Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd July 2009, 20:50   #91
Senior - BHPian
 
Ravveendrra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 1,391
Thanked: 404 Times
Default Always a Queen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom View Post
Let them try frisking HM Elizabeth! Strict protocols insist that nobody lays such as a finger on her!
LOL, she also holds office for life therefore no issues. If she retired/abdicated then the protocol things get complicated.

Once a queen, always a queen! Anyone for an ex-queen? (377 is put in limbo)


Cheers,
Ravveendrra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2009, 23:51   #92
BHPian
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LAX-SNA-BFL-BLR
Posts: 319
Thanked: 12 Times
Default

So continental apologized (hell its even on CNN here in the states on the ticker), can we end the thread? Or does this have to drag on as usual :(
CaliAtenza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 00:52   #93
Senior - BHPian
 
Ravveendrra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 1,391
Thanked: 404 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliAtenza View Post
So continental apologized (hell its even on CNN here in the states on the ticker), can we end the thread? Or does this have to drag on as usual :(
Well actually this thread can be now turned to discuss the action of the Government.

They filed an "FIR" with the local police station. For what? What is the offence commited? Is breaching protocol a crime? What is the punishment to be meted out? Is there a law which stipulates that someone can be punished if they do not bow or kiss the backside of everyone on the protocol list?

What did the hon'ble minister expect the Inspector of Police to do? Was the Police expected to file a charge sheet? Under which law would they do that? What would the police charge Continental with - treason or waging war against the state or maybe sedition.......... To file a criminal case and punish any person in India, there should have been commited an offence as defined in an Act passed by Parliament or a State Legislature.

LOL, the real breach lies here - the media and politicians are perpetually pulling wool over the public's eye. If any complaint had been filed and a charge sheet filed - the Police and the Government would have been laughed out of court.

The protocol to be followed is prepared by a department in the government in charge of internal administration, the protocol to be observed is not a law. It is a mere administrative guideline and best of all, it is an internal guideline. There is a specific act prohibiting dishonour of national symbols i.e. Flag, National Anthem, Emblem etc. and neither Mr. Son-in-law nor any other human being are mentioned in it.

Ah yes, there is some circular of the BCAS which exempted certain persons from being frisked. Nothing in this circular makes frisking the persons an offence. The circular (which is secret) does not say that the persons shall not be frisked or checked, it merely permits some persons to board the planes without the mandatory checks. Incidentally, the BCAS stands for Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. How they have come to be the keepers of the Nation's pride and honour is anyone's guess.

If the son-in-law of an ex-prime minister can be on the list, I think the list is worthless. Neither the gentleman in question nor any of his immediate family hold any constitutional or statutory post. Can you blame anyone for disregarding this protocol? Let us set our own house in order before we berate others.

Cheers,

Last edited by Ravveendrra : 24th July 2009 at 00:59.
Ravveendrra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 10:16   #94
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,226
Thanked: 408 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amitk26 View Post
In this case CA is on the Indian soil and Indian rule ( not frisking ex prez) applies so it need to be followed and enforced so no oxymoron.
If Kalam was frisked just before boarding then probably he technically wasnt on Indian soil. I might be wrong but I think once you get past the passport check you get into international waters! You are no longer in India! And till you passport is stamped back you are an outsider! I am not sure what kind of rules are applicable there..

Last edited by joslicx : 24th July 2009 at 10:17.
joslicx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 10:38   #95
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 3,079
Thanked: 251 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joslicx View Post
If Kalam was frisked just before boarding then probably he technically wasnt on Indian soil. ..
I believe you are on Indian soil till you get on to the aero-bridge.
anupmathur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 12:22   #96
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,852
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

Actually they were following TSA directives, which says frisk all ex-heads of state. Only current heads of state are provided immunity. However since the jet was parked on India soil, they should have followed protocol of India, which says ex heads of state cannot be frisked.
A jet parked is Indian soil, aero bridge or not. Only if the Jet has diplomatic immunity, its not. For example if Air Force one Lands here, then diplomatic protocol gives it immunity. For example police cannot board it to arrest somebody.

Same applies to embassies. But a normal passenger airliner enjoys no diplomatic immunity.
This of it this way, indian police cannot go inside an embassy without permission. they handle their security. but they can raid the premises of a MNC with a warrant issues by an Indian court.

