It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

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


www.rawstory.com

India said on Thursday it will lodge a diplomatic protest with the United States after its ambassador was frisked at an airport reportedly on grounds that she was wearing a "sari".

Last week, India's envoy to the United States, Meera Shankar, was pulled out of the security line at a Mississippi airport and subjected to a "rigorous pat down", according to Indian officials, despite her diplomatic status.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

"Let me be frank. This is unacceptable to India. We are going to take it up with the government of the United States so that such unpleasant incidents do not recur," India's Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told reporters in New Delhi...

...However, the Times of India quoted Mississippi Lieutenant Governor Phil Bryante as saying he regretted "the outrageous way Indian Ambassador Shankar was treated" by the Transport and Security Administration.


This is outrageous, though not necessarily because she was patted down but rather that she has recourse to her patdown and US officials are already apologizing. Are they somehow better than us? Is that what it is?

The American people are subjected to this heinous behavior, but not one of the "elites" from another country? Well, the American people are the government, seeing how this is supposed to be a government "by", "for" and "of" the people. If the American people have to go through this crap, then so should Indians. What, are they not happy enough taking our jobs?

Before someone says, "she is a diplomat and thus subject to diplomatic treatment". No, diplomatic treatment is different. That means that they can't be arrested, detained or searched by the police unless they present a threat to the public (more or less). The TSA and government are using the excuse that everyone poses a threat. If the Indian ambassador doesn;t want to be subjected to this search, then she surely shouldn't fly commercial aircraft.

Going by the TSA and government's logic, we shouldn't have to risk our security because some foreigner gets offended. Now I know it's all a bunch of non-sense and these scanners or pat downs aren't effective enough to stop terror (thus we don't really need them), but I am just going by the logic that is forcing us to go through it.

The point that I'm trying to make is that apparently the government is putting us, the people who they are supposed to be serving, on the bottom of the totem pole. If the American people have to be subjected to such invasive measures, then so should foreigners, regardless of whether they work for a foreign government and especially since they are flying on the same airplanes.

Why do we owe this foreigner an apology for subjecting her to the same treatment that we ourselves have to fo through, especially considering that this is our country?

This is the kind of thing that makes me furious. The elites aren't any better than us and we shouldn't stand for anything that says otherwise. They should be subjected to the same treatments that everyone else is subjected to and that even includes our own President (King).


--airspoon



www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I agree with you, she should have been treated the same as us mere mortals. Personally, I feel "elites" should be subjected to the same scrutiny as us, so as to lead by example- though, in this case, I don't think anyone at all should have to go through such stringent security, a line has to be drawn somewhere. One possible positive is that she may have enough influence, so as to deliver repercussions, that may sway TSA/the governments thinking towards a slightly more liberal viewpoint, although, that is unlikely.
edit on 10-12-2010 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Airspoon, mentioning the indians "taking our jobs" is bogus. Its a sham. I hear that trumpeted around all over the democratic world, but its NEVER right to say it, because the large majority of the jobs that are being taken , are either jobs that local persons either havent the inclanation to do, or are not qualified for, thats just how it is.Sure there may be the odd Indian McDonalds employee , but thats not the norm at all. Besides which , once a person lives in a nation and begins a life there, that is thier country too ! Same deal here in Britain. Its called multi culturalism and thats how it works. That is the real problem. Without migrant workforces, most western nations would fold under the wieght of incapability of thier own people.
Without Indian, Pakistani , and other asian doctors for instance, Britains medical staff would be at skeleton crew capacity at best, and would have been for the last decade or so.
This is something you either deal with as a multi culturalist, or end your nation over. There is no way to redress the issue without a period of some jobs just not being done, while people are trained to fill the labour gap that would be left by simply deporting or restricting the amount of foreign workers in a nation, and I dont know about you , but I cant see anyone putting up with a delay in services while American people are trained to do the jobs they havent been applying for or training for ,for years.
On the subject however of the frisking business, it is insane that diplomatic status even exists in this day and age, because we are all supposed to be equal no matter which nation we are from, which gender we happen to be, and what social position we have attained in life. Idealy a diplomat and a gangster should be just as likely to be searched at a airport terminal under equality laws in both the US and the UK. I dont see what shes making such a fuss about.
If I was a foreign diplomat I would not be making a buffoon of myself complaining about a simple security procedure like this !



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The woman is a foreigner from a country that has radical domestic elements and is subject to constant threat of radical activities from external entities. Yet somehow, a six year old female citizen trying to board a plane is more of a threat than this woman. If anything, her diplomatic position gives her an even better opportunity to commit an act of terror, simply because of the rights of privilege that diplomats have, one of these being that they are naturally seen as NOT a threat, and consequently dismissed from normal security scrutiny.

Hm. People have not really thought out the terror threat levels existent around the globe and in which forms are they most viable.

