reason for a charter or bill of rights is to protect the world from those who believe that the only issue is the law and the application of it. A charter of rights is an attempt to ensure (not perfect) that laws are consistent with the moral values of the nation. So, it is clear that morality does matter! Laws are to be guided by the moral principles identified in the Charter/Bill of rights. These moral values include but extend far beyond process. The requirement is that the morality of law in its substance and application be at least considered.
In this case …
The Supreme court has ruled that a body cavity search will NOT violate the 4th amendment in all cases. This does NOT give governments the right to do body searches when they want. It actually sends a message that they are required to consider whether a search violates the 4th amendment.
Jimmy Carter is correct in reminding us that:
“It is an embarrassing tragedy to see a departure from our nation’s leadership as a champion of human rights, with the abandonment legally defended by top officials. Only the American people can redirect our government’s legal, religious and political commitments to these ancient, unchanging moral principles.”
Yes, the responsibility to champion human rights must come from the American people!
A 5 year old in a sand box would recognize the injustice of automatically subjecting all people charged with any offense to a body cavity search.
JE, you really should adopt the wisdom of President Carter and stop trying to defend such immoral behavior. President Carter refers to “moral principles” – do you get it?
In one of your earlier comments you say:
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.
It’s NOT applying the law – irrespective of background – that the U.S. should apologize for. It’s having a law – of this magnitude of abusiveness – in the first place. The apology (which they won’t give) is NOT owed specifically to the Diplomat. The apology is owed to the whole human race!
@Just Me
I spent 5 weeks in India earlier this year and I can only conclude that no matter how many times I’d visit there, it will forever remain an enigma to me. Any diplomat who’s been on the ground there for awhile would fully understand where the Indians are coming from. Anyone who says that Indians are overreacting have never seen a Bollywood film. This is what I wrote about India while I was there:
“Most of India hums with a collective mind. It is a country where everybody and nobody’s important. It confounds, yet is infinitely wise…and just when it threatens to infuriate you beyond your forgiveness, it manages to redeem itself in some remarkably splendid way.”
Anyway, I don’t know too much about Bharara, whether he was born and raised in India or not. But if he knew anything about Indian culture, he would have known he was lighting a tinderbox.
What a sad, vicious and unempathetic world it is where punishment is meted out before a determination of guilt has been made. And I firmly believe that this assault on this Indian woman was indeed punishment. It would be so for anyone, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of their “position” in society. JEG may object to my assessment but my mind is made up on this one so he needn’t bother. He’s probably not aware that this has happened to women, on the roadside, after having been pulled over for a simple traffic violation. Shameful, no matter what the “law” says.
I’m not a debater so I’ll leave this now for those who are but it might be better to put our energy into thinking up our next strategy to get CBT exposed and the FATCA flame extinguished.
J.E. Gutierrez wrote:
@Petros
This is getting surreal.
The Constitution does not specifically forbids driving under the influence, so I assume that we allow drunk drivers.
Right?
What is surreal is your ignorance of the Constitution. I said this:
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.
My comment is based upon the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I would think that a person’s rectum and vagina are a part of their “persons” and therefore subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Just because they are not enumerated rights, does not mean that a person does not have the right to their naked body and to their cavities (but in fact they are enumerated rights because they are covered under the term “persons”. The right to search without reasonable cause is not an enumerated power to the United States, and thus, cannot exist constitutionally. The Supreme Court was wrong.
Finally, the Eighth Amendment protects against cruel or unusual punishment. Strip search is humiliation. Cavity searches are rape. This constitutes punishment. To punish a woman with a violation of person without due process is a violation of her 5th Amendment rights: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” The Lady Diplomat, and all who are violently subjected to a cavity searches are being deprived of the freedom of the person without due process of law. Yes indeed, the Constitution is a dead document. It is not living but dead. It has been killed by a government that does not heed its requirements.
And to answer your question, laws which limit driving under the influence fall under State law, and yes, the Constitution would prevent the US from passing Federal laws to that affect, in accordance with the 10th amendment. Yet the Federal Government regularly usurps powers not given to it by the Constitution.
@UScitizen, I agree with your comment. Thanks. The US Constitution, now dead, yet remains as the one agreed upon text that indicates the type of society in which Americans expressed how they wished to live. Yet it is dead because of the flagrant manner in which the courts have interpreted it.
@All, apparently diplomats from around the world regularly employ people from their own countries at less than US minimum wage. Why did the US decide to single out the Lady Diplomat? One must remember that minimum wage laws have the effect of preventing people from working. If the nanny didn’t have the job from the diplomat, she would possibly be unemployed in India. Yet her boss couldn’t afford US minimum wage on her salary–as diplomat’s father has now pointed out–the nanny’s salary would have to exceed her boss’s. So the nanny would not have been able to travel to the US and work for the Indian diplomat if it weren’t for the under the table agreement.
Also, the nanny’s family has been brought to America to “protect” them from India. What arrogance!!!! This is paternalism at its finest. The United States has no right under international convention to “protect” citizens of India, and India is furious about this. The United States is clearly trying to find means to break of diplomatic relations with India.
Also, something to think about: Is it possible that American diplomats living in India fail to pay their domestic help US minimum wage? If so, does that make them slavers and traffickers?
@Petros
“Yet her boss couldn’t afford US minimum wage on her salary–as diplomat’s father has now pointed out–the nanny’s salary would have to exceed her boss’s”
The Lady Diplomat is making less than minimum wage???