Last edited by tsk1979 : 24th July 2009 at 12:27.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 13:40   #97
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 3,079
Thanked: 251 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 View Post
Same applies to embassies. But a normal passenger airliner enjoys no diplomatic immunity.
....
An airliner or a ship is territory of the flag state, as also an embassy.
For local police to raid them specific permission has to be sought from the 'Commander' of the establishment! Your comparison with the premises of an MNC is a very different affair. The premises of an MNC is not 'foreign' territory!
anupmathur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 13:45   #98
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,852
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

IIRC, I don't think a private airliner docked on Indian soil enjoys any diplomatic immunity.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 13:53   #99
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 3,079
Thanked: 251 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 View Post
IIRC, I don't think a private airliner docked on Indian soil enjoys any diplomatic immunity.
We're not discussing a 'private' airliner; it's Continental. Very much in the 'public' domain.
They enjoy 'immunity' to the extent that local police may not board without specific sanction of the Commander.
anupmathur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 14:00   #100
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: pune
Posts: 2,088
Thanked: 48 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravveendrra View Post
If the son-in-law of an ex-prime minister can be on the list, I think the list is worthless. Neither the gentleman in question nor any of his immediate family hold any constitutional or statutory post. Can you blame anyone for disregarding this protocol? Let us set our own house in order before we berate others.
I disagree. Going by this logic, the prime minister and president shouldn't be given Z+ security just because Mr. son-in-law is on the list.

Cleaning up list is absolutely necessary and no second opinion on that, but again that is internal to India. Secondly, we are talking of ex-President of India and not Mr. Son-in-Law who wields unconstitutional power.

BTW, look around and you'll see many countries do have such extra-constitutional power centers. It is said that, Mr. Putin arguably has more power than their president. Or, Hillary Clinton has shot into prominence mainly due to her ex-President husband, and so on. If we are not saint, they are not either
RX135 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 14:02   #101
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,852
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

This leads to an interesting question, frisking is done outside the plane, so at that time they have to adhere to local laws, true..?
Another interesting piece of trivia. Frisking passengers before boarding on the plane by airline staff did not start after 9/11. It actually started after Kandahar debacle in 1999, where people with guns were able to board the plane from Kathmandu. If airlines were doing their own frisking that would have never happened.
So started the secondry frisking at all ports.
The point here is that before boarding the plane i.e. passenger is not inside the plane, what rules should be followed. TSA rules or Indian rules.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 14:12   #102
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 3,079
Thanked: 251 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 View Post
The point here is that before boarding the plane i.e. passenger is not inside the plane, what rules should be followed. TSA rules or Indian rules.
I would imagine it should be Indian rules since we are the hosts and it is we who decide what courtesies we extend to 'foreign territory' on our soil. This also has to do with keeping in mind international norms and agreements, of course.
We can unilaterally decide, for example, to curtail/end these courtesies. It would then be incumbent on the foreigners to decide whether they want to maintain 'relations' with us or not.
anupmathur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 17:57   #103
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,226
Thanked: 408 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anupmathur View Post
I would imagine it should be Indian rules since we are the hosts and it is we who decide what courtesies we extend to 'foreign territory' on our soil. This also has to do with keeping in mind international norms and agreements, of course.
We can unilaterally decide, for example, to curtail/end these courtesies. It would then be incumbent on the foreigners to decide whether they want to maintain 'relations' with us or not.
I think it is not the hosts who decide that... There are UN conventions for that.

And I still feel you are outside Indian state laws once you go past the passport control. You are back in India only when your passport is stamped back! Otherwise you are without a state!!! I dont know what rules apply in those cases...
joslicx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 19:44   #104
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 3,079
Thanked: 251 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joslicx View Post
I think it is not the hosts who decide that... There are UN conventions for that.
As mentioned already in my post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anupmathur View Post
This also has to do with keeping in mind international norms and agreements, of course.
And a lot of these are reciprocal agreements too.
anupmathur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2009, 19:55   #105
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Thad E Ginathom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chennai
Posts: 7,605
Thanked: 6,691 Times
Default

It does not make any sense to suggest that a country ends at passport control. There is a whole, big, thriving community in the airport beyond that point. What law are they subject to? What authority primarily investigates accidents involving aircraft at Indian airports?

This jurist (utterly unqualified, of course ) would suggest that you are in India whilst you remain in Indian airspace, and that you are subject to Indian law.

Consider another example: Indian authorities consider it necessary to arrest an airplane. Their airforce fighters will escort that plane to the airport determined by India. The pilot of that plane would have to do as instructed.

For "India" in my examples and reasoning, substitute any nationality or territory, the reasoning must be the same.
Thad E Ginathom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam is no more batterylow Shifting gears 46 28th July 2015 22:07
Steer-by-wire hitting the roads - bad news or bad news? gaurangsaini Technical Stuff 4 27th October 2012 21:13
PICS : IJC Snow Cross Rally 2012 at Kalam aamir567 4x4 Excursions 30 13th March 2012 19:51
Scorpio SLX CRDE or Wait for Scorpio Eagle or Used Elantra or Wait for Skoda Fabia ? dharmu99 Hatchbacks 9 25th October 2007 12:22


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 16:33.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks