If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Whoops, I guess she had diplomatic immunity after all   (bbc.com) divider line 27
    More: Followup, visa fraud, diplomats  
•       •       •

18609 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2014 at 1:56 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-13 01:59:24 PM
5 votes:
Pfft...  The whole diplomatic immunity thing is stupid.  If you do something that is illegal, you should be held accountable for it.

I have nothing more intelligent to add.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-13 01:27:35 PM
3 votes:
Suits against somebody with diplomatic immunity can not be maintained until after immunity is lost. She got temporary immunity, for one day, as a "counselor" to the UN. That day was enough to have charges temporarily dropped. She can be re-indicted now that she does not have immunity.

I am tempted to expel the UN as too much trouble, but I imagine American intelligence agencies like having all those people under surveillance.
2014-03-13 03:01:59 PM
2 votes:
"This is the happiest moment of our lives. I have always maintained that this entire issue was a lie".

Yeah, but the judge just ruled that you had diplomatic immunity, not that you aren't guilty of all of these crimes.
2014-03-13 02:32:39 PM
2 votes:
FTFA: "This is the happiest moment of our lives. I have always maintained that this entire issue was a lie. The work done by our foreign affairs ministry is admirable," Mr Khobragade told BBC Hindi.

You DO understand that your daughter wasn't acquitted of the crime she was accused of right? The "happiest moment of your life" is the day you were able to game the system to get your evil spawn off on a technicality?

Please remember that some filthy Americans got to stare at your precious daughter's junk. Nothing your foreign affairs ministry can do about that.
2014-03-13 02:27:31 PM
2 votes:
Well, she didn't, but we really want this whole thing to just go away, so we're basically pretending she does.
2014-03-13 02:10:14 PM
2 votes:
she didn't have diplomatic immunity when she allegedly committed the crime or when she was arrested.

India changed her job position immediately (like an hour before) her indictment to one that had diplomatic immunity. She subsequently left the country.

Of course, now the US government is going to declare her persona non grata and make it really difficult (if not impossible) for her to enter the US where her american husband and children are citizens. so sucks to be her i suppose.
2014-03-13 02:09:16 PM
2 votes:

nmrsnr: Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority


No you aren't.
2014-03-13 02:06:24 PM
2 votes:

nmrsnr: AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.


That's the letter of the law.  The practice, however, is WILDLY different.  I don't recommend a simple citizen use force against a governmental agent with qualified immunity, immediate access to superior weaponry, quick access to reinforcements (with similar qualified immunity), and a massive superiority complex.
2014-03-13 02:03:14 PM
2 votes:
i184.photobucket.com
2014-03-13 02:02:20 PM
2 votes:

nmrsnr: AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.


Really? maybe in fantasy land but here in realityville, good farkin luck
2014-03-13 01:38:59 PM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.


This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.
2014-03-13 07:19:22 PM
1 votes:

lemortede: I don't know that I would go so far as to call it slavery. There is a definate cost of living difference between the US and Inida.
Most of us could live like kings on our salaries there. Does that make us bad? We leverage that purchasing power quite a bit.....
The person got a wage, we would consider it too low for the US.
In India the wage is average or above....
Why should our social economic market and cost of living be imposed on everyone in the world? It doesn't cost the same to live there.
You are imposing first world standards and your cost of living expectations on what is literally third world life styles in much of the country.
Again, you are complaining about things from a first world perspective. Odds are this person lost their job because of this.
Way to go.


The maid was living and working in the US.
2014-03-13 06:40:46 PM
1 votes:

BigNumber12: Dr Dreidel: No, we shouldn't. Hey, I'm all for preserving dignity as much as possible, but when you're processed into a detention center, they absolutely should strip-search you to find and remove weapons and contraband, but also so that everyone knows exactly what condition you were in when you got there.

I think that, if we would just pass some laws banning weapons from jail facilities, the problem will pretty much solve itself and any sort of searches will be redundant and therefore unnecessary.


I think you're overthinking the problem.  We just just pass a law banning people from breaking laws, and then we won't need jails at all.
2014-03-13 04:20:40 PM
1 votes:

lemortede: Need_MindBleach: lemortede: I honestly dont know why this was even an issue.
The worker was not an US citizen. Why in the world would we expect an Indian citizen to pay another Indian citizen US wages just because they are in the US working as an agent of their government.
Stupid. The cost of labor is so cheap over there the person was probably happy to have a freaking job.

Ok, cool. We'll have one minimum wage for American citizens, and another, rock bottom one for foreigners working in this country, since you know, they come from shiatholes anyway. I'm sure there will be no problems or abuses stemming from this system, and the American lower classes won't complain about their labor being undercut at all.

How about this? If the Indian government official wasn't being paid enough as a diplomat to hire a maid in the US, maybe she could....I dunno, clean her own apartment?

Have you even been out of the US.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the wealth gap in India is obscene, but is it really our place to impose anything?
The mentality that we have here in the US is astounding.
"Oh, we think it should be that way so the whole world should do it that way too."


You understand that you are defending SLAVERY,right?
2014-03-13 03:45:41 PM
1 votes:

ZAZ: Suits against somebody with diplomatic immunity can not be maintained until after immunity is lost. She got temporary immunity, for one day, as a "counselor" to the UN. That day was enough to have charges temporarily dropped. She can be re-indicted now that she does not have immunity.

