TSA ignores diplomatic immunity

[Jim Logajan]

TSA pats down Indian ambassador despite showing credentials:

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53469820101209

"Asked about the incident involving Shankar, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she had looked into the matter and concluded that "it was by the book." "It was a pat-down that followed our procedures, and I think it was appropriate under the circumstances," Napolitano told reporters."


Napolitano's book doesn't include U.S. or international law or treaties and the unintended consequences of violating same, it seems. In other news Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department are probably steaming - can't be good. Wonder if someone in the U.S. Administration is ever going to buy Janet a clue?

 

[Steve]

Following the incident the ambassador, who was on an economic development mission, vowed never to return.

So much for economic development out of that effort in an area that desperately needs it.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20101209/NEWS/101209023/TSA+pat-down+of+diplomat+starts+uproar

Meera Shankar, Indian ambassador to the U.S, was in Jackson last weekend as a guest of Mississippi State University.

Despite presenting her formal diplomatic papers to TSA officers, Shankar was selected for an enhanced screening before her departing flight from Jackson-Evers International Airport — a move that has been decried by India’s leaders, as well as Mississippi officials.

Shankar, who was escorted by an airport security officer and a representative from the Mississippi Development Authority, was the only person of at least 30 passengers to be selected for a pat-down.

The foreign diplomat was told she was singled out because of the way she was dressed, according to witness accounts and the Indian Embassy in Washington.

Shankar, 60, was wearing a sari — a traditional Indian robe that is draped across the body.

TSA spokesman Jon Allen said the agency can conduct additional screenings when passengers wear “bulky” clothing.

Thanks TSA, you've done your country a great service.

 

[RJM62]

Good grief... "by the book" or not, it's an embarrassment. India is one of our finest allies and one of Asia's fastest-rising stars.

This TSA nonsense is really going to far, and Big Sister is definitely in need of a job change.

-Rich

 

[Jim Logajan]

Can't be by these books, to which the U.S. is a signatory and has the full force of U.S. law:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/149353.pdf
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf


"Article 29

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity."

Gee, there is "MEERA SHANKAR" listed in the State Department document. Nobody can top the TSA in taking all appropriate steps in attacking the person, freedom, and dignity of a friendly visiting "AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY & PLENIPOTENTIARY."

 

[John Baker]

The TSA is just another bureaucracy. Large bureaucracies rarely work as intended. It does not matter if they are public or private. They are top heavy, not with people who honestly earned their lofty positions, but with people who earned political favors, or had time on the job. Consequently, most bureaucracies lack competent leadership at all levels.

Most of our education is run by bureaucracies. The U.S. educational levels, as compared to other countries is around 57th from the top,and is continuing to decline.
Not because our teachers lack the ability to teach, but because they are bureaucrats working within the system.

This is true in every large bureaucracy, from the CIA to the post office. Bureaucracies started out as an efficient way of managing the needs of the people. Now they are not only highly inefficient, but highly wasteful as well.

That's just my opinion though.

John

 

[CollinLeon]

So, in retaliation, India is going to have all the taxi cab drivers in NYC go on strike?

How about having all the Indian hotel owners refuse to rent a room to anyone connected with the TSA?

 

[poadeleted20]

"Article 29

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity."

Not saying I agree with the rules, but Ms. Napolitano is legally correct. If the ambassador was getting on an Indian state aircraft (which doesn't include Air India), then you'd be correct. However, these checks are not "arrest or detention," and the ambassador was free to decline and choose another mode of transportation, like an Indian embassy diplomatic-plated vehicle, or an Indian Air Force transport, in which case he would be exempt from any checks. But getting on a US domestic carrier? Nope -- even diplomats take off their shoes just like the rest of us.

 

[N801BH]

So, in retaliation, India is going to have all the taxi cab drivers in NYC go on strike?

How about having all the Indian hotel owners refuse to rent a room to anyone connected with the TSA?

We can name it the "Patel Doctrine".........

