Looks like basic internet civility is not really your cup of tea. No matter.
I treat people the way they deserve to be treated. In your case it was just pleasure mixed with business.
a) Devyani commit a criminal offence. She fudged her maids visa.
"Kobragade prepared and electronically submitted an application for an A-3 visa through the website for the US department of state's consular electronic application center for an Indian national ("Witness-1"), who was to be the personal employee of Khobragade beginning in November 2012. The visa application stated that witness-1 was to be paid $4,500 per month in US dollars. Khobragade and witness-1 also signed an employment contract for witness-1 to bring to Witness-1's interview at the US embassy in India in connection with the visa application, which witness-1 did at Khobragade's direction. The first employment contract stated, among other things, that Khobragade would pay witness-1 the prevailing or minimum wage, whichever is greater, resulting in an hourly salary of $9.75.
LOL. The "witness-1" is Ms. Richards who is the one who filed the visa application stating she was to be paid $4,500 This itself is a proof that the applicant was LYING in her visa form. Her contract did not specify the number of hours she would work every month. LOL.
In fact in the same form the employers salary is also mentioned as $4,500 ..... in which case why did the US counsulate grant Ms. Richards the visa ?
Further fact is that Ms. Richards has been paid in FULL as per the contract stating she will be paid $9.75 per hour. Only she worked for 60 hours and was paid for that much work.
She was a part time employee who was paid ONLY for the hours she Worked. LOL.
The complaint said
Khobragade knew that the first employment contract that she caused witness-1 to submit to the US state department in connection with witness-1's visa application contained materially false and fraudulent statements about, among other things, witness-1's hourly wage and hours worked. Prior to the signing of the first employment contract, Khobragade and witness-1 had allegedly agreed that she would pay Rs 30,000 per month, which at the time was equivalent to $573.07."
This IF true makes both Dr. Khobragade and Ms. richards GUILTY of the same crime. Which is LYING TO GET A VISA. So why was ms. richards made a witness and Dr. Khobragade charged ?
Besides this traslates to ~ 60 hrs a month. There is NO evidence that she worked more than 60 hrs in a month. After all she was a part time Nanny. LOL.
And as far as your precious Article 47, Devyani was not covered by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) in this matter because “the Indian Deputy Consul General enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts only with respect to acts performed in the exercise of consular functions”
LOL. WRONG.
Article 47 waives off the requirement to meet with the labour laws of the host state.
Ms. richards employment was under article 47.
And to take this even further.
YES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. Let me explain why.
Your hackles were all raised and you went pious went a Indian diplomat was under the fire. Pray, my good sir, under which couch where you hiding when we in India arrested and detained the Italian envoy and threatened to prosecute him in blatant disregard to the very Vienna convention you are thumping your chest with ???
Devyani Khobragade case: More than just a question of diplomatic immunity - Analysis - DNA
More LOL. Further proof you are a fool.
The Italian envoy first made an Direct appeal to the SC of India to free the marines and thus subject himself to Indian law. The Vienna convention is very clear that once the envoy submits to the Jurisdiction of the host nation then further judicial action can stem from there
Further more the envoy made a personal guarantee to the SC of India that the marines will be returend to India. Since it was clear that he would fail to honor that guarantee, he can then be jailed for breech of that guarantee. This is why the italians had no case and had to submit back to Indian demand. LOL at your knowledge of the law.
Are you naive are are you just trying to be cute ? Expounding the Vienna convention when a clear documented case of fraud has been committed is just "chooo awwww".
Its like "mummy mummy, i stole some cookies, dont punish me, i'm wearing a blue dress see"
I guess we now know what kind of Fool you really are.
...... the retarded kind.
What we don't need in India is ultra right wingers from the RSS and the VHP like you. We need folks who are stable and has the capacity of looking at a matter from all possible angles before baring fangs. Yes America does not have the higher moral ground in this case. I did say strip searching has way beyond within the boundaries of etiquette.
LOL. Dream away about what you need in India. We sure as hell do not need spineless boot licking cowards like you.
Now you are backing out from claiming that US has 'high moral ground'. This is what cowards do, back of from their own comments.
My contention was the gentleman was not personally responsible for those actions. He was very politely putting his view across.You went ahead and insulted him for being an American. Internet chest thumpers like yourself do not do any one a favor.
Peace out.
He was responsible to justifying the actions of his govt. and as such represents his govt. here. He is also guilty of denigrating India and attempts to downplay the seriousness of this incident. My replies have made it plain that neither approach is appreciated.
Of course you are too dumb and busy spreading your spittle to understand either.