Exploitation of employee or blackmail of employer? (Khobragade case) - Page 38

@K: Once again, I'm not disputing Bharara's right to arrest Devyani. I'm only pointing out that even Bharara deduced something from the maid's statements and decided to arrest Devyani. Be it underpayment, harsh treatment, false statement to obtain visa or whatever, but he went by the maid's words and which if we go by your example of acting on facts and facts only, becomes wrong; cos Devyani's maids words against her were not verified facts at the point of time when the arrest happened.

Originally posted by: souro

Simple solution for this. Bring up charges against US diplomats in India and arrest them. If you can't find a charge, make one up. Tit for tat.

Originally posted by: souro

@K: Once again, I'm not disputing Bharara's right to arrest Devyani. I'm only pointing out that even Bharara deduced something from the maid's statements and decided to arrest Devyani. Be it underpayment, harsh treatment, false statement to obtain visa or whatever, but he went by the maid's words and which if we go by your example of acting on facts and facts only, becomes wrong; cos Devyani's maids words against her were not verified facts at the point of time when the arrest happened.

Paperwork for two different contracts is not just maid's words. It is solid evidence.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/contracts-signed-between-devyani-maid-submitted-to-us-court/article5566100.ece

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Paperwork for two different contracts is not just maid's words. It is solid evidence.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/contracts-signed-between-devyani-maid-submitted-to-us-court/article5566100.ece

I was only stating that what you're asking is impossible to do, cos if there is some data, there will be some conclusion drawn from it which might not be verified fact yet. You asking people not to draw conclusion without actually proving that it is the infallible truth, is not possible. Even if the prosecutors had 2 contracts, does it automatically verify that Devyani committed a crime? No. But it can be logically deduced that she drew up that contract to evade paying the wage stipulated by New York's lowest wage criteria, to her maid. It's logical even if not 100% certain. And that's the deduction that Preet Bharara and co. arrived at as well.

Now just answer something, the very basic concept that you proposed and I questioned - is it possible to have data but not to deduce anything from that based on past experiences, extrapolation and many other factors involved? Can we have data and stop at that? Is that even possible? Can we have a discussion based on just data without our logical interpretation? To me it's not possible. We can't possibly discuss 2 + 2 = 4. That is data, there is nothing to discuss in that. Discussion happens when there is scope for personal opinion and interpretation.

If a person's past experiences say, that traditionally those holding the position which Preet Bharara holds now, had political ambition and went into politics, if Preet Bharara's track record says that he has strong political leanings, then a person will deduce that he has political ambition. I don't see what is wrong if someone deduces such things. You are against people building a story. But without a story, which is built logically one step at a time, there is no discussion.

Page 50. Before I pull back, I would like to summarize some of our exchanges (jibes, likes, insults, praises notwithstanding :)

1. Devyani's strip search was outrageous (standard procedures; link was provided)
2. Bharara is politically ambitious (regardless, he worked with the evidence he had)
3. The forms are too complicated. (nothing so ambiguous that diplomats over the years have not handled)
4. US mistook Devyani's salary for Sangeeta's. (the form was specific in it's content with the employer and employee sections clearly stated)
5. Sangeeta should get back to India because her passport/visa have been cancelled (they are legally here in US on a T visa)
6. US falsified evidence just like they did before Iraq's war (Iraq war is a different subject; there is no proof that US falsified evidence in this case. US has no valid motive to do so)
7. Bharara has no trust in India's implementation of law ( I cited global integrity reports)
8. Devyani paid in cash and in kind (receipts for a few payments exist; we don't know if they add up to the promised pay)
9. Maid was in no way overworked (we don't know; we could assume 8 hours or 18 hours of work a day; we could assume 4 hours or 24 hours too)
10. Maid was happy (a letter purportedly sent to, of all people, Devyani's sister, that too as soon as Sangeeta landed here, is not proof enough that she was happy all throughout her stay at Devyani's household)
11. Maid is greedy; she wants to settle down in US by hook or by crook (nothing wrong in wanting to settle down in US by hook; the "by crook" part of the allegation is speculative)
12. US is a hypocrite; they themselves don't pay minimum wages (they maintain that they paid prevalent local wages; if any wrongdoings are found, countries are free to arrest the felons)