Everyone awarded it will get to wear a dot right between the eyes.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not saying I agree with the rules, but Ms. Napolitano is legally correct. If the ambassador was getting on an Indian state aircraft (which doesn't include Air India), then you'd be correct. However, these checks are not "arrest or detention," and the ambassador was free to decline and choose another mode of transportation, like an Indian embassy diplomatic-plated vehicle, or an Indian Air Force transport, in which case he would be exempt from any checks. But getting on a US domestic carrier? Nope -- even diplomats take off their shoes just like the rest of us.

I don't think U.S. law is allowed to override treaties unless the U.S. withdraws from the treaty, and I don't see how a pat-down is consistent with "The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable."

 

[rotorhead1026]

Not saying I agree with the rules, but Ms. Napolitano is legally correct.

It's a bit murkier, with diplomatic protocol, past practice, and administrative rules making up the fog. I don't know whether she was completely bypassing screening in other places or not. I was based in DC for fifteen years - U. S. congressman regularly get a "pass" there, and I suspect the same courtesy is given to high-level diplomats. TSA had better start applying a consistent policy, starting now. I lived in India for two years as well, and will say that this rhubarb is going to be fun to watch.

EDIT: What I read here is, for the Indian press, remarkably muted. We'll see ...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...wn-at-Jackson-airport/articleshow/7069178.cms

and the ambassador was free to decline and choose another mode of transportation

I think, in her case, this would have been correct, but remember the "don't touch my junk" fellow. He was threatened with a $10,000.00 fine for backing out of the process.

 

[ScottM]

Of course it was by the book. But don't you know, TSA security people can't read!!!

 

[mikea]

So, in retaliation, India is going to have all the taxi cab drivers in NYC go on strike?
...

If you think Pakistanis and Egyptians and Jordanians and Arabs and Muslims are from India, then maybe Yes.

Like I said, the TSA gate maroons may not be able to spell "diplomat" but they know whatever they do the management will back them up. They act, make the decision and then run to the web to check the rules to find one that'll work.

I wonder what would happen if the President personally had to apologize? "Forget him, Smitty. You done good. By the book."

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Here's another fine mess you've gotten me into Stanley! Oliver Hardy

Best,

Dave

 

[CJones]

Following the incident the ambassador, who was on an economic development mission, vowed never to return.

So much for economic development out of that effort in an area that desperately needs it.

Flubs like this is the only way that the TSA will have their leash tightened - when they start costing money.

You can scream about personal rights, etc. all you want, but nothing will change until money comes into the picture.

You want the full-body scanners and/or legalized molestation at security checkpoints to go away? Quit flying airlines and make sure you let the airlines know that you are not supporting their business specifically because of the TSA nonsense. When even gov't funds can't make up the difference in lost revenue, then the yahoos on capitol hill will start paying attention.

Until then, it is nothing more than an 'unquantifiable inconvenience for a few bull-headed travelers'.

 

[CJones]

Not saying I agree with the rules, but Ms. Napolitano is legally correct. If the ambassador was getting on an Indian state aircraft (which doesn't include Air India), then you'd be correct. However, these checks are not "arrest or detention," and the ambassador was free to decline and choose another mode of transportation, like an Indian embassy diplomatic-plated vehicle, or an Indian Air Force transport, in which case he would be exempt from any checks. But getting on a US domestic carrier? Nope -- even diplomats take off their shoes just like the rest of us.

But isn't there a risk of civil penalty if you decline all security screens once you are in the line? It is my (possibly wrong) understanding that once you get in the line to start the screening process, you can't just say 'Nevermind, I don't want to do this anymore' and leave.

 

[mikea]

But isn't there a risk of civil penalty if you decline all security screens once you are in the line? It is my (possibly wrong) understanding that once you get in the line to start the screening process, you can't just say 'Nevermind, I don't want to do this anymore' and leave.

That would be "probing" Mr. Terrist, and we can't allow that, thus the threatened $10,000 fine for Mr. "Don't touch my junk!" Oh. And they also banned recording the TSA at the gate to, you know, prevent terrists, there ,too, and uh, prevent any more embarrassing YouTube videos.

Don't go thinking that the TSA could just say "OK. You have every right to leave after we see some ID, Mr. Atta" or anything. YOU WILL RESPECT OUR AUTHORITAH!

