And you know that because? You are a member of Khobragade family? You are member of the maid's family? Ms. Khobragade told you herself that she initiated it on false ground?
And I think you're really losing it now and becoming desperate. Seriously, India a banana republic?
Evasive? I think I stated it pretty clearly, that when it is the matter of country and when dealing with other countries, I don't believe in being scrupulous. Read it as: if someone is being unfair, get them to taste their own medicine by hook or crook. Another way to read it, there are thousands of laws that no one knows about and no one cares about, get them through one those.
Originally posted by: charminggenie
Oh this makes me wonder about your take when an American diplomat fled Kenya after crushing a local and his family under the wrath of his speedy sedan. The whole of American embassy rallied together and made sure the diplomat and his family were out of country. Sigh ! you see it was Kenya , doubt it made noise in the big old American land and the noises from the African nation were ignored. This happened this Aug. Read it!
Originally posted by: return_to_hades
This wasn't a bias against India.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
If someone is alleging that, they need to supply a motive.I don't think anyone has insinuated towards this angle, yes as a nation with a friendly status , considering the severity of the allegations - the treatment meted on a diplomat irrespective of nationality was not appropriate.
If someone is not alleging that, they need to explain why according to them the US is treating this particular officer any differently (than they would treat other officers from other countries).I would sound like a broken record here , but because America doesn't have a universal labour laws for diplomats. It has been equally lenient to many nations for the same allegations in the past including in a case featuring a diplomat from Japan and another from UAE. This is a very common , yet pitiable practice enjoyed by many nations all around and has an unspoken approach to it - "which America has also practiced". It's the double standards with how the big nation practices the standard procedure in it's own land and makes a mockery in many another.Another difference- Vienna Convention - Though the diplomatic immunity doesn't not apply to consular duties, many feel legally the Indian Diplomat would and should have enjoyed this immunity. Her case is being defended on these grounds.Hades - Kahn as you yourself mentioned committed a crime which was huge in it's magnitude so citing his example viz a viz this incident ( which was already under trial in the native nation) is a little too different. I doubt there was a different view from any of the International communities.I would love to know how America has defended it's people who were charged with same misdemeanor in other countries say like Pakistan, India etcIn all the examples you mentioned American Govt rightfully defended their people even when the charges were as big as homicidal, going as far as proving aircraft to ship them off the countries. Wouldn't judge then why cannot India protest against the manhandling of it's official in any form as it likes. The steps it has taken are not unheard and has been championed by developed nations. The point to be noted is - India has not defended the diplomat's action all it is protesting is the tact - which not only drew International attention making it a prestige issue but which was an issue that could have easily been dealt with diplomatic channels.I don't understand the usage of the term standardized procedures in context of diplomacy where the terms, treatment and rules vary depending on different degrees of friendliness.
comment:
p_commentcount