I actually expected such a response which contains some arguments I do admire to a good degree.
I just want to add three line of thoughts:
1) Looking at some stats and taking into account a couple of papers I have read it is quite obvious that people in the US tend to get treated differently by the security forces and judicial system according to gender, race, age, wealth and location. It is difficult to argue that the US stands out in equal treatment compared to other Western democracies. Overall a strong push towards an equal approach is good as it pulls it against all too common bias into the right direction.
Interestingly sometimes a high status might cause you to get worse treatment because it can earn some agents points in the eyes of the public. You end up with things which are sometimes against the interest of the public but get it's approval and helps someones self-interest.
2) I think it is undeniable that the person in question is 'special'. Not special as a human but as a rappresentative of a foreign power, even more so an important one. There is a long list of reasons manifested in human history and practical politics why diplomats get treated differently, especially if you are not on friendly terms with the other side. It costs a modern state in general extremely little to create a environment which can help to promote it's interests. If you want to screw another powers diplomant you want to do it for a good political reason as a 'bad' treatment of a rappresentative gets easily seen as a bad treatment of the whole nation.
3) In my opinion it is not against the rule of law if the US foreign department interprets an international convention in a broad sense if it is in the interest of the nation and tells its internal organs so.
Ray already mentioned in addition what angried a good deal of well-connected people in India:
I have no doubt that the Italian/European reaction would be quite similar.This case has got the majority of Indians indignant, not on the legal aspect, but the violation of diplomatic niceties and moralising with pious justification, more so, when US diplomats pay less than a one dollar to their paid help in third world countries as is reported by the US documents itself! I wonder how come the US Govt and the US courts do not find it a violation, when the Embassies and Consulates are taken to be US territories! Surely, the pontificating US State Dept can take suo moto congnisance. And what about the only court in the world that gives Justice (as is claimed) – the US Courts?
Bookmarks