Options
The Police State
webmost
Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
Sorry, Libs --- I tried CBS, CNN, etc., but the Fox you hate was the first source I googled on this story which gave much detail. The others just blow a few emotional bullets then echo the White House disinformation campaign.
This lady brought her children's nanny from the homeland and paid her 30,000 rupees a month; which turns out to be less than NY minimum wage. Does a crime of that character require strip searches, much less uniformed functionaries with blue gloves and wooden expressions fumbling round inside her **** and ****? What are they afraid of? Exactly what is the threat here?
Is it merely a co-incidence, you think, that this consul is a knockout? Who is reviewing that strip search footage?
Is it also a coincidence that the NY prosecutor chosen to spout the official excuses in this case just happens to be named Preet Bharara? Our Indian trumps their Indian.
For that matter, is it a co-incidence, you think, that they followed and waited until she dropped off her children at school to arrest her there and spook the nanny, so that her children would be stranded?
But wait. Let's take the diplomatic immunity angle out of the story for a moment. What if she were American? Let's say Sue Williams hired a Dominican nanny and paid her what a cigar roller makes in the DR? Would that then justify strip searches and digital rape fore and aft?
As an odd side note: JP Morgan Chase, bailed out in 2008 to the tune of mega billions, subsequently secured the contract to manage EBT cards (I'm sure I must be leaving out a co-incidental contribution to the DNC there somewhere). Chase out-sources EBT telephone support to India. This nanny could return home, work fourteen hours a day, at half her wages here, doing US government work and no one would be cavity searched
There ain't enough tinfoil for all the hats in play here.
This lady brought her children's nanny from the homeland and paid her 30,000 rupees a month; which turns out to be less than NY minimum wage. Does a crime of that character require strip searches, much less uniformed functionaries with blue gloves and wooden expressions fumbling round inside her **** and ****? What are they afraid of? Exactly what is the threat here?
Is it merely a co-incidence, you think, that this consul is a knockout? Who is reviewing that strip search footage?
Is it also a coincidence that the NY prosecutor chosen to spout the official excuses in this case just happens to be named Preet Bharara? Our Indian trumps their Indian.
For that matter, is it a co-incidence, you think, that they followed and waited until she dropped off her children at school to arrest her there and spook the nanny, so that her children would be stranded?
But wait. Let's take the diplomatic immunity angle out of the story for a moment. What if she were American? Let's say Sue Williams hired a Dominican nanny and paid her what a cigar roller makes in the DR? Would that then justify strip searches and digital rape fore and aft?
As an odd side note: JP Morgan Chase, bailed out in 2008 to the tune of mega billions, subsequently secured the contract to manage EBT cards (I'm sure I must be leaving out a co-incidental contribution to the DNC there somewhere). Chase out-sources EBT telephone support to India. This nanny could return home, work fourteen hours a day, at half her wages here, doing US government work and no one would be cavity searched
There ain't enough tinfoil for all the hats in play here.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
0
Comments
It seems as long as there is family it's difficult to completely buy in to these totalitarian governments completely, because you always have two sets of loyalties. Break the family down and they're the only game in town. You'd die for your family, right? Defend it even if it might be wrong? Yup.
1) There is more than underpayment here, there were false documents and visa fraud. That could heighten suspicions.
2) To riff off another thread...how stupid are we if we believe this provoked India's reaction? F*ckery is afoot here, we did something else to them.
These people,and NPR, have attempted to find out what the rules are, if any, and what can be done about it. Even to the point of contacting their elected representatives, who seem to be tone deaf on this issue.
So far, the official position seems to be that Homeland Security can do what they want, when they want, to whomever they want, and there are no repercussions whatsoever, there is no one to whom one may officially address a complaint, and there is no one willing to state aloud or in writing any official guidelines.
There will be those, of course who want to "Blame Obama", who certainly shares in the blame, but this all started with the so-called PATRIOT Act, so, I personally feel obliged to
BLAME CHENEY.
(pre-emptive strike against the potential arguement "Just blame Bush")
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
On the other hand: Name me one mortgage robo-signer who got handcuffed, strip searched, and a blue glove shoved up his azz.
One.
AMEN
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
However, if you consider the hundred of thousands police/citizen contacts every day that go absolutely fine, the number of screw ups are extremely small. In the digital age, we just happen to see them more.
In this particular case, the police waited and arrested her after she left her children so as not to embarrass her more. There were a number of things going on here in addition to underpaying her help. One thing I can tell you for sure, if you put someone in a cell, you better make damn sure that person has nothing on them that can cause harm.
Many moons ago, before our department had female officers, we had matrons. If we arrested a female, a cop went and picked up the matron at her home and she came in and searched the prisoner. Male cops do not strip search female prisoners! In one case, a female was put in a cell and a matron was brought in. By the time the matron got to the cell, the prisoner was almost dead from sedatives she had hidden on her person, and she had been checked every 15 minutes. This is why you search someone before you put them in a cell!
The decision to put someone in a cell rests with each department. It may have to do with when a judge is available, distance to the court, possibility of bail, etc.
Sorry about the rant, but walk in our shoes sometimes and see what the job is really like, before you start throwing stones.
I think the sore spot here is the decision to make an arrest in the first place, to place this person in a cell seems out of context with the crime comitted. Wouldn't it have made more sense to serve a summons? This absolutely could have been handled with tact and discretion, rather than heavy-handed brute force where none was apparently needed.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
But don't you see how your post aptly typifies the problem itself? First, you start out feeling you ought to be beyond public scrutiny. Then you take the rarest most extreme example imaginable and use that to excuse draconian treatment applied to everyone across the board regardless of circumstance. Motive is no excuse. Good motive is no excuse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning well is no excuse.
Even if we were to accept the odious proposition that the end justifies the means, then: What should be our end? Should it be safeguarding individual liberty and respect for human rights? Or ought it be unmitigated risk aversion?
because...
I'm retired now, but I have 30 years experience in police work, ten years as chief. You have to plan for the worst and hope for the best, and expect to get sued no matter what happens. We do our best and if a cop screws up, s/he should not be protected or go without scrutiny, however, cops are entitled to the same due process rights as everyone else. You don't give up your rights when you pin the badge on.
The the comment about the mortgage robo-signers is entirely irrelevant, that was a legal method for achieving a businesses goals, there was no reason for them to be subject to this sort of thing. If you want to try an accurate comparison ask if Bernie Madoff was subjected to this sort of search. I can guarantee you he was.
India is well known for treating women like property, so why are they soooo upset...?
I understand the need for strip searching in a lot of cases, but I don't understand this one.
People in/from that part of the world are notorious for miss-treating employees/nannies. This one got caught, good. When I was president of my condo in N VA I called the authorities twice for the very same reason. So why the uproar that she was arrested..?
There is some other dynamic working here. Does it have something to do with the fact that the cop in charge is Indian..?
And why was diplomatic immunity (which I have never agreed with) ignored..?
There is definitely something else going on here, and the removal of the barriers in front of the Embassy in India was a blatant smack in the face, besides being really stupid.
It would all depend on whether the person had "diplomatic immunity" or "consular immunity".
Consular immunity only provides protection against infractions directly related to their consulate functions.
Either way, they should have been under the laws and regulations of their originating country, according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Right, wrong or indifferent, the local authorities should have immediately contacted that countries consulate and they should have been represented by that consulate, no matter what the crime was.
I hate to say it, but it sounds like this person was not given representation of any kind.
I may have misread it.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.