 

[gismo]

But isn't there a risk of civil penalty if you decline all security screens once you are in the line? It is my (possibly wrong) understanding that once you get in the line to start the screening process, you can't just say 'Nevermind, I don't want to do this anymore' and leave.

I believe that in that case "diplomatic immunity" would apply. IOW a diplomat should be able to refuse screening and leave without being detained, fined, or otherwise hassled but like Ron said, I think the TSA can insist that anyone boarding an airplane be screened. Of course that kinda goes against the policy to let national politicians and their security details skip the process.

 

[JeffDG]

I believe that in that case "diplomatic immunity" would apply. IOW a diplomat should be able to refuse screening and leave without being detained, fined, or otherwise hassled but like Ron said, I think the TSA can insist that anyone boarding an airplane be screened. Of course that kinda goes against the policy to let national politicians and their security details skip the process.

I don't think they can require screening for diplomats. They cannot search or X-Ray their bags without the consent of the diplomat in question.

Think of it this way, some courier at the Beijing embassy coming to DC on a commercial flight, and the Chinese TSA opens his diplomatic pouch and rifles through all the stuff in there...there's a reason that diplomat's persons and papers are inviolable.

 

[Palmpilot]

If I were the Secretary of State, I would be making darn sure that the TSA knows just exactly what they can and can't do with regard to foreign diplomats.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

If I were the Secretary of State, I would be making darn sure that the TSA knows just exactly what they can and can't do with regard to foreign diplomats.

+1.
Of course, if we require this of their diplomats; they may require it of ours in there country.

best,

Dave

 

[timrj]

If I were the Secretary of State, I would be making darn sure that the TSA knows just exactly what they can and can't do with regard to foreign diplomats.

Not to mention our own citizens.

It's time to send these A-holes packing.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Yes, these and other misadventure of TSA will go down in the anals of American history <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[Ted]

Chris is right, nothing will change until it starts costing money to businesses and government. People won't boycott flying commercially until it gets to the point where colonoscopies are required to check rectal explosives prior to boarding.

...as I wait in BWI terminal to board my Southwest flight.

 

[Mason]

Not saying I agree with the rules, but Ms. Napolitano is legally correct. If the ambassador was getting on an Indian state aircraft (which doesn't include Air India), then you'd be correct. However, these checks are not "arrest or detention," and the ambassador was free to decline and choose another mode of transportation, like an Indian embassy diplomatic-plated vehicle, or an Indian Air Force transport, in which case he would be exempt from any checks. But getting on a US domestic carrier? Nope -- even diplomats take off their shoes just like the rest of us.

I'm not sure about that but I am sure that diplomatic pouches are exempt from any kind of screening. Period.

 

[EdFred]

Chris is right, nothing will change until it starts costing money to businesses and government. People won't boycott flying commercially until it gets to the point where colonoscopies are required to check rectal explosives prior to boarding.

...as I wait in BWI terminal to board my Southwest flight.

I have. It's the sole reason why I'm not going to Thailand in February.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I'm not sure about that but I am sure that diplomatic pouches are exempt from any kind of screening. Period.

Under the right circumstances, yes.

http://www.state.gov/ofm/customs/c37011.htm

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Article 27 is the place to look.

As to diplomatic immunity at large, it's broad, but not unlimited. A lot of it depends on a person's exact status - and I'm not sure I'd rely on a news report to get that status correct.

 

[Richard]

The foreign diplomat was told she was singled out because of the way she was dressed, according to witness accounts and the Indian Embassy in Washington.

I'm gonna' go out on a limb and guess this would be proferred by TSA, et al, as why profiling won't work.

 

[JeffDG]

As to diplomatic immunity at large, it's broad, but not unlimited. A lot of it depends on a person's exact status - and I'm not sure I'd rely on a news report to get that status correct.

Well, accodring to the Embassy website, her exact status is "Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary", which if I understand the Conventions properly, is just about as protected a status as you can have.

 

[RJM62]

Well, accodring to the Embassy website, her exact status is "Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary", which if I understand the Conventions properly, is just about as protected a status as you can have.

Well, I'm not sure what the "Extraordinary" part means, but "Plenipotentiary" means "having full authority to act" (in the case of diplomats, on behalf of their Sovereigns, I would think). So it seems to me that an "Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary" would be a representative who possesses the full authority to act on behalf of the sending country's head of state.

