Ship of Fools: We treat everybody that way

Thread: We treat everybody that way Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026873

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

As reported earlier this week:

quote:
The arrest and detention of an Indian consular official in New York on visa fraud charges has created a diplomatic uproar. . . . Devyani Khobragade . . . was held in a cell with other women and subjected to a strip search that included a cavity search. . . . Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Khobragade's treatment "deplorable," and Indian National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon called it "barbaric.".

The United States' response?

quote:
The U.S. Marshals Service said her treatment was standard procedure.

Yeah, we treat everyone deplorably and barbarically.

When will our government stop making us ashamed to be Americans?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Would the USA be so cool with this if it were one of their people in New Delhi who had their diplomatic passport ignored and was digitally raped?

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

According to this morning The Hindu, arguably the best "serious" paper here, John Kerry has called the National Security Adviser here to try and smooth things over. The Indian Government is treating the whole affair VERY seriously.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Including moving the traffic calmers around the embassy, which should make it easier for rioters. [Devil]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

A cavity search? She must have been clinching her butt in a suspicious manner.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Would the USA be so cool with this if it were one of their people in New Delhi who had their diplomatic passport ignored and was digitally raped?

She was a consular official, so doesn't have the same level of diplomatic immunity as, say, an ambassador. (She has, I gather, now been reassigned to the Indian mission to the UN, in order to acquire such immunity.)

Ms. Khobragade should, in fact, be treated in exactly the same way as anyone else suspected of visa fraud and multiple breaches of employment law.

A strip (and possibly cavity) search makes sense for anyone being admitted to prison, and probably also for anyone being placed in a shared lockup at the local cop shop.

I am a little confused as to why the whole lock-up process was necessary, though. It seems rather unnecessary - it's not like locking her up is preventing further crimes, and she was released after a few hours so apparently nobody cares that she's an obvious flight risk, so what is the point of the locking-up process at all? Just charge her and hand her a summons.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Somebody in the US Marshal Service blithely misunderstood the international attention possible from their actions. ...Somebody who was in a position to know better, and to ensure it was handled more discreetly or appropriately. ...Somebody who should be discreetly and appropriately reamed out, and have their career ended.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Somebody in the US Marshal Service blithely misunderstood the international attention possible from their actions. ...Somebody who was in a position to know better, and to ensure it was handled more discreetly or appropriately. ...Somebody who should be discreetly and appropriately reamed out, and have their career ended.

It was stupid, yes. And quite unnecessary, no matter who she is, given what she is accused of. IIRC, there have been prominent US citizens who've done much the same. They did not receive the same treatment.
Discreetly reamed out? No, in Central Park. At noon.

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Including moving the traffic calmers around the embassy, which should make it easier for rioters.

Someone, who has naught to do with what happened to Devyani Khobragade, could be injured or die.
Hmmm, yeah, I can see the humour in this.
"Oooh, I'm angry about what happened. Let's go punish someone with only a tenuous connection to the perpetrators. It'll be a laugh."

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I don't understand why a strip and cavity search are required for everyone. In the UK there has to be specific grounds for doing so eg. strong suspicion of drug concealment. It certainly isn't common practice. As I understand it women are never fully strip searched - they do the top half, then the bottom half and cavity searches are relatively rare.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
A cavity search? She must have been clinching her butt in a suspicious manner.

I can't seem to find the part of the article where it says she had a cavity search (or maybe the article changed).

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I don't understand why a strip and cavity search are required for everyone.

I think it depends a lot on location in the US. Unfortunately it is the case that

quote:
the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment allows strip searches of "every detainee who will be admitted to the general population" of a jail, no matter how how minor his offense.

On the bright side, if enough rich and powerful people get treated a certain way, maybe more Americans will wake up to the things happening in our criminal injustice system.

Yeah, OK, wishful delusional thinking, I know.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
A cavity search? She must have been clinching her butt in a suspicious manner.
I can't seem to find the part of the article where it says she had a cavity search (or maybe the article changed).

It appears to have been changed. The OP was quoting from what appears to have the original article.

It sure reminded me of this article that I did a hell call on a while back.

The idea that strip searches, cavity searches and the like is routine so we shouldn't get our shorts in a twist is a load of crap. I guess our government should tell her to look on the bright side. She wasn't given the Miriam Carey treatment.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I am a little confused as to why the whole lock-up process was necessary, though. It seems rather unnecessary - it's not like locking her up is preventing further crimes, and she was released after a few hours so apparently nobody cares that she's an obvious flight risk, so what is the point of the locking-up process at all? Just charge her and hand her a summons.

She was released after $250,000 bail was posted, which suggests some concern about the flight risk.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

In other news, USA diplomats in India have, as of midnight, had their airport passes revoked, and must now queue with the common herd to enter and leave the country, and must pay the current rate of duty on all incoming packages from the United States.

Puir lambs.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Whether or not the official has been misbehaving, I think this is an insightful statement:

quote:
"America must understand that the world has changed, times have changed and India has changed," Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath told reporters.

