India to protest against envoy's 'pat down' at US airport

I don't disagree with your last statement. It is the shameful truth.

As far as the rest goes you seem determined to keep a bunch of different issues tangled together. Good luck with that. There will always be stuff like executive priviledge or dimplomatic immunity going on. To me those are not the most critical issues.

Ever increasing control of your and my government by big multi-national corporations, counter to what is good for or wanted by the ordinary guy is a HUGE problem affecting working people around the globe right now. That is what is causing this whole mess in MHO. None of us has the government we want or need because they all serve the wealthy individuals and their companies instead of us.

Unless we do something about that situation we will never get away from ever more rules, regulations and procedures that restrict freedoms and what we once thought of as rights.

You and the rest of us need to focus on the right culprits.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


An intresting choice of words - American Wealth. Would it not be more appropriate to say the Doctors earned wealth? After all he did the work required to be succesfull, so why does it matter where he sends his wealth?

And America can stop sending jobs overseas at any point we wish. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we have unions who go way beyond their intended use, requireing job security be built into contracts.

Example - The UAW had a contract with one of the big 3 where "job security" was built into the contract. What does this mean? If the company has to shut down an assembly plant due to low sales, the workers who are laid off are still paid as if they are continuing full production.

Also, countries we deal with do not have the same legal systems like us. Some countries, Mexico an China for instance, the Government sets the wages, and not the company doing business there., This is one of the ways other countries gain an advantage over US production.

Currency manipulation is the other...

yeah this is totally exceptionable diplomatic immunity means you have no right for any reason to search or detain foreign diplomats you are not allowed to search diplomatic pouches either. tsa really f ed up here.

reply to post by proteus33


You have been watching too many movies. Diplomatic immunity does not mean that authorities have no right to stop or search you. As I have said repeatedly, when it is a matter of public safety or security, diplomatic immunity won't save you. For instance, a diplomatic can be detained, thus searched if they are driving drunk (potential to endanger public safety). This diplomat had the option of not flying. She chose to fly on a commercial airliner that according to authorities, has a pat-down procedure which ensures public safety. This diplomat would have posed a security risk, had she not been searched, according to our own authorities.

Would you be okay for a Libyan or Iranian diplomat to thwart security measures on the grounds of diplomatic security. How would you like to be on a plane that had passengers which were not subjected to any security screening, any at all?

Again, if this diplomat didn;t want to be searched, she could have taken another mode of transportation, just like the rest of us. I'm actually extremely offended that a representative of my government gave her an apology. I would be further offended if these "elites" will no longer have to be molested like the rest of us.

Again, if they don't want to be searched, don't fly commercially. Fair enough right, or do you cede to the notion that these foreignors are more trustworthy than say our returning vets?


--airspoon

reply to post by EFGuy


It was a patdown for crying out loud! It wasn't like taking her into a room and stripping her down. She was on a commercial flight.

I'm pretty sure by now, everyone in America knows who Mitt Romney is. He went through a pat down. He's gone through several of them. Don't like it but went through with it because it's now policy.

We've been catering to India for years now and they want to bitch about a pat down and make international headlines with it? Screw them. How soon they forget about Mumbai. I've got some Indian friends and they're really humble people but their government, as well as ours and the rest of the worlds, suck big time.

reply to post by airspoon


Respectfully, you are stil incorrect in your interpretation of how Diplomatic Imunity works. They are sovereign for lack of a better term. As I said, if they walked up to someone and shot them, they cannot be arrested and even detaining them is a breach of protocol and diplomatic immunity.

Even using a term like public safety to search a Diplomat is a breech of protocol and violation of Diplomatic Immunity standars and practices.

A diplomat is not a person. They are the country that they represent.

Have diplomats been detained in the past? Absolutely, but it still did not negate the fact it was a violation. As far as the comment about Iran or other diplomats, I dont know what to tell you.

If we had diplomatic relations with Iran the protocol is this:

The US / Iran select a person as an ambassador to each others countries.

The diplomat selectees fly to the country they are assigned to and make an appearence before whatever appropriate authority is used (President here in the US).

The selectees present their information to the "President" along with certification from the Government who sent the person. The President accepts the credentials, which in turn makes the person the offical representative of the Country / Government who selected and sent them.

Diplomatic Immunity

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity and a policy held between governments, which ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws (although they can be expelled). It was agreed as international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), though the concept and custom have a much longer history. Many principles of diplomatic immunity are now considered to be customary law. Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis.

Originally, these privileges and immunities were granted on a bilateral, ad hoc basis, which led to misunderstandings and conflict, pressure on weaker states, and an inability for other states to judge which party was at fault. Various international agreements known as the Vienna Conventions codified the rules and agreements, providing standards and privileges to all states.

It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. Many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection).

reply to post by airspoon


airspoon. S & F on the thread.

I can't get ovet the Lt. Gov. of Mississppi calling the patsown by TSA as outragious when it comes the "liberties" of a foriegn national but nothing is said about the treatment of American citizens.

Like it was brought up that a diplomat with immunity would be very capable of bringing a device into the US if they could by-pass all the security.

Gotta run. Nice thread though.

Its called Diplomatic Immunity.. All diplomats have it - not just u.s diplomats. Though maybe the world should revoke it for u.s diplomats and start arresting them and putting them on trial for the crimes they commit under "Diplomatic Immunity" maybe then theyd be a little less arrogant and not as corrupt.. Works both ways you show courtesy to other countries diplomats .. They show courtesy to yours. Been that way throughout history.. But guess the new improved totalitarian states of amerika feel theyre above international law ...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

An intresting choice of words - American Wealth. Would it not be more appropriate to say the Doctors earned wealth? After all he did the work required to be succesfull, so why does it matter where he sends his wealth?

And America can stop sending jobs overseas at any point we wish. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we have unions who go way beyond their intended use, requireing job security be built into contracts.

Example - The UAW had a contract with one of the big 3 where "job security" was built into the contract. What does this mean? If the company has to shut down an assembly plant due to low sales, the workers who are laid off are still paid as if they are continuing full production.

Also, countries we deal with do not have the same legal systems like us. Some countries, Mexico an China for instance, the Government sets the wages, and not the company doing business there., This is one of the ways other countries gain an advantage over US production.

Currency manipulation is the other...

Well, lets clarify.

When i say "American wealth", i mean that money that is in circulation in our nation is funneled into another nation. Am i implying that it is morally wrong or something? Didn't think so.

But when you have the American people having to tolerate another trillion dollars being printed and injected into our economy, we start to look around to where that money is flowing to if not our own pockets.

RE: your chastisement of unions...no argument here. They are a dinosaur that needs extinction. However, there should not be any laws made to limit them. There needs to be the threat of a possibility of unionizing to keep business honest. However, the stranglehold that unions have on job markets has really hurt America.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by proteus33

 

You have been watching too many movies. Diplomatic immunity does not mean that authorities have no right to stop or search you. As I have said repeatedly, when it is a matter of public safety or security, diplomatic immunity won't save you. For instance, a diplomatic can be detained, thus searched if they are driving drunk (potential to endanger public safety). This diplomat had the option of not flying. She chose to fly on a commercial airliner that according to authorities, has a pat-down procedure which ensures public safety. This diplomat would have posed a security risk, had she not been searched, according to our own authorities.

Would you be okay for a Libyan or Iranian diplomat to thwart security measures on the grounds of diplomatic security. How would you like to be on a plane that had passengers which were not subjected to any security screening, any at all?

Again, if this diplomat didn;t want to be searched, she could have taken another mode of transportation, just like the rest of us. I'm actually extremely offended that a representative of my government gave her an apology. I would be further offended if these "elites" will no longer have to be molested like the rest of us.

Again, if they don't want to be searched, don't fly commercially. Fair enough right, or do you cede to the notion that these foreignors are more trustworthy than say our returning vets?


--airspoon

Prattling on & on regurgitating the same lines over & over again doesn't make you correct.

It's called Diplomatic 'Immunity' for a reason. A 'Diplomat' has immunity from prosecution. If they commit a crime on foreign soil, then the host country has 2 options. Either ask the home nation to waive the immunity. If that is refused, then the only other choice is to expel them back to their own country.

www.cbc.ca...
www.thisislondon.co.uk...
www.independent.co.uk...
www.vheadline.com...

etc, etc.

The moment 'diplomatic immunity' is claimed, charges can't be laid. The authorities might be able to hold him/her/them for a brief period. At least until the claim has been verified by the diplomat's embassy.

reply to post by Expat888


You do understand that a Diplomats job is to spy on the country they are? The worst a country can do in terms of cathing diplomats spying is to order them out of the country. They still cannot be charged for any crime.