@bubblebustin, the media has been reporting that Khobragade claimed on the allegedly fraudulant Visa application that she would pay the nanny $4500. Apparently, according to the Indian foreign minister, that $4500 was the Khobragade’s salary, not what she promised to pay the nanny. My claim was based upon a confused point in the Globe and Mail article which was repeating this apparent confusion.
I’ve also learned that the Indian government had revoked the passport of the nanny and had asked the US to return her to India. Instead, the US arrested and cavity searched her boss.
@Petros
Cavity search is no more a breach of the Fourth Amendment (or The Fifth) than the death penalty is a breach of the Eighth. The Supreme Court had rules on both and found them constitutional.
The comment the the ‘Supreme Court was wrong’ sums up your disrepect for the rule of law. It is a classic case of ‘I know better than everybody else and I will have my views prevail at any cost’.
I understand that you may not agree with the Supreme Court’s judgment on these issues, but that is what happens in a democracy: sometimes you win, other times you lose. Get a grip and accept it.
@JEG, Now you are wrong. The Fourth Amendment does guide searches of the body in US jurisprudence. Thus, it would be constitutional to search a persons cavities if a warrant is obtained based upon probable cause. Why do you feel law enforcement has to circumvent Constitutional rights by having the US Supreme Court issue fiat law? The Constitution was created and ratified through a long and arduous process, and the nine men and women on the jury dismiss Constitutional Rights through fiat.
My rejection of the US Supreme Court decision is not based upon a rejection of the rule of law but in a respect for the rule of law. I do not believe that the court makes law but it interprets it. Their interpretation is disrespectful of to the its obvious intention of the Constitution as I’ve laid out above. If you want to say I disrespect rule of law, then, you must show how I have misinterpreted the text. But you can’t do that because the Fourth Amendment is extremely clear and very inconvenient for the police state in the USA.
When the People and the States created the Constitution, they were saying it is our turn to win. Now it seems it is the Federal Government turn to win and the People lose. And no, I don’t have to accept it as though what you are saying is virtuous. What you are saying is pure evil.
But you know, you really should have a look at the posts I’ve written about how FBAR violates all of our constitutional rights as well. Still no one has contradicted me on these points. Not even some very fine lawyers who have commented on this blog. They just tell me that what I am doing is dangerous because I am actually insisting on my constitutional rights. But it has become obvious to me that FBAR and warrant-less cavity searches have much in common.
And it is quite smug of you to talk about the rule of law, when the president of the United States has absolutely no regard for the rule of law, including the laws of his own making (i.e., Obamacare). This administration decides what laws it will enforce and not enforce and it likes also to create fiat laws in a manner similar to the US Supreme Court.
@J.T. Gutierrez
You ignored my question. Why?
What is your stakes concerning FATCA?
Please tell us.
I want to know very, very much.
@Petros
The Founding Fathers determined that disputes of this nature would be resolved by petitioning the Supreme Court.
This is what the Court found in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)
[…..] assuming that pretrial detainees retain some Fourth Amendment rights upon commitment to a corrections facility, the body cavity searches do not violate that Amendment. Balancing the significant and legitimate security interests of the institution against the inmates’ privacy interests, such searches can be conducted on less than probable, cause and are not unreasonable. Pp. 441 U. S. 558-560.
That’s it. Read the full majority opinion if you so wish. It is actually very interesting.
That is the end of the story as far as anyone with a dose of good sense is concerned. Feel free to continue arguing that the Court is wrong and you are right, but that will only make you look like someone who is unable to accept the rules of democratic society.
@northernstar
What is driving this curiosity
Interesting back/forth but can I just point out – as a female – that what is being referred to as a mere “cavity search” is having someone you don’t know, stick her fingers up your vagina and “feel around” and presumably (I don’t know) do the same thing to your anus.
I’ve had yearly pelvic exams since I was a teen, had vaginal ultra-sounds when I was pregnant, and given birth (seriously, you don’t know “cavity search” until you’ve done that) but never is it simple a routine, common place thing to have a stranger digging around in your “cavities”. It always demands a bit of “suck it up and deal” and these are situations where you are consenting. A police cavity search is performed against your will because you have no ability to assert your will.
So yeah, she was assaulted. The fact that it’s legal is immaterial in the emotional sphere, and strangers up your vagina when you are powerless to say no is definitely going to provoke emotion.
JEG, re;
“Feel free to continue arguing that the Court is wrong and you are right, but that will only make you look like someone who is unable to accept the rules of democratic society.”
JEG:
Re; ..”That is the end of the story as far as anyone with a dose of good sense is concerned. Feel free to continue arguing that the Court is wrong and you are right, but that will only make you look like someone who is unable to accept the rules of democratic society.”
Apparently US lawmakers also question whether the Court is wrong. And as US lawmakers, are they (and US citizens) allowed to question the “rules of democratic society”? If citizens do not question in a democratic society, then is it truly democratic?
See for example:
AB133
Title:
AN ACT relating to the administration of justice; restricting the use of strip and visual body cavity searches of persons who are arrested for a misdemeanor and children who are detained in custody; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Introduction Date:
Monday, February 18, 2013
Summary:
Makes various changes to criminal law. (BDR 14-423)
Fiscal Notes:
Effect on Local Government: No.
Effect on the State: No.
Digest:
Section 1 of this bill prohibits the conduct of a strip search or visual body cavity search of a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor offense that does not involve a dangerous or deadly weapon, a controlled substance or violence, unless a peace officer determines, based on specific and articulable facts, that the person is concealing a weapon or other contraband. Section 1 also provides that a strip search or visual body cavity search must not be conducted unless the supervising officer on duty authorizes the search in writing which states the facts and circumstances authorizing the search. Section 1 further requires that a person conducting or present during a strip search or visual body cavity search be of the same sex as the person being searched and that the search be conducted in a private area of the jail or detention facility. Section 2 of this bill applies the same prohibitions and requirements on the use of a strip search or visual body cavity search to a child who is taken into custody and detained in a juvenile detention facility based on an allegation that the child is in need of supervision or has committed certain delinquent acts.