I extrapolated that Preet Bharara is egotistic and politically ambitious based on what I read about Bharara. He has a history of taking high profile cases from the get go. His rise from assistant attorney to US attorney was pretty quick. His interviews and op-eds reflect an assertive, aggressive, ambitious nature. The focus appears less on serving justice to victims and more on serving retribution to high profile criminals. Arresting and charging a diplomat on a visa fraud is very different from the financial fraud he has typically focused on and also a lot more controversial. This is by no means absolute truth. However, everyone has a driving force and rationale behind their actions. I think this is a reasonably fair interpretation of Bharara's motives.

I however claimed that he was doing so to cater to a conservative base. This I will admit has no reasonable basis as historically Bharara has been associated with liberals and he was nominated to US attorney by Barack Obama. It is true though that immigration related prosecutions appeal to conservatives. But there is not enough evidence to show this is Bharara's motive.

Is speculating Bharara's intents and motives relevant to the discussion.

On a purely factual basis, no. Devyani committed fraud. There is evidence for it. She didn't enjoy immunity for that crime at the time. Preet Bharara and team had her charged and arrested fair and square. Due process of law was followed. There was nothing illegal or unethical about it.

On a big picture basis, I believe such things are relevant. As Souro said they do build story and create a picture beyond the facts. It explains why Bharara was tough and assertive and didn't use a softer, more diplomatic approach in light of her position. It explains why his office is aggressive and unwilling to look into pleas or deals. To me it also creates a separation between the State department - a diplomatic ally of India and a US attorney enforcing the laws of his jurisdiction. It explains why John Kerry goes on to call the incident "unfortunate and regrettable" while Bharara sticks by his guns. But yes, these interpretations aren't 100% true or accurate. But I still feel building a story and trying to understand intents and motivations is very vital to getting a better feel of events.

Angie, I will reply based on your last post. I am sorry, I have to post certain points which are probably not relevant to the discussion in this thread.

^^

Mr Maha2us, I absolutely agree that the law can be and does get misused and this is something that is certainly of great concern. On some occasions the blatant misuse of laws may be evident whereas on other it could be very subtle thanks to the strict adherence to the legal technicalities.

A law can be applied in letter or in spirit. Application of the law in letter but not in spirit means obeying the literal interpretation of the words (letters) of the law but not the intent behind it ( the spirit that gave birth to that law). When one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the law makers intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording. One can intentionally follow the letter of the law but not the spirit by exploiting legal technicalities or loopholes. When deliberately done it can also be termed as legal opportunism. Rules can be constructed in ways that are formally the same for everyone but really advantage some and disadvantage others. Laws are generally protective of the apparent weaker sections in society however, a legal framework can be opportunistically exploited by legal subjects, for self-interested motives without necessarily violating any legal principle, though the intention of the law (the real purpose or aim that inspired it) is negated.

Agreed that those who misuse or manipulate laws ought to be made accountable. A difficult task to collect and present all the required evidences! Meanwhile, it helps the people concerned to be on guard against any resentment settling in as it serves no purpose other than making a problem appear even worse than it is.

Oh, boy! This thread got revived again?

I don't think I have any appetite left to debate this topic vigorously.

I will only make two points:

1) Unless your "glaring discrepancies" are inventoried and data is presented as to how many publicized cases are out there that misinterpreted the forms, a statistical inference cannot be made, thus making this particular case an outlier. Such outliers can be excluded since a normal distribution can be assumed.

2) I suppose I can make a case as to how most developing countries can be dubbed as banana republics but that would be a painstaking process, not to mention an extremely unpopular view on India forums. We will have to consider how stable the governments that came to power are, the economic and social inequalities, police corruption, corrupt alliances between corporations and government, scams, how many people are going hungry, hygiene, and a gazillion other things. Frankly I am not up to it so you can hold that against me that I didn't "prove it".

^^Well, your main contention was that the people arguing in opposition were extrapolating without factual/data-backed evidence and bringing up things which had no bearing on or relevance to the current points of discussion. I guess VictoRiya was pointing out the places where you yourself resorted to using the same fallacies you charged the opposition with.