Talk:Devyani Khobragade incident

US must have known Devyani Khobragade had full immunity: Govt of India

This article doesn't include: 39-year-old Khobragade, who was posted as Deputy Consul General in New York, was also accredited as an "Advisor to the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations" by the UN w.e.f. 26th August 2013 and her status as an Advisor was valid until 31 December 2013.

references:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-01/india/45762827_1_diplomat-immunity-indian-employees

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131227/news-current-affairs/article/devyani-khobragade-had-full-immunity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.101.224 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the US State Department have to issue a visa other than the one she currently holds in order for her to enjoy full diplomatic immunity?50.147.26.108 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As Reuters put it: "According to the U.N. Manual of Protocol website (http://www.un.int/protocol/3_6.html), U.N. accreditation alone does not appear to grant diplomatic immunity, it simply gives Khobragade access to U.N. headquarters in New York." India seeks possible US tax violations as stand hardens in row While taking no position on this argument, I suggest it is still too early to revise the article based upon this speculative information. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

US NEVER DENIED THIS: "We have been advised by the Government of India that Dr Khobragade was notified to the United Nations as a member of India's delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in September. We are currently looking into the matter," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf DON'T TELL ME "MARIE HARF" DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT U.N. MANUAL OF PROTOCOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.166.33 (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

While I can't make sense of your statement, I would like to point out that the government of India sought to reclassify her visa after the incident in order to grant full diplomatic immunity. This reclassification has occurred and she has been permitted to leave the country. All parties involved recognized that a different visa and status was necessary to grant that immunity.50.147.26.108 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

p>> India envoy wants indictment delayed[http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/01/indian-diplomat-facing-indictment-leaves-us-2014192106911256.html >> Indian consul gets immunity in US fraud case ](Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).

Indian Diplomat Indicted in Employment Case and Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade leaves US for home under full diplomatic immunity 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How do $9.75/hr salary at 40 hours a week work out to $4500.00/month?

Assuming $10.00/hr at 40 hours week = $400.00/week *4 = $1600.00. Assume 1 month = 4 weeks + 2 days, it would come out to $1760.00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.167.4.200 (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievabley biased

This article is unbelievably biased in favor of the maid and the US officials like Preet. How is that?186.188.176.63 (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Highly likely that the text has been produced by the US State Department. The controversy regarding the domestic workers of Indian diplomats between the two governments has been ongoing for some time and the arrest was planned in detail by the Americans. Taking care of PR on the webb is likely to not have been forgotten. Basically from the Indian viewpoint its a case of the Indian Government paying maids well to go to the US to work for their diplomats (who are used to maids). For the US its a case of maids working in the US under working conditions which are unacceptable for Americans. A case of two worlds clashing. Legally its a case of the US violating its agreement with the UN on the status of delegates of UN Member States (which although they can be prosecuted can not be arrested). Very likely due to forgetting to check if Khobragade besides working at the consulate also was part of the Indian UN delegation. This is fully understandable as even the Indians forgot about it before checking their records at the end of December. With the current information the case should under international law be thrown out. However its now political and US administrations usually ignore international laws they dont like at will (and invent fancifull interpretations when to their benefit e.g. in the CIA agent murder-case in Pakistan). Thus who knows what will happen. With regard to this article it needs to be thoroughly rewritten, eg. by an unbiased European like myself, but with enough time. I would outsource the work to India if I had the right connections :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.223.27 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

She didn't enjoy full immunity, which is why the Indian government sought to reclassify her visa. The USG does not grant full diplomatic immunity to consular officials, but only immunity with respect to their duties. Personal inviolability of consular officials is quite limited. It doesn't matter what duties India tasked her with, it matters how she is officially classified. If the Indians did not seek to reclassify her visa, then they did not properly seek permission for an official with full diplomatic immunity to be present in the United States. Intention of the guest nation does not grant diplomatic immunity, the USG does through a formal process. Here is a briefing on USG policy regarding immunity http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf. Stating that no one but a European can be impartial as to this case and should not edit it is inappropriate, absurd, and uncivil.50.147.26.108 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2014

Reference "Fraud Diplomat" >> "Devyani Khobragade" http://www.firstpost.com/world/more-skeletons-tumble-out-of-devyani-khobragades-cupboard-1301929.html 202.126.172.110 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The deletion discussion consensus was that the scope of this article (WP:SCOPE) was the incident in question, not her biography. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)