If that's the case, then yes, Ms. Shankar would be about as high up the diplomatic ladder as one can get.

-Rich

 

[JeffDG]

If that's the case, then yes, Ms. Shankar would be about as high up the diplomatic ladder as one can get.

-Rich

I think she would be (protocol wise) ranked only by the Foreign Minister and the President.

In a country like the UK, an ambassador would be ranked by the Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister (chief of government), and the Queen (chief of state).

 

[SCCutler]

This is, really, illustrative of the contempt the TSA bureaucrats have for everyone with whom they deal.

Now, we expect that from bureaucrats; that the appointed executive is supportive of these shenanigans is a disappointing surprise.

 

[Palmpilot]

This is, really, illustrative of the contempt the TSA bureaucrats have for everyone with whom they deal.

Now, we expect that from bureaucrats; that the appointed executive is supportive of these shenanigans is a disappointing surprise.

It's pretty clear to me that whatever problems there are in the way TSA personnel do their jobs, the problem originates at the top.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think, in her case, this would have been correct, but remember the "don't touch my junk" fellow. He was threatened with a $10,000.00 fine for backing out of the process.

The Ambassador has diplomatic immunity in that regard; the fellow to whom you refer did not.

 

[poadeleted20]

But isn't there a risk of civil penalty if you decline all security screens once you are in the line?

Not if you have diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity only applies to criminal and civil prosecution. It does not apply to security procedures on public transportation. In the latter case, the diplomat has the option to decline both the screening and the transportation (but not just one).

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't think they can require screening for diplomats. They cannot search or X-Ray their bags without the consent of the diplomat in question.

Correct, but they can then refuse to allow those bags (or the diplomat) to go on the plane without that screening (assuming it's not a US government airplane like a USAF transport, where the Chinese or whoever don't get any say in who or what diplomats or diplomatic bags go on the jet).

 

[poadeleted20]

Of course, if we require this of their diplomats; they may require it of ours in there country.

They already can -- when it's their airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not sure about that but I am sure that diplomatic pouches are exempt from any kind of screening. Period.

They are. But there is no requirement that they be allowed on their planes, either. They do have the power to turn back such bags if we refuse screening, and then the USAF has to send a jet over to pick it up.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

They are. But there is no requirement that they be allowed on their planes, either. They do have the power to turn back such bags if we refuse screening, and then the USAF has to send a jet over to pick it up.

Got a reference for this?

Ron-

...entourage below the level of cabinet minister will be subject to customary screening, which will be expedited whenever possible.

Ref: http://web.archive.org/web/20070317020517/www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/32838.htm[/URL]
As I understand that she was the only one on that flight to have received the pat-down, I could make an argument that her screening was above that considered "customary"
The TSA was making a point- NO ONE is above their rules, not even ambassadors.
I ask you Ron- do you really want people on such a power trip to be in your FBO at your local airport? AOPA needs to be against any further increase in the TSA.

 

[poadeleted20]

As I understand that she was the only one on that flight to have received the pat-down,

You have that as a known fact, or you just heard it somewhere?

I could make an argument that her screening was above that considered "customary"

You could make that argument, but I don't think it flies.

The TSA was making a point- NO ONE is above their rules, not even ambassadors.

That's a conclusion you've made without giving any solid evidence to support it.

I ask you Ron- do you really want people on such a power trip to be in your FBO at your local airport?

Assumes facts not in evidence and makes conclusions not even supported by the facts not in evidence.

AOPA needs to be against any further increase in the TSA.

That's a pretty broad statement.

And I'm out of this one.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Ron-

Assumes facts not in evidence and makes conclusions not even supported by the facts not in evidence.

It was a question - no facts needed.

From the Vienna convention of 1961:

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.​

5.The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status
and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in
the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form
of arrest or detention.​

Article 29
​

​

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest
or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to
prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.​

http://www.corpsdiplomatique.cd/VIENNA_CONVENTION_1961_ON_DIPLOMATIC_RELATIONS.pdf

The USA is a party to this convention and it therefore carries the force law in the USA.