Also, this is standard procedure for all Diplomats, and not just the US. Where the hell does this self loathing come from in regards to the US?

If you are going to hold us responsible, then get in line, because we have an additional 191 other countries in the exact same boat.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Im not advocating getting rid of Unions, as I still they they do serve a purpose in some areas. I jsut wish we could curtail their unrelalistic demands. When we demand a salary of 25 dollars an hour for our workers, and Mexico's government says we will give you a crap ton of tax breaks, land, and want you to build a facility here, and we will cap the owrker pay at 10 dollars an hour, where do we think the business is going to go?

I am not sure what the solution is on that one..

As far as money being funneled back to other countries, fair point I guess. The argument still holds though that they earned it can suppoort whoever they want with it. There is nothing stopping one of us from moving to India and opening up a siccesful business, only to send the profits back here.

My personal opinion is we need to match any trading partners moves. If they charge a 10% tax on us imports, we need to do the same.

Im not a fan of Obama, but I did agree with his speech a few weeks back where he told the rest of the world the days os using America to prop up their economies is coming to an end.

I guess it could be taken 2 ways:

We are going to start fighting back from an economic standpoint,

or

We are just going toi liquidate the US, let congress cash out their chips and call it a day.

reply to post by Xcathdra




I absolutely, 100% agree that the money that one earns is theirs. My issue with the exporting of US currency is more a policy concern than anything else.

Immigration is fast tracked for people with educations, or "something to offer" the US. And hailing from certain nations will definitely either move you up in the line, or to the end of the line (depending on the nation). We have policies in place that encourage Indian immigration. Seeing the tactic that is being used (whereby the Indian national economy has grown at the cost of US economic shrinkage), we should adjust our policies to diminish the risk to our country.

Honestly, since immigration is needing an overhaul anyway, it is something that could be done all at once. It is important, to be sure. Our banking system was not set up for us to have such a small amount of liquidity in our economy. The exportation of our economy to the rest of the world was just an added stressor (and i beileve a primary factor) in the economic collapse.

I have no issue with other nations benefitting from our success, but if we are to do that we should ensure that our system will withstand the stresses of the globalized economy that we created.

Perhaps when India starts cavity searching US diplomats at airports, America will get the message that diplomats are to be left alone.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I completey agree in some aspects. One of our major downfalls is our educational system here. With grade and highschools still based on an Agrarian calender year, we fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world. When we have to issue special visas to get technical workers into the US, we have a problem.

Other countries send their people to study in the US at college levels, and then they go back home to apply their training. We suck as a country when it comes to science and math, wich are 2 fields we desprately need qualified people in.

Personally I think we jeopradize our national security by relying too much on highly skilled labor from other countries, instead of doing whats hard and fixing our educational system.

As far as immigration revolving around worth to the country, all oultries do this. Mexico's immigration policy is pretty strict compared to ours.

What I find funny, is how we are constantly berated by the rest of the world for what we do, while at the same time sending people here to study. Seems somewhat backwards I guess. I think as Americans, we fail ourselves by always looking for the most expensive, most complicated ways to do things, instead of applying the KISS principle or the 7 p's (Keep It Simple Stupid / Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance).

During the space program back in the 60's the US spent 2-3 million dollars developing a pen that works in space (0 G). The Russian used a penicl.

go figure.

reply to post by big_BHOY


You are fooling yourself if you think diplomatic immunity stops the police from detaining diplomats when they are a danger to the public. Sure, they can't be prosecuted bu they can be stopped if they present a danger to the public. The immunity simply means they aren't subjected to our laws.

Granted, very rarely does a diplomat present a danger. However, they can be stopped say if they enter a shopping mall with a gun or if they are about to murder someone off the embassy grounds.

In fact, you saw how diplomatic immunity didn't stop Al-Madadi, a Qatari diplomat, from being detained and arrested, though it does keep him from being charged and prosecuted. Why were authoroties able to arrest him, in spite of his diplomatic immunity? Because he presented a threat to public safety.

Al-Madadi, 27, was arrested Wednesday night after flight attendants smelled smoke coming from a first class toilet. When confronted, officials said the diplomat made a sarcastic comment about trying to light his shoes on fire. He was detained, and two F-16 fighter jets were scrambled to escort the plane.