Either screen everyone the same, or screen no one.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


I believe he refers to the outsourcing of our jobs, or at least I hope he does. Anyone qualified for a job should get the job if they applied for it, especially in a place like America that was constructed off of this basic idea. Just get into the country legally, and I'm ok with that. It has nothing to do with culture, just qualification and legality.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


That's just not correct and in fact, these foreign representatives are over hear, planning with our own government on how to shift more jobs over to India or import more Indians over here. I did a thread a thread a couple of months ago on a story where where our tac-dollars (very large sums) wer being given to Asian countries (such as India) to start programs for outsourcing jobs.

These aren;t jobs that Americans aren't qualified for and that excuse is absolute BS. These are jobs that allow the corporations to hire cheaper workers, while still reaping the benefits of being a US company. It's not only outsourcing these jobs, it's also importing Indians in to take over our jobs here, for half the salary. I just met someone last week who was "let-go" after 12 years with the Computer Science Corporation, who is giving work visas to Indians at almost "whole-sale". This is after the company moved other large sections to India, such as the call-centers.

What's even worse, is that many of these corporations get tax-breaks for doing this kind of thing and they certainly get to reap the othre benefits of being a US corporation, while hiring the cheap labor of foreign countries.

I can almost guarantee that this "diplomat" was in Mississippi discussing ways to take more American jobs.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I about fell over when I saw she was patted down. To answer your question she does have recourse, since as an Ambasador, she has diplomatic immunity and I beleive they are also exempt from any types of searches of themselves or any belongings brought with them in their diplomatic pouches.


As a side note, India is a Democrtactic nation, and actually one of the most populated Democratic countries on the planet.
edit on 10-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Give 'em hell, Airspoon!

You are spot on. This is an example of that 'two America's" that Edwards used to blather about.

Certainly we don't want to upset our Indian allies. But we have our own issues at play here, too.

thanks for sharing.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


She is a diplomat and has immunity status that's why US has to apologise and rightly so.


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.

Here's a complete link to Diplomatic Immunity.

It's a simple concept if US does not follow the international laid down standards of diplomatic immunity the US ambassadors and diplomats will also be refused immunity status around the world. If the US govt. wants it's ambassadors and diplomats treated respectfully they have to reciprocate in the same way. If anyone is at fault here it's TSA and other govt. bodies who searched the Diplomat.

/thread
edit on 10-12-2010 by EFGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
A lot of Indians have a bitter dislike for Muslims, and subject them to crude treatment from time to time. I always laugh a little on the inside when they get mistaken for one.

Now, that being said, why does it always have to be us mistaking them?? Come on that's just embarrassing.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
To those saying she has immunity, your right but diplomatic immunity only goes so far. For instance, a threat to public safety is enough to void that diplomatic immunity and since that is the excuse for molesting us in the first place, then her diplomatic immunity shouldn't protect her from these pat-downs, considering that she is flying commercially. Now if she had her own plane, I could possibly see her diplomatic immunity coming into play here.

Diplomatic immunity isn't ever reaching. It doesn't cover everything and there are instances where it means nothing. Take for instance drunk driving. A cop can pull over and then detain a diplomat for drunk driving. Why, because it poses a public threat. Someone getting on a commercial flight also poses a public threat, at least according to authorties, thus her diplomatic status no longer matters.

I suggest anyone hiding behind that excuse actually research what diplomatic immunity entails.

Another thing to consider is this thread here: Body scanner CEO accompanied Obama to India, where it appears as if this whole mess is in part tied to India, considering that Deepak Chopra is the CEO of one of the two companies putting these back-scatter machines in our Airports.



--airspoon
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Another factor to consider is the American wealth that is sent to India by successful Indians in America. An example is a doctor that I am friends with. He is a "Patel". He was the first, came to America and lived in squalor (which he was accustomed to, being from a poor part of India) while attending medical school. When he graduated and started his own practice, he lived on half his earnings, and invested the other half into businesses for family members. Brothers first, then sisters, then cousins. He has started mini empires for 20+ family members in the 15 years spent as a doctor. Some of them run hotels, etc in America. Many are in parts of Asia instead.

Billions of dollars siphoned off of our economy and pumped into the Indian economy. Of course, they are doing exactly what I would do were I in their position. But it is something else to consider when discussing the outsourcing of jobs to India.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Diplomatic Immunity can only be waived by the home country and only at the request of the injured country. Absent the Government of India revoking her diplomatic status, she has duplomatic immunity and nothing can change that. If the US has issues with her, they can revoke their acceptance of her as a representative of the Indian Government, but all that means is she goes back home, but she still has diplomatic immunity.

Violating that sets a very dangerous precedent.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Again, diplomatic immunity has its limits. For instance, a diplomat can;t walk up to someone and murder them, nor can they do something like drive drunk. If a diplomat potentially poses a risk to the public, then that risk or threat can be neutralized with appropriate measures. A cop can stop and detain a diplomat if that diplomat poses a particular security or safety risk to the public. Hollywood would have us believe otherwise, but reality isn't Hollywood.