I am tempted to expel the UN as too much trouble, but I imagine American intelligence agencies like having all those people under surveillance.


"It's better to have them inside the wigwam, pissing out, than outside the wigwam, pissing in."

paraphrased from LBJ, I think.
2014-03-13 03:22:07 PM
1 votes:

lemortede: I honestly dont know why this was even an issue.
The worker was not an US citizen. Why in the world would we expect an Indian citizen to pay another Indian citizen US wages just because they are in the US working as an agent of their government.
Stupid. The cost of labor is so cheap over there the person was probably happy to have a freaking job.


Ok, cool. We'll have one minimum wage for American citizens, and another, rock bottom one for foreigners working in this country, since you know, they come from shiatholes anyway. I'm sure there will be no problems or abuses stemming from this system, and the American lower classes won't complain about their labor being undercut at all.

How about this? If the Indian government official wasn't being paid enough as a diplomat to hire a maid in the US, maybe she could....I dunno, clean her own apartment?
2014-03-13 03:13:01 PM
1 votes:

durbnpoisn: Pfft...  The whole diplomatic immunity thing is stupid.  If you do something that is illegal, you should be held accountable for it.

I have nothing more intelligent to add.



FTFY.

So you really want a system in which, say, Russia can arrest a US diplomat for "gay propaganda" or Saudi Arabia can arrest a diplomat for "insulting the name of the prophet" and so on?
2014-03-13 03:01:14 PM
1 votes:
TFA:  Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled Devyani Khobragade had diplomatic immunity at the time of her indictment on visa fraud and underpaying her housekeeper.

How cute -- reading the order -- she was given a position by India on the 8th that gave her diplomatic immunity.  The indictment came on the 9th.  She didn't have diplomatic immunity when she was arrested, nor did she have it when committing the crimes.

Missed it by *that* much.
2014-03-13 03:00:56 PM
1 votes:
I honestly dont know why this was even an issue.
The worker was not an US citizen. Why in the world would we expect an Indian citizen to pay another Indian citizen US wages just because they are in the US working as an agent of their government.
Stupid. The cost of labor is so cheap over there the person was probably happy to have a freaking job.
2014-03-13 02:56:19 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.


Indiana Supreme Court ruled otherwise a couple years ago. Citizens have no valid way to refuse illegal orders from LEOs there, the only remedy is a lawsuit after the fact.

This was because someone assaulted someone else, it was reported, the person who reported it then refused to cooperate with police and the homeowner refused to let cops in to find the assaulter. The police went in anyway and arrested the guy. The homeowner was also arrested, even though she was in the right to refuse entry under Indiana law since nobody would identify the assailant to the cops on the scene and what was told to dispatchers didn't provide reason to search without a warrant.

Supreme Court ruled in favor of the police saying that illegal or unconstitutional orders had to be followed at the time given and nobody has the legal right to refuse to cooperate. If they do they can be arrested for obstruction and at that point lose their right to Sue.
2014-03-13 02:29:32 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: liam76: nmrsnr: Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority
No you aren't.

If they come to your door and say "Police, let us in" you are legally allowed to say "not without a warrant" and refuse to open the door for them. That is legally stopping them from doing something outside the scope of their authority. I never said you can physically restrain them if they do enter, or open fire on them if they refuse to leave.


So you were wrong before.

You are legally allowed to say, "no". Physically resisting them is a crime itself, no matter how BS what they are trying to do is.
2014-03-13 02:27:56 PM
1 votes:

durbnpoisn: Pfft...  The whole diplomatic immunity thing is stupid.  If you do something that is illegal, you should be held accountable for it.

I have nothing more intelligent to add.


It is meant to protect diplomats from trumped up charges and avoid international incidents.
2014-03-13 02:18:03 PM
1 votes:

liam76: nmrsnr: Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority

No you aren't.


If they come to your door and say "Police, let us in" you are legally allowed to say "not without a warrant" and refuse to open the door for them. That is legally stopping them from doing something outside the scope of their authority. I never said you can physically restrain them if they do enter, or open fire on them if they refuse to leave.
2014-03-13 02:07:25 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: EdNortonsTwin: Police perform illegal searches all the time and get away with it despite swearing to uphold the Constitution - IV Amendment be damned.

And people do home invasions and evade prosecution, too. The point is irrelevant. They are not allowed to do it, and stopping them is not illegal.


How do you intend to stop them?
2014-03-13 02:05:06 PM
1 votes:

ZAZ: Suits against somebody with diplomatic immunity can not be maintained until after immunity is lost. She got temporary immunity, for one day, as a "counselor" to the UN. That day was enough to have charges temporarily dropped. She can be re-indicted now that she does not have immunity.

I am tempted to expel the UN as too much trouble, but I imagine American intelligence agencies like having all those people under surveillance.


the U.N. didn't grant her the immunity... the U.S. state department colluded with the Indian foreign ministry and used the U.N. as a cover to do what they wanted. So outrage here should be based on whether you like State more than the NY prosecutor's office on this issue. But clearly, under Obama, State showed weakness by giving into India's stupidity on this issue and emboldened Putin to take over Crimea.
2014-03-13 02:03:16 PM
1 votes:
You know who else had diplomatic immunity?
www.historyguy.com
2014-03-13 01:28:19 PM
1 votes:
My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report