Options

Roman Polanski: he made a thriller

16566676870

Posts

  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Look, if Switzerland actually thought the American system was fundamentally unfair for a procedural reason, they wouldn't have a goddamn extradition treaty with the USA.

    Lots of countries with extradition treaties with the U.S. refuse to extradite prisoners for specific reasons. Notably in death penalty cases.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    This isn't a death penalty case

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    This isn't a death penalty case

    Nor is there a lack of evidence. The guy kind of pleaded guilty and ran.
    It's pretty open and shut.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Look, if Switzerland actually thought the American system was fundamentally unfair for a procedural reason, they wouldn't have a goddamn extradition treaty with the USA.

    Lots of countries with extradition treaties with the U.S. refuse to extradite prisoners for specific reasons. Notably in death penalty cases.
    Which don't involve them thinking that it is fundamentally unfair to defendants. It has to do with specific differences in what they consider to be fundamental rights rather than a broad feeling that the American system of justice is barbaric and violates human rights as a matter of course.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Wow dude, you should definitely get a job at Fox News or another credible source of truthiness for that brilliant insight.

    Robman on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Wow dude, you should definitely get a job at Fox News or another credible source of truthiness for that brilliant insight.
    Couscous wrote: »
    “At this point, he is no longer subject to Swiss jurisdiction. There is no reason for them to hold him,” New York City-based criminal defense attorney Robert Rueland, who does not work on Polanski’s case, told Fox411. “The only basis for holding him was because the U.S. wanted him, and now the Swiss government essentially said we have no basis.

    Also read the quote that said the general feeling is that the Swiss government is uncomfortable with how old the charges are.

    Also, get over yourself. I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Wow dude, you should definitely get a job at Fox News or another credible source of truthiness for that brilliant insight.

    Since you seem to be so well versed in Swiss Expedition policies, tell us, why AREN'T they expediting him?

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Wow dude, you should definitely get a job at Fox News or another credible source of truthiness for that brilliant insight.

    Since you seem to be so well versed in Swiss Expedition policies, tell us, why AREN'T they expediting him?

    Because they have significantly stronger cultural and political relation with France and were recently antagonized by the US. There really doesn't need to be anything more to it, unfortunately.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Stop arguing guys and lets decide which of us is going to go A-Team and bring him in old school style.

    Or ya know, tell me whats going to fix this so that rapist doesn't get to continue living a life of luxury on the back of a despicable crime.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Wow dude, you should definitely get a job at Fox News or another credible source of truthiness for that brilliant insight.

    Since you seem to be so well versed in Swiss Expedition policies, tell us, why AREN'T they expediting him?

    Do you agree with josh's brilliant and enlightened take on this situation? Let's repeat it for clarity:
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Yes, clearly the Swiss arrested Polanski and then kept him under house arrest for months, just to stick it real good to America.

    Let's look at that statement again, I'll bold a pretty hilarious section of it
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Apparently they wanted him so much they weren't willing to release 30 year old court documents. Why is everyone ignoring those documents? What's in those transcripts that is so damaging that the US is willing to let a child rapist walk?

    Robman on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information
    Apparently Americans think confidential means confidential.

    I know, it's amazing that the Swiss officials wanted all the relevant information to judge this case rather then letting moral outrage dictate their response. Although to be fair, the concept of secret evidence being withheld to strengthen the case against the defendant isn't unusual in the American justice system these days.

    He's a confessed child rapist and pornographer who fled justice before sentencing. His arguments about serving his sentence in a psychological evaluation center in which he didn't even stay the allotted period are legally, ethically and morally incoherent.
    The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.

    A statement said: "The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the US.

    "The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked."

    It added: "The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request."

    He was rich and famous so the Swiss said child rapists 1 common decency 0 and let him go. The extradition treaty does not require the US to provide the information the Swiss are blaming this on. It only requires (in the case of convicted ppl) the arrest warrant and some basic information on the trial and if applicable the sentencing. There is no requirement on detailed information regarding the decision process of sentencing, only the final conclusion if one has been reached (which it had not at)

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    stuff

    I don't know why you're being so acerbic towards me in particular. The Swiss made it perfectly clear that while they don't think there was a reason not to extradite, they believe we didn't give them enough of a reason to extradite.

    LOOK
    The Swiss have rejected the American extradition request for Roman Polanski and have ended his house arrest. The apparent reason? They couldn’t be certain that there wasn’t a fault somewhere in the official request:

    The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the USA. The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked. This announcement was made by Mrs Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, head of the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police (FDJP), in Berne on Monday. The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extradition request, although the issue was thoroughly examined. Moreover, also the principles of State action deriving from international public order were taken into account.

    At the end of 2005 the US authorities issued an international search warrant against Roman Polanski due to sexual offence against a minor committed in 1977. On the basis of this international order of arrest, Roman Polanski was arrested on 26th September 2009 upon his arrival at the airport of Zürich and taken into provisional custody pending extradition. On 22nd October 2009 the US authorities filed a formal extradition request. On 4th December Roman Polanski was released from custody after depositing a 4.5 million franc bail and was granted house arrest under electronic monitoring in his chalet in Gstaad.

    Let’s parse this a moment, shall we? The Swiss point to no fault in the request. In fact, they admit it was “thoroughly examined.” Instead of acting on an extradition request that admittedly had no apparent fault, the Swiss refused because it might have a fault. Somewhere.

    So instead of them refusing because there was a good reason that existed in the request to refuse, they refused because there wasn't a good enough reason not to refuse. I guess having an admitted child rapist wandering free wasn't a good enough reason. But this isn't about extradition or justice, let's at least be honest about that. This is about politics, both with France and the entertainment industry.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The court-appointed evaluation center released him early after judging him not to be a risk.