Primary Sponsor(s):
Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce
Assemblyman David Bobzien
Senator David Parks
Co-Sponsor(s):
Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson
Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz
Assemblyman Andy Eisen
Assemblyman Joseph Hogan
Assemblyman William Horne
Assemblywoman Dina Neal
“……..In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that two New Jersey county jails had not violated the Fourth Amendment by routinely strip searching all new detainees including those, like Albert Florence, who had been arrested for minor offenses and were unlikely to spend more than one night in jail. With 13 million Americans jailed each year, the decision could have far-reaching consequences…… ”
But,
“at least 10 states already prohibit routine strip searches without reasonable suspicion, including New Jersey. (Read the ACLU’s amicus brief submitted on behalf of former attorneys general of New Jersey.)”
So we are not the only ones who find this practice disturbing.
JEG,
‘Rule by law’, or ‘Rule of law?’:
“Fundamental Rights
Under the rule of law, fundamental rights must be effectively guaranteed. A system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under international law is at best “rule by law”.”…….. http://worldjusticeproject.org/factors/fundamental-rights
So, without respect for the other core an fundamental human rights, you have “at best “rule by law” only. The strip search may have been ‘legal’ or ‘lawful’, but that does not make it right or just or ethical or moral treatment. And, it was in conflict with other fundamental and universal human rights such as the ‘security of the person’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person.).
In Canada, for example; “…..Security of the person in section 7 consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[3] and of the right protecting the “psychological integrity” of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000)………….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person#cite_note-3
U.S. Marshals spokeswoman Nikki Credic-Barrett denied a cavity search took place on Khobragade:
Upon exiting the constitutional convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, “do we have a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
What we have now is an Orwellian Empire!
America — RIP
I had once always assumed.that the Constitution was supposed to protect everyone, including persons not convicted, and even of convicted persons. That assumption is gone.
By the way, Judge Scalia defines the newbees usage of “living constitution” as those that create their own new laws and new interpretations without usage of the original document, based upon their superior modern moral interpretations of what is right and wrong, in the Supreme Court. Not forcing legislators to actually make laws as they were supposed to have done according to the process of making laws according to judicial principles. Rowe vs Wade being a primary example.
He jokes that the constitution should be “dead” with biting sarcasm, and follows up with the comment that the constitution is “enduring”.
Otherwise, ruling by laws is easy—-just get 51% and go. You could do it just as easily on facebook, getting 51% likes for cavity searches.
BTW, the NDAA is going through the Senate at about this time–you can’t read about it in the lamestream media. There are no amendments allowed upon it, nor is there any debate allowed. It has to be either passed or not passed. So all of the FISA rules and patriot act rules and all of the Guantanemo rules will remain for rule by law. You don’t know what all is hidden inside that democratic process–it should include all of those legal laws for putting US citizens in the coldrooms at the border portals, the no fly lists, and the 100-mile-wide border stop & search programs.
Terranoia will set you free!!!
The Lady Diplomat may not have been cavity searched, but there are incidences when the arresting agency can arrange for the detainee to be exempted from the standard strip search. This request was apparently not made:
“In special cases, such as the arrest of juveniles, the arresting agency can ask that the detainee be kept separate from other prisoners, which would not require a strip search, U.S. Marshals spokeswoman Nikki Credic-Barrett said.
In the case of Khobragade, Credic-Barrett said the Marshals Service received no such instruction from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service, which carried out the arrest.”
Judging by India’s reaction, you would think that the US would have had enough of a “sensible understanding of diplomacy” and “maturity on the world stage” to foresee that granting her special treatment could have averted what may invariable be a “catastrophic blunder” on the part of the US.
@All
You may want to read and weap the following article:
According to court documents, a U.S. Department of State diplomat and her husband tricked an Ethiopian woman into accompanying them as their domestic servant to Japan, where they held her virtually as a prisoner in their home and forced her to work for them for less than $1 per hour and where the husband repeatedly raped the woman with his diplomat wife’s consent. A Virginia federal judge awarded the victim $3.3 million in damages on a default judgment against the couple. The diplomat retired from the State Department with full pension and then fled the country.
The victim, identified only as “Jane Doe,” told the court she was hired by the Howards in 2008 as a live-in housekeeper at the couple’s home in Yemen, where Linda Howard worked at the U.S. embassy. Doe says she agreed to move with the couple to Japan after Linda Howard was transferred to the embassy there and that she was promised wages of $300 per month, time off each week, health insurance and a safe place to live and work.
Once in Japan, Doe says, Russell Howard repeatedly raped her, forced her to perform oral sex and sexually assaulted her. Doe says Linda Howard was complicit in her husband’s sexual abuse, telling Doe that she should gratify her husband and make him happy. Doe, who speaks little English and no Japanese, says the Howards also used nonphysical force, such as isolation and threats of deportation, to coerce her into servitude.
And more:
Murder
Earlier this year in Kenya, an American diplomat who police say was speeding crossed the center line in his SUV and rammed into a full mini-bus, killing a father of three whose widow is six months pregnant. The embassy then rushed the American and his family out of Kenya the next day, leaving the crash victims with no financial assistance to pay for a funeral and for hospital bills for the eight or so others who were seriously injured.