India has a mission on its way to Mars. China has a rover on the Moon. The dollar is no longer the world's only global currency. The world stage is shifting. The US appears to think it can simply ride out the storm and carry on as before.

[ 20. December 2013, 08:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I must say I'm still finding the whole situation a bit puzzling. If someone's being underpaid then I'm sure that person would have a civil action, but I'm not sure I grasp WHY that would lead to criminal charges for 'visa fraud'. What interest does the State really have in the maid's pay?

EDIT: Having said all that, this statement does paint a rather radically different picture of what's been going on.

[ 20. December 2013, 09:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What interest does the State really have in the maid's pay?

If paying an employee the legal minimum wage is an explicit condition of being granted a visa for their entry into the country, then it's very much in the State's interest to ensure that that condition is being complied with.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

That is certainly the US spin on the matter (and I note how clever of them to dredge up a PIO to make it), but the Indian government sees it rather differently. An op-ed here makes the case that US interprets convention regarding consular and diplomatic staff and employees rather narrowly in their land, but liberally overseas to insinuate their spies and contractors in other lands. Their exalted view of their own people overseas and their reluctance to participate in international courts, for example, is an example of this sense of superiority.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes, that rather came into the "carry on as before" part of my post above.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
An op-ed here makes the case that US interprets convention regarding consular and diplomatic staff and employees rather narrowly in their land, but liberally overseas to insinuate their spies and contractors in other lands. Their exalted view of their own people overseas and their reluctance to participate in international courts, for example, is an example of this sense of superiority.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Either it's OK to insist that your consular and diplomatic staff should be able to break any laws of the host country they like or it's not - you don't really get to say the USA shouldn't do something while using the fact that they do to justify doing it yourself.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
An op-ed here makes the case that US interprets convention regarding consular and diplomatic staff and employees rather narrowly in their land, but liberally overseas to insinuate their spies and contractors in other lands. Their exalted view of their own people overseas and their reluctance to participate in international courts, for example, is an example of this sense of superiority.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Either it's OK to insist that your consular and diplomatic staff should be able to break any laws of the host country they like or it's not - you don't really get to say the USA shouldn't do something while using the fact that they do to justify doing it yourself.

Like paying the congestion charge?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Here's another one.

It is just one of the many reasons we perceive our own government as our biggest threat.

brief article

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

?!?! How in the bloody hell can you justify charging people thousands of dollars for body searches they didn't want?!?!

That's just obscene. Putting aside all the other things that are wrong about cases like that, if governments claim the right to perform invasive procedures on people, governments can bloody well start by paying for the procedures.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

If I understand it correctly, the border cops gave her a choice of signing the consent form or being billed. What a load.

Posted by maleveque (# 132) on :

She was not cavity searched.
She was holding a domestic servant in involuntary servitude. That's also called 'slavery'. She lied on her visa application for her domestic servant. That's visa fraud.
I live in an area where slaves are rescued with stunning regularity. Most of them are held in slavery by international workers stationed here - embassy staff and the like, but also World Bank types and other international organizations.
No one is talking about the victim here. Sangeeta Richard's family had to be rescued from India, after being arrested there in retaliation.
Who's the real victim? Slave or slaver?
- Anne L.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by maleveque:
No one is talking about the victim here.

No, the thread isn't about the victim. No one disputes that a grave injustice was in all likelihood committed against the unfortunate woman. The thread is about the barbaric, degrading treatment by the nation that fancies itself the most civilized on earth afforded to persons who are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Agreed. No one really disputes that this person needed to Dealt With, if found guilty. The fundamental aims of the US Marshals is one I think most would philosophically agree with: law enforcement.

BUT. It takes a special kind of stupid to bumble a basic law enforcement endeavour into an international shitshow. OF COURSE this person was going to squeal with a very loud megaphone; was it really so hard to get in front of that? And giving her cannon fodder like a strip search - especially for a person who would never be in GENPOP anyway - lame. Run her through a backscatter array, and leverage her boss diplomatically to make her shut up and GTFO. Instead, her country has to "protect her" and save face.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I remember putting an exhibit up in the Atlanta airport once. We were only allowed to start after 10 pm when pretty much no one else was around. We got the royal* treatment from the good folks with TSA. They stripped us down and ran us and our stuff through extremely close scrutiny. I was lectured for bringing my passport as identification. We were all threatened with not being let in if we complained one more time about their attitude. (This outburst was directed, by the way, at a US Marshal in our group.)

After that, we were allowed outside to our truck. Once at our truck we transported in all kinds of closed boxes that were not inspected at all. We also brought in all kinds of tools that included drills, knives and saws.

My point being that you give someone too much power and they do some unhappy things. Give a moron too much power and the sky is the limit.

______
*Royal asshole.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Why in the world would they complain about a passport as identification? Until I became a senior citizen and was allowed a senior card, I used to have to drag my passport around if I were retrieving parcels, doing financial transactions, or just needed to prove I was who I said I was.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Who knows brother Pete.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Who knows brother Pete.

Because they can. [Big Grin]

Tubbs

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0