Al-Madadi invoked diplomatic immunity and as a result is unlikely to be charged with a crime. Officials determined he posed no threat and the diplomat returned to Washington Thursday. He was expected to lose his U.S. posting and be sent out of the country.

Source: www.politicsdaily.com...

The same thing can happen, say if a diplomat is driving drunk, where he also poses a threat to public safety. Of course this hypothetical diplomat wouldn't be charged with a crime, seeing how he isn't subject to our laws.

People watch too many movies and think thus falsely believe that diplomatic immunity means that authorities can't ever touch them for any reason and while that makes for a good plot like, just like a lot of things in Hollywood, it isn't reality.



--airspoon

The President of Palau was traveling and TSA wanted to fondled him and his wife. He refused and charted a private plane and avoided the TSA rub down.

India will have to follow and quit having their diplomats fly on Sheeple Airways.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

There needs to be the threat of a possibility of unionizing to keep business honest.

Yes, there is a legitimate role for unions. Like anything else tho, when they got too powerful they got corrupted and did things that were harmful to the society as a whole.

Meanwhile unions are no longer able to fulfill even that legitimate role they once had. What has happened in the last 20 years or so is that corporations have gone multi-national. The corps now pit workers in one country against workers in another. The unions, in order to fight this would have to go multi-national themselves. Unfortunately that is probably never going to happen. On this very thread you have people complaining of Indians taking jobs away from Americans.

It is not Indians, it is corporations playing workers against each other. If the workers in America conspired with workers in India and every country where a company has plants, they might get somewhere. If all you do is try and defend your own narrow interests, you will fail to accomplish anything. Divided, you remain conquered.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by big_BHOY

 

You are fooling yourself if you think diplomatic immunity stops the police from detaining diplomats when they are a danger to the public. Sure, they can't be prosecuted bu they can be stopped if they present a danger to the public. The immunity simply means they aren't subjected to our laws.

Granted, very rarely does a diplomat present a danger. However, they can be stopped say if they enter a shopping mall with a gun or if they are about to murder someone off the embassy grounds.

In fact, you saw how diplomatic immunity didn't stop Al-Madadi, a Qatari diplomat, from being detained and arrested, though it does keep him from being charged and prosecuted. Why were authoroties able to arrest him, in spite of his diplomatic immunity? Because he presented a threat to public safety.

Al-Madadi, 27, was arrested Wednesday night after flight attendants smelled smoke coming from a first class toilet. When confronted, officials said the diplomat made a sarcastic comment about trying to light his shoes on fire. He was detained, and two F-16 fighter jets were scrambled to escort the plane.

Al-Madadi invoked diplomatic immunity and as a result is unlikely to be charged with a crime. Officials determined he posed no threat and the diplomat returned to Washington Thursday. He was expected to lose his U.S. posting and be sent out of the country.

Source: www.politicsdaily.com...

The same thing can happen, say if a diplomat is driving drunk, where he also poses a threat to public safety. Of course this hypothetical diplomat wouldn't be charged with a crime, seeing how he isn't subject to our laws.

People watch too many movies and think thus falsely believe that diplomatic immunity means that authorities can't ever touch them for any reason and while that makes for a good plot like, just like a lot of things in Hollywood, it isn't reality.

--airspoon

The most that can happen to a diplomat is that they are detained& taken to a local police station. They then invoke 'diplomatic immunity' regardless of whether they commited a crime or not. Once the claim has been verified, then the authorities can't hold or detain them any longer, nor can they be charged. Which is obviously what happened in the case you referenced above. Smoke is spotted. Guy is confronted about it, makes a joke about a bomb. Air marshall detains & arrests him. He screams he is a diplomat & has immunity. Air marshall has no way to verify this. So tells him to sit tight & it will be sorted once the plane lands. Plane comes in, he's taken to the station. His story is checked & confirmed & he's free to go.

A quote from the same story:

Federal officials confirmed that he will not face any charges, saying he "absolutely will not be charged with a crime. He has diplomatic immunity. He invoked it."

Foreign diplomats can even be issued traffic tickets, but they can't be forced to pay them under any circumstances.

If they commit a crime, the absolute worst thing that can happen, is for them to be expelled back to their home country.