“It is difficult for me to handle this matter because my kids need to go to school. They need everything, basic needs,” the widow said. “And we have no place to stay because we have to pay the rent. We have no money. … Even if my kids are sick I have no money to take them to hospital.”
The U.S. embassy commented “The embassy is fully cooperating with the Kenyan authorities as they investigate the accident and work to aid the victims.”
Ms. Kerry Howard, the community-liaison officer at the U.S. Consulate in Naples, claims she was run out of her job with the State Department after complaining about the consul general’s alleged office trysts with subordinates and hookers. One subordinate was allegedly forced to have an abortion.
Ms. Howard stated she had been bullied, harassed and forced to resign after she exposed U.S. Consul General Donald Moore’s alleged security-threatening shenanigans in the Naples, Italy, office. She explained that when she revealed allegations about her boss, State Department officials swept it under the rug, according to an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint she filed with the Department’s Office of Civil Rights. State tried to disappear the issue by transferring Moore out of the country, but now the FBI is allegedly involved.
The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo has had its share of problems. In the early part of this decade, the embassy paid-for-dormitory for domestics (so they did not have to live with their diplomatic masters) was found full of women not connected with the embassy, some of whom were prostituting themselves on and out of U.S. government property. The public restroom just outside the dorm was a known quickie spot for night time taxi drivers looking for sex. Things were handled nice and quietly by State and the story stayed out of the news and out of the taxpayers’ attention.
Thanks, Tim. I’m weeping.
Also US hypocrisy abounds overseas, so many other examples.
from Whose Security Is It? Military Violence Against Women During Peacetime by Cathleen Caron*
There remains, however, another dimension of military violence that has yet to receive significant global attention: the violence against women generated by the long-term presence of military personnel in foreign nations during times of peace. The United States currently has approximately 1,400,000 active duty military personnel on military bases in 16 countries throughout the globe. Many U.S. military personnel have been charged with acts of sexual violence toward local women. Despite the legal developments of Akayesu for crimes that occur during times of war, similar human rights violations, when committed by U.S. military personnel during times of peace, are often exempt from an effective judicial process. Japan will be used as a case study to demonstrate how jurisdictional determinations affect the judicial process for crimes against women committed by U.S. military personnel stationed abroad.
U.S. Military Presence in Times of Peace
The United States establishes bases overseas through bilateral treaties negotiated between the United States and the host countries. The terms included in these Security of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) largely depend on the negotiating power of the parties involved. Not surprising is the East-Asia/U.S. Women’s Network Against United States Militarism ‘s finding that “[host] countries with more power can get better agreements.”
Typically, SOFAs cover issues such as land lease arrangements, labor contracts, customs and duties, and jurisdiction issues. Criminal jurisdiction over acts committed by U.S. military personnel on foreign soil is divided into three categories: exclusive foreign jurisdiction, exclusive U.S. military jurisdiction, and concurrent jurisdiction. These categories determine whether a host country will try U.S. servicemen accused of criminal offenses in its own courts or whether the U.S. military judicial system will handle the cases.
… etc.
from such as Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
Its May 2005 report on the overseas basing structure is harshly critical of sloppy work at the Pentagon, particularly with regard to base construction and accounting for the funds it spends, something unusual in our “imperial presidential” system. Most Americans do not know that some “host nations” for our military bases abroad pay large sums to the United States to support our presence in their countries. Somewhat like the Romans of old, who taxed their colonies mercilessly, the Americans have added a modern basing twist to military imperialism. They have convinced sovereign nations in which our bases are located that they have an obligation to help pay for them in order to deter our common enemies. This is called “burden sharing.” Japan spends by far the largest amount of any nation—$4.4 billion in 2002—and every year tries to get its share cut. Perhaps whenever Japan finally succeeds in lowering its “host nation support,” the Pentagon will start moving our troops and airmen out of the numerous unneeded locations there. Until then, however, Japan’s American outposts are too lucrative and comfortable for the Pentagon to contemplate relocating them. On a per capita basis, the small but rich emirates of the Persian Gulf are the biggest spenders on this form of protection money. Bahrain pays a total of $53.4 million, Kuwait $252.98 million, Qatar $81.3 million, and the United Arab Emirates $217.4 million.25 The Overseas Basing Commission noted that Germany paid $1.6 billion in 2002 dollars for its U.S. bases, Spain $127.6 million, Turkey $116.8 million, and the Republic of Korea $842.8 million. Yet these are the key nations the Pentagon wants to punish for their lack of cooperation on Iraq. If the United States actually brings its troops home, the host-nation support will have to come from the U.S. taxpayer.
@Petros thats “Form Crime” (with the punctuation and caps)
@All
As this thread has been unfolding I have been reading Jimmy Carter’s (as in the former president) book: Our Endangered Values – America’s Moral Crisis . I would recommend it to all. In particular I suggest chapter’s 11 (The Distortion of American Foreign Policy) and Chapter 12 (Attacking Terrorism, Not Human Rights?) President Carter concludes Chapter 12 with the following:
This thread is discussing the fact that all persons – whether citizen or non-citizen – are subjected to a body cavity search:
– without having been convicted of a crime
– regardless of the crime they are charged with
First, JE notes that this thread has not spoken about the ALLEGATION (this would need to be proven in a trial) that there is a victim:
Agreed (assuming this is true) this is a bad thing. I remind JE that in the United States that people are innocent until proven guilty (or at least we maintain the legal fiction). Hence, we must wait and see how the facts come out at trial.
But, inconveniences like burden of proof aside:
1. The treatment of the “alleged victim” is completely and absolutely irrelevant to the real issue. The real issue is whether ALL people who have been arrested, regardless of the crime alleged, should be subjected to a body cavity search, without having been convicted of that crime.
2. This continual focus of JE on the fact that the woman was NOT a full fledged diplomatic officer is also completely irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because, as I have said before, this practice, to the extent that it subjects ALL people to the cavity search is absolutely wrong and is an offense against humanity and NOT just against this woman.
Many of the previous comments have confused this issue by:
A. Focusing on the woman herself – somehow suggesting that people believe the issue is the propriety of the search of this particular woman (should she have diplomatic immunity?);
B. Confusing the substance of the practice (the content of the law) with the procedure employed (because its applied to everybody it okay).
Both substantive and procedural issues must be considered
First – The Substance Of The “Strip Search” Practice
Whether legal or not it is wrong to subject all people charged, but not convicted, regardless of the crime, to a body cavity search. The fact that the Supreme Court says it is – in certain cases – constitutional is only the beginning of the inquiry. At best it answers the question of whether government is allowed, under certain circumstances, to do the search. It doesn’t answer the question of whether it should do the search. (Remember President Clinton notes that to justify an action on the basis that you can do it is NOT a morally defensible reason to do it.)
Now, JE says that law has nothing to do with morality. Once we have the law that’s it – in fact the whole reason we have law is to remove morality from the equation. He/she then makes the assertion (in response to my suggestion that “empires crumble when law becomes a substitute for morality” that):
“Its precisely when morality, subjective judgment and other arbitrary forms of justice substitute for the rule of law that we lose the freedom we so much love.”
JE:
Those Americans subjected to this body cavity search have just lost the freedoms that we so much love. I imagine Lord Acton would say:
Laws restrict freedom and immoral laws restrict freedom immorally!
Second – The procedure
JE attempts to justify this offense against humanity on the basis that:
Since the practice is applied to all equally, it is just. In other words, we don’t care about the content of the law that is applied. We care only about whether it’s applied uniformly. Or to put it another way:
Government can abuse its citizens as long as it abuses all its citizens equally.
This is precisely the kind of thinking that leads to Americans Abroad being treated the same way as Homeland tax cheats. (Unless of course they are a Geithner or a Pritzker). Should a law requiring all detainees to stand and salute be applied to somebody with no legs? Should a law be applied to people equally who simply cannot comply with the law? (Think of Nina Olsen stating that Americans abroad cannot comply with U.S. tax laws.)
To apply a law uniformly is often to apply it unequally. And as the cases of Geithner and Pritzker demonstrate, the government does not apply the law to everyone (equally or not) anyway.
A Charter/Bill of Rights and Morality
The reason for a charter or bill of rights is to protect the world from those who believe that the only issue is the law and the application of it. A charter of rights is an attempt to ensure (not perfect) that laws are consistent with the moral values of the nation. So, it is clear that morality does matter! Laws are to be guided by the moral principles identified in the Charter/Bill of rights. These moral values include but extend far beyond process. The requirement is that the morality of law in its substance and application be at least considered.
In this case …
The Supreme court has ruled that a body cavity search will NOT violate the 4th amendment in all cases. This does NOT give governments the right to do body searches when they want. It actually sends a message that they are required to consider whether a search violates the 4th amendment.
Jimmy Carter is correct in reminding us that:
Yes, the responsibility to champion human rights must come from the American people!
A 5 year old in a sand box would recognize the injustice of automatically subjecting all people charged with any offense to a body cavity search.
JE, you really should adopt the wisdom of President Carter and stop trying to defend such immoral behavior. President Carter refers to “moral principles” – do you get it?
In one of your earlier comments you say:
It’s NOT applying the law – irrespective of background – that the U.S. should apologize for. It’s having a law – of this magnitude of abusiveness – in the first place. The apology (which they won’t give) is NOT owed specifically to the Diplomat. The apology is owed to the whole human race!
@Just Me
I spent 5 weeks in India earlier this year and I can only conclude that no matter how many times I’d visit there, it will forever remain an enigma to me. Any diplomat who’s been on the ground there for awhile would fully understand where the Indians are coming from. Anyone who says that Indians are overreacting have never seen a Bollywood film. This is what I wrote about India while I was there:
“Most of India hums with a collective mind. It is a country where everybody and nobody’s important. It confounds, yet is infinitely wise…and just when it threatens to infuriate you beyond your forgiveness, it manages to redeem itself in some remarkably splendid way.”
Anyway, I don’t know too much about Bharara, whether he was born and raised in India or not. But if he knew anything about Indian culture, he would have known he was lighting a tinderbox.
What a sad, vicious and unempathetic world it is where punishment is meted out before a determination of guilt has been made. And I firmly believe that this assault on this Indian woman was indeed punishment. It would be so for anyone, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of their “position” in society. JEG may object to my assessment but my mind is made up on this one so he needn’t bother. He’s probably not aware that this has happened to women, on the roadside, after having been pulled over for a simple traffic violation. Shameful, no matter what the “law” says.
I’m not a debater so I’ll leave this now for those who are but it might be better to put our energy into thinking up our next strategy to get CBT exposed and the FATCA flame extinguished.
J.E. Gutierrez wrote:
What is surreal is your ignorance of the Constitution. I said this:
My comment is based upon the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I would think that a person’s rectum and vagina are a part of their “persons” and therefore subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Just because they are not enumerated rights, does not mean that a person does not have the right to their naked body and to their cavities (but in fact they are enumerated rights because they are covered under the term “persons”. The right to search without reasonable cause is not an enumerated power to the United States, and thus, cannot exist constitutionally. The Supreme Court was wrong.
Finally, the Eighth Amendment protects against cruel or unusual punishment. Strip search is humiliation. Cavity searches are rape. This constitutes punishment. To punish a woman with a violation of person without due process is a violation of her 5th Amendment rights: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” The Lady Diplomat, and all who are violently subjected to a cavity searches are being deprived of the freedom of the person without due process of law. Yes indeed, the Constitution is a dead document. It is not living but dead. It has been killed by a government that does not heed its requirements.
And to answer your question, laws which limit driving under the influence fall under State law, and yes, the Constitution would prevent the US from passing Federal laws to that affect, in accordance with the 10th amendment. Yet the Federal Government regularly usurps powers not given to it by the Constitution.
@UScitizen, I agree with your comment. Thanks. The US Constitution, now dead, yet remains as the one agreed upon text that indicates the type of society in which Americans expressed how they wished to live. Yet it is dead because of the flagrant manner in which the courts have interpreted it.
@All, apparently diplomats from around the world regularly employ people from their own countries at less than US minimum wage. Why did the US decide to single out the Lady Diplomat? One must remember that minimum wage laws have the effect of preventing people from working. If the nanny didn’t have the job from the diplomat, she would possibly be unemployed in India. Yet her boss couldn’t afford US minimum wage on her salary–as diplomat’s father has now pointed out–the nanny’s salary would have to exceed her boss’s. So the nanny would not have been able to travel to the US and work for the Indian diplomat if it weren’t for the under the table agreement.
Also, the nanny’s family has been brought to America to “protect” them from India. What arrogance!!!! This is paternalism at its finest. The United States has no right under international convention to “protect” citizens of India, and India is furious about this. The United States is clearly trying to find means to break of diplomatic relations with India.
Also, something to think about: Is it possible that American diplomats living in India fail to pay their domestic help US minimum wage? If so, does that make them slavers and traffickers?
@Petros
“Yet her boss couldn’t afford US minimum wage on her salary–as diplomat’s father has now pointed out–the nanny’s salary would have to exceed her boss’s”
The Lady Diplomat is making less than minimum wage???
@bubblebustin, the media has been reporting that Khobragade claimed on the allegedly fraudulant Visa application that she would pay the nanny $4500. Apparently, according to the Indian foreign minister, that $4500 was the Khobragade’s salary, not what she promised to pay the nanny. My claim was based upon a confused point in the Globe and Mail article which was repeating this apparent confusion.
I’ve also learned that the Indian government had revoked the passport of the nanny and had asked the US to return her to India. Instead, the US arrested and cavity searched her boss.
@Petros
Cavity search is no more a breach of the Fourth Amendment (or The Fifth) than the death penalty is a breach of the Eighth. The Supreme Court had rules on both and found them constitutional.
The comment the the ‘Supreme Court was wrong’ sums up your disrepect for the rule of law. It is a classic case of ‘I know better than everybody else and I will have my views prevail at any cost’.
I understand that you may not agree with the Supreme Court’s judgment on these issues, but that is what happens in a democracy: sometimes you win, other times you lose. Get a grip and accept it.
@JEG, Now you are wrong. The Fourth Amendment does guide searches of the body in US jurisprudence. Thus, it would be constitutional to search a persons cavities if a warrant is obtained based upon probable cause. Why do you feel law enforcement has to circumvent Constitutional rights by having the US Supreme Court issue fiat law? The Constitution was created and ratified through a long and arduous process, and the nine men and women on the jury dismiss Constitutional Rights through fiat.
My rejection of the US Supreme Court decision is not based upon a rejection of the rule of law but in a respect for the rule of law. I do not believe that the court makes law but it interprets it. Their interpretation is disrespectful of to the its obvious intention of the Constitution as I’ve laid out above. If you want to say I disrespect rule of law, then, you must show how I have misinterpreted the text. But you can’t do that because the Fourth Amendment is extremely clear and very inconvenient for the police state in the USA.
When the People and the States created the Constitution, they were saying it is our turn to win. Now it seems it is the Federal Government turn to win and the People lose. And no, I don’t have to accept it as though what you are saying is virtuous. What you are saying is pure evil.
But you know, you really should have a look at the posts I’ve written about how FBAR violates all of our constitutional rights as well. Still no one has contradicted me on these points. Not even some very fine lawyers who have commented on this blog. They just tell me that what I am doing is dangerous because I am actually insisting on my constitutional rights. But it has become obvious to me that FBAR and warrant-less cavity searches have much in common.
And it is quite smug of you to talk about the rule of law, when the president of the United States has absolutely no regard for the rule of law, including the laws of his own making (i.e., Obamacare). This administration decides what laws it will enforce and not enforce and it likes also to create fiat laws in a manner similar to the US Supreme Court.
@J.T. Gutierrez
You ignored my question. Why?
What is your stakes concerning FATCA?
Please tell us.
I want to know very, very much.
@Petros
The Founding Fathers determined that disputes of this nature would be resolved by petitioning the Supreme Court.
This is what the Court found in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)
[…..] assuming that pretrial detainees retain some Fourth Amendment rights upon commitment to a corrections facility, the body cavity searches do not violate that Amendment. Balancing the significant and legitimate security interests of the institution against the inmates’ privacy interests, such searches can be conducted on less than probable, cause and are not unreasonable. Pp. 441 U. S. 558-560.
That’s it. Read the full majority opinion if you so wish. It is actually very interesting.
That is the end of the story as far as anyone with a dose of good sense is concerned. Feel free to continue arguing that the Court is wrong and you are right, but that will only make you look like someone who is unable to accept the rules of democratic society.