    But really, what's in those documents that the US is willing to let a child-rapist walk over?

    Robman on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    The court-appointed evaluation center released him early after judging him not to be a risk.

    But really, what's in those documents that the US is willing to let a child-rapist walk over?

    Who cares

    The Swiss government cited "national interests" and "the possible but unknown presence of a mistake in the request for extradition"

    It's pretty clear that the U.S. is not the country who kept Polanski from being extradited

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    So instead of them refusing because there was a good reason to refuse, they refused because there wasn't a good enough reason not to refuse. I guess having an admitted child rapist wandering free wasn't a good enough reason. But this isn't about extradition or justice, let's at least be honest about that. This is about politics, both with France and the entertainment industry.
    The lesson here is you can get away with drugging and ass-raping a 13 year-old, so long as you make some good movies.

    People in Hollywood will even come out and excuse your actions as not being "rape rape."

    And posters on the internet will smugly ignore what Polanksi did because they have a hard-on against American foreign policy.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So instead of them refusing because there was a good reason to refuse, they refused because there wasn't a good enough reason not to refuse. I guess having an admitted child rapist wandering free wasn't a good enough reason. But this isn't about extradition or justice, let's at least be honest about that. This is about politics, both with France and the entertainment industry.
    The lesson here is you can get away with drugging and ass-raping a 13 year-old, so long as you make some good movies.

    People in Hollywood will even come out and excuse your actions as not being "rape rape."

    And posters on the internet will smugly ignore what Polanksi did because they have a hard-on against American foreign policy.

    God, this. Even if the U.S. did somehow botch this up, and you really have to go through some serious mental gymnastics to get there, who the fuck cares? The man pled guilty before fleeing justice.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    And posters on the internet will smugly ignore what Polanksi did because they have a hard-on against American foreign policy.
    Let's give him some credit here, he's going for "It's America's fault because Switzerland didn't extradite him". What a nuanced position that is!

    Hoz on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Why do people keep bringing up "plead guilty" as though it's relevant?

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Hoz wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    And posters on the internet will smugly ignore what Polanksi did because they have a hard-on against American foreign policy.
    Let's give him some credit here, he's going for "It's America's fault because Switzerland didn't extradite him". What a nuanced position that is!

    We didn't give them documents that were completely unnecessary for his extradition, and wouldn't have been required for anybody who wasn't even close to being as famous! The U.S. is in the wrong!

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thank goodness the three-tier justice system (poor people, middle class people, rich people) has been kept in it's proper place. If we had rich people going to prison for crimes, I just don't know how I'd cope. Good on the Swiss. Glad we can count on them to look after the rich --or at least their riches-- as always.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Why do people keep bringing up "plead guilty" as though it's relevant?

    Because when you plead guilty to a crime in the U.S., the only thing left in a trial is sentencing. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Well, if you walk into a courtroom and say, "I'm guilty," we can pretty much lose the presumption of innocence. Then when you flee the country to escape the sentencing to the crime you admitted to, I think we can call that an even bigger mockery of the justice system than simply running away while saying you were wrongfully accused.

    "Yeah, I did it, but I'm not going to be punished for it!"

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Stop arguing guys and lets decide which of us is going to go A-Team and bring him in old school style.

    Or ya know, tell me whats going to fix this so that rapist doesn't get to continue living a life of luxury on the back of a despicable crime.

    Dog the Bounty Hunter?

    In reality, nothing. Polanski's probably fucking a 12 year old right now in celebration.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Why do people keep bringing up "plead guilty" as though it's relevant?

    Because when you plead guilty to a crime in the U.S., the only thing left in a trial is sentencing. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Well, if you walk into a courtroom and say, "I'm guilty," we can pretty much lose the presumption of innocence. Then when you flee the country to escape the sentencing to the crime you admitted to, I think we can call that an even bigger mockery of the justice system than simply running away while saying you were wrongfully accused.

    "Yeah, I did it, but I'm not going to be punished for it!"

    Except that there are plenty of reasons why someone would end up pleading guilty as part of a plea bargain that do not involve them actually being guilty. So it doesn't actually tell us anything.

    If the Swiss judges were worried that misconduct had taken place, then I think it's their right to deny the extradition request. Certainly I don't see an American court acting any differently in that position.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Why do people keep bringing up "plead guilty" as though it's relevant?
    Because it's a pretty good indicator that he is, in fact, guilty?

    Unless the Swiss are going to argue that a prominent, wealthy film director, who could afford the best attorneys available, was somehow railroaded to plead to a crime he didn't commit?

    Rich celebrities getting wrongfully convicted of crimes is an epidemic in this country. That's why OJ has been sitting in prison for years, even though all the evidence clearly showed he was innocent.....

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man beat me to the punch. Good show.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Why do people keep bringing up "plead guilty" as though it's relevant?
    Because it's a pretty good indicator that he is, in fact, guilty?

    Unless the Swiss are going to argue that a prominent, wealthy film director, who could afford the best attorneys available, was somehow railroaded to plead to a crime he didn't commit?

    Rich celebrities getting wrongfully convicted of crimes is an epidemic in this country. That's why OJ has been sitting in prison for years, even though all the evidence clearly showed he was innocent.....

    PantsB covered that quiet correctly above. Guilt is absolutely irrelevant for the extradition procedure. The desire to trial alone is enough.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The Swiss justification is that the USA did not provide CONFIDENTIAL documents that couldn't even show he had already served his sentence because the sentence had yet to be given even if we presume the facts to be in Polanski's favor.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I personally brought it up because the Swiss cited "national interests" as a reason to free him. What is the national interest in releasing a man who, instead of spending some of his multi-millions in his defense, pled guilty