Seeing how this whole issue is based on the excuse that everyone flying commercial aircraft pose a potential safety or security hazard, yes even diplomats don't have immunity from being screened. Now they can;t be prosecuted but we aren't talking about prosecution, we are talking about measures being taken to supposedly ensure public safety.

Third time.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Boy are you guys messed up with your logic.
Is this thread about the scanners or whether or not you like India?? They are two different issues.

If scanners are a bad idea (and they are) then they are a bad idea for everyone and anyone no matter where they are from. You don't like them but oh, go ahead and scan those Indians because they are such bad people.
Isn't that just a little hypocritical?
Obviously.
If anything, you should be happy they are raising a fuss about them. I don't see them advocating for them in any way.

So I guess this is really an India bashing thread. I only wish you honest about that instead of talking about scanners.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 



Boy are you guys messed up with your logic.


No, it is your logic that is "messed up", based on a lack of comprehension.


Is this thread about the scanners or whether or not you like India?? They are two different issues.


Neither. This thread is about the peasant class being subjected to these machines and the lite apparently not so much. Then, the elite apparently get an apology, while the rest of us get a "too bad, shut up and do it".

I'm no fan of these machines or the pat-downs, though if you are going to implament them, then you can't pick and choose who gets to do it. Guess what? Most people are offended by it but we have to do it anyway. Why should the elites not have to do it? That is so rediculous to think otherwise.

So, when a diplomat from Palestine or Libya flys commercially, should they too be exempt and if you think not, then why not? You are watching too many movies if you think that diplomatic immunity stretches over everything, as it doesn't and it certainly shouldn't.

The point here being that if India doesn't want its diplomats subjected to these measures, then India shouldn;t have its diplomats fly commercially, just as we are told. They are no better than us and considering that this is our country and it is supposed to be our government, if anyone gets preferential treatment, it should be us, not some foreigner.

Again, if you are going to implament these machines and the pat-down due to the excuse that anyone can be carrying a weapon or bomb and it is paramount to security, then everyone needs to go through, otherwise the whole security measure is a farce. You can't simply say that the elite don't have to go through it and then apologize when they do. Where is my apology? Where is my recourse? What's even more sad, is this is my country and my government, which is me. I should be more trusted than this lady, yet she is apparently held to a higher value than even our veterans returning home from war.

It is your logic that is flawed here.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Actualy that would be incorrect. If a person who has diplomatic immunity walked up to a person on the street, pulled out a gun and shot them dead, even detaining them cause issues that automiatically brings it to a Federal level.

The Diplomat could not even be detained or arrested for it without violating diplomatic protocol. Again an argument is made to the diplomats host country to waive diplomatic immunity. If they refuse, we cannot charge or prosecute that diplomat.

10 years or so ago an American diplomat in Georgia or Ukrain, I forget, was drunk, drive his car and killed a person. We had to waive immunity for him to be charged.

As fubared as it is, they can kill a person and are still protected and cannot be charged or prosecuted unless their home country waives immunity.

Absent that, we can boot them from the country, and that is where our actions end.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



Where is my apology? Where is my recourse? What's even more sad, is this is my country and my government, which is me. I should be more trusted than this lady, yet she is apparently held to a higher value than even our veterans returning home from war.


This is the only place where you are making sense Airspoon. Yes, you and every regular person should also be getting an apology. I don't think it is India's fault that you are not. That is where you have been off target yourself. You and others have spent the majority of your words on attacking India instead of your government.

There may be some real issues to discuss regarding, but that would be for some other thread; not this one.

What your government is doing to its citizens is deplorable. You should be demanding appologies from them. As it is you seem to want to be sure that everyone else also suffers equally. That is a funny way to spend your energies. Why don't you strategize about how to get rid of the regulations? Wouldn't that have a better chance of accomplishing something worthwhile instead of just spreading the misery?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


The whole thread is based off of that notion that you admitted is making sense, thus whatever else you read into it is due to your own biases.

The only thing implied here, is that diplomats shouldn't get special treatment and our government surely shouldn't apologize for subjecting this foriegner to a molestation. Nobody is saying that India shouldn;t get angry, only that India shouldn't expect preferential treatment and our government certainly should give preferential treatment, especially to a foreigner.

Furthermore, if India was so concerned about this procedure, they sure seem to keep their mouth shuts when their citizens are subjected to it, thus they expect a certain elite priveledge which is non-sense, almost on par with the non-sense spewed by our own government. This is especially true considering that India is thoroughly connected to the companies pushing these invasive machines.

Again, anything else you have read into the OP or the main argument, is based upon your own personal biases. The jobs comment was directed at the reason why this diplomat was in Mississippi in the first place.

All in all, we have Indian officials coming to this country to secure American tax-dollars to fund jobs that will displace Americans and then they obviously believe it is beneath them to be subjected to the same security procedures as our own citizens and our government obviously feels the same way, whie I might add, they are robbing the tax-paer to outsource our jobs over to India.

It has become quite clear that we, Americans, are pretty much the laughing stock of the world, as our government pimps us out to the highest bidders. What a joke!




--airspoon




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join