@northernstar
What is driving this curiosity
Interesting back/forth but can I just point out – as a female – that what is being referred to as a mere “cavity search” is having someone you don’t know, stick her fingers up your vagina and “feel around” and presumably (I don’t know) do the same thing to your anus.
I’ve had yearly pelvic exams since I was a teen, had vaginal ultra-sounds when I was pregnant, and given birth (seriously, you don’t know “cavity search” until you’ve done that) but never is it simple a routine, common place thing to have a stranger digging around in your “cavities”. It always demands a bit of “suck it up and deal” and these are situations where you are consenting. A police cavity search is performed against your will because you have no ability to assert your will.
So yeah, she was assaulted. The fact that it’s legal is immaterial in the emotional sphere, and strangers up your vagina when you are powerless to say no is definitely going to provoke emotion.
JEG, re;
“Feel free to continue arguing that the Court is wrong and you are right, but that will only make you look like someone who is unable to accept the rules of democratic society.”
In a broad sense – as broad as your statement, there have been many many instances where the ‘rules of democratic society” in US history codified and legalized discrimination and injustices – denied civil and human rights to women http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=13&title.raw=19th%20Amendment%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%3A%20Women%27s%20Right%20to%20Vote , African-Americans http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1761.html http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/covenant.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws , native Americans ex. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html , Japanese-Americans http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/japanese_internment/internment_menu.cfm , etc.
Should Martin Luther King and other American heroes have ‘accepted’ those ‘rules of democratic society’?
Cavity searches are already a contested area of civil rights and constitutionality in the US:
http://www.aclumaine.org/aclu-maine-issues-warning-sheriffs-strip-searches-0
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/dec/20/aclu-sues-feds-over-cavity-searches-us-mexico-bord/
https://www.aclu.org/invasive-search
http://aclu-co.org/case/when-a-strip-search-isnt-enough-denvers-degrading-addition-to-searching-women
http://my.firedoglake.com/aclu/2009/12/31/aclu-opposes-body-cavity-searches-for-all-airline-passengers/
JEG:
Re; ..”That is the end of the story as far as anyone with a dose of good sense is concerned. Feel free to continue arguing that the Court is wrong and you are right, but that will only make you look like someone who is unable to accept the rules of democratic society.”
Apparently US lawmakers also question whether the Court is wrong. And as US lawmakers, are they (and US citizens) allowed to question the “rules of democratic society”? If citizens do not question in a democratic society, then is it truly democratic?
See for example:
AB133
Title:
AN ACT relating to the administration of justice; restricting the use of strip and visual body cavity searches of persons who are arrested for a misdemeanor and children who are detained in custody; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Introduction Date:
Monday, February 18, 2013
Summary:
Makes various changes to criminal law. (BDR 14-423)
Fiscal Notes:
Effect on Local Government: No.
Effect on the State: No.
Digest:
Section 1 of this bill prohibits the conduct of a strip search or visual body cavity search of a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor offense that does not involve a dangerous or deadly weapon, a controlled substance or violence, unless a peace officer determines, based on specific and articulable facts, that the person is concealing a weapon or other contraband. Section 1 also provides that a strip search or visual body cavity search must not be conducted unless the supervising officer on duty authorizes the search in writing which states the facts and circumstances authorizing the search. Section 1 further requires that a person conducting or present during a strip search or visual body cavity search be of the same sex as the person being searched and that the search be conducted in a private area of the jail or detention facility. Section 2 of this bill applies the same prohibitions and requirements on the use of a strip search or visual body cavity search to a child who is taken into custody and detained in a juvenile detention facility based on an allegation that the child is in need of supervision or has committed certain delinquent acts.
Primary Sponsor(s):
Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce
Assemblyman David Bobzien
Senator David Parks
Co-Sponsor(s):
Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson
Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz
Assemblyman Andy Eisen
Assemblyman Joseph Hogan
Assemblyman William Horne
Assemblywoman Dina Neal
https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/77th2013/App#/77th2013/Bill/Overview/AB133
@J.E. Gutierrez
Why are you dodging my question?
The technique of dodging question is when some one is hiding something. I investigated fraud and your evasion to questions arouses my gut instincts.
@JEG,
Here is some context and nuance to the consequences of considering the Supreme Court ruling:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/supreme-court-says-jails-can-strip-search-you-even-traffic-violations
“……..In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that two New Jersey county jails had not violated the Fourth Amendment by routinely strip searching all new detainees including those, like Albert Florence, who had been arrested for minor offenses and were unlikely to spend more than one night in jail. With 13 million Americans jailed each year, the decision could have far-reaching consequences…… ”
But,
“at least 10 states already prohibit routine strip searches without reasonable suspicion, including New Jersey. (Read the ACLU’s amicus brief submitted on behalf of former attorneys general of New Jersey.)”
So we are not the only ones who find this practice disturbing.
JEG,
‘Rule by law’, or ‘Rule of law?’:
“Fundamental Rights
Under the rule of law, fundamental rights must be effectively guaranteed. A system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under international law is at best “rule by law”.”……..
http://worldjusticeproject.org/factors/fundamental-rights
So, without respect for the other core an fundamental human rights, you have “at best “rule by law” only. The strip search may have been ‘legal’ or ‘lawful’, but that does not make it right or just or ethical or moral treatment. And, it was in conflict with other fundamental and universal human rights such as the ‘security of the person’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person.).
In Canada, for example; “…..Security of the person in section 7 consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[3] and of the right protecting the “psychological integrity” of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000)………….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person#cite_note-3
U.S. Marshals spokeswoman Nikki Credic-Barrett denied a cavity search took place on Khobragade:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/india-usa-stripsearches-khobragade-idINDEE9BJ01Z20131220
Upon exiting the constitutional convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, “do we have a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
What we have now is an Orwellian Empire!
America — RIP
I had once always assumed.that the Constitution was supposed to protect everyone, including persons not convicted, and even of convicted persons. That assumption is gone.
By the way, Judge Scalia defines the newbees usage of “living constitution” as those that create their own new laws and new interpretations without usage of the original document, based upon their superior modern moral interpretations of what is right and wrong, in the Supreme Court. Not forcing legislators to actually make laws as they were supposed to have done according to the process of making laws according to judicial principles. Rowe vs Wade being a primary example.
He jokes that the constitution should be “dead” with biting sarcasm, and follows up with the comment that the constitution is “enduring”.
Otherwise, ruling by laws is easy—-just get 51% and go. You could do it just as easily on facebook, getting 51% likes for cavity searches.
BTW, the NDAA is going through the Senate at about this time–you can’t read about it in the lamestream media. There are no amendments allowed upon it, nor is there any debate allowed. It has to be either passed or not passed. So all of the FISA rules and patriot act rules and all of the Guantanemo rules will remain for rule by law. You don’t know what all is hidden inside that democratic process–it should include all of those legal laws for putting US citizens in the coldrooms at the border portals, the no fly lists, and the 100-mile-wide border stop & search programs.
Terranoia will set you free!!!
The Lady Diplomat may not have been cavity searched, but there are incidences when the arresting agency can arrange for the detainee to be exempted from the standard strip search. This request was apparently not made:
“In special cases, such as the arrest of juveniles, the arresting agency can ask that the detainee be kept separate from other prisoners, which would not require a strip search, U.S. Marshals spokeswoman Nikki Credic-Barrett said.
In the case of Khobragade, Credic-Barrett said the Marshals Service received no such instruction from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service, which carried out the arrest.”
Judging by India’s reaction, you would think that the US would have had enough of a “sensible understanding of diplomacy” and “maturity on the world stage” to foresee that granting her special treatment could have averted what may invariable be a “catastrophic blunder” on the part of the US.
@All
You may want to read and weap the following article:
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/12/18/diplomatic-abuse-of-servants-not-just-for-indians/
According to court documents, a U.S. Department of State diplomat and her husband tricked an Ethiopian woman into accompanying them as their domestic servant to Japan, where they held her virtually as a prisoner in their home and forced her to work for them for less than $1 per hour and where the husband repeatedly raped the woman with his diplomat wife’s consent. A Virginia federal judge awarded the victim $3.3 million in damages on a default judgment against the couple. The diplomat retired from the State Department with full pension and then fled the country.
The victim, identified only as “Jane Doe,” told the court she was hired by the Howards in 2008 as a live-in housekeeper at the couple’s home in Yemen, where Linda Howard worked at the U.S. embassy. Doe says she agreed to move with the couple to Japan after Linda Howard was transferred to the embassy there and that she was promised wages of $300 per month, time off each week, health insurance and a safe place to live and work.
Once in Japan, Doe says, Russell Howard repeatedly raped her, forced her to perform oral sex and sexually assaulted her. Doe says Linda Howard was complicit in her husband’s sexual abuse, telling Doe that she should gratify her husband and make him happy. Doe, who speaks little English and no Japanese, says the Howards also used nonphysical force, such as isolation and threats of deportation, to coerce her into servitude.
And more:
Murder
Earlier this year in Kenya, an American diplomat who police say was speeding crossed the center line in his SUV and rammed into a full mini-bus, killing a father of three whose widow is six months pregnant. The embassy then rushed the American and his family out of Kenya the next day, leaving the crash victims with no financial assistance to pay for a funeral and for hospital bills for the eight or so others who were seriously injured.
“It is difficult for me to handle this matter because my kids need to go to school. They need everything, basic needs,” the widow said. “And we have no place to stay because we have to pay the rent. We have no money. … Even if my kids are sick I have no money to take them to hospital.”
The U.S. embassy commented “The embassy is fully cooperating with the Kenyan authorities as they investigate the accident and work to aid the victims.”
Ms. Kerry Howard, the community-liaison officer at the U.S. Consulate in Naples, claims she was run out of her job with the State Department after complaining about the consul general’s alleged office trysts with subordinates and hookers. One subordinate was allegedly forced to have an abortion.
Ms. Howard stated she had been bullied, harassed and forced to resign after she exposed U.S. Consul General Donald Moore’s alleged security-threatening shenanigans in the Naples, Italy, office. She explained that when she revealed allegations about her boss, State Department officials swept it under the rug, according to an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint she filed with the Department’s Office of Civil Rights. State tried to disappear the issue by transferring Moore out of the country, but now the FBI is allegedly involved.
The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo has had its share of problems. In the early part of this decade, the embassy paid-for-dormitory for domestics (so they did not have to live with their diplomatic masters) was found full of women not connected with the embassy, some of whom were prostituting themselves on and out of U.S. government property. The public restroom just outside the dorm was a known quickie spot for night time taxi drivers looking for sex. Things were handled nice and quietly by State and the story stayed out of the news and out of the taxpayers’ attention.
Thanks, Tim. I’m weeping.
Also US hypocrisy abounds overseas, so many other examples.
US wants its police in Canada AND exempt from Canadian law.
or at US military bases abroad during peacetime:
from Whose Security Is It? Military Violence Against Women During Peacetime by Cathleen Caron*
from such as Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
Pingback: The two faces of #FATCA: Public for the banks and private for #Americansabroad | U.S. Persons Abroad - Members of a Unique Tax, Form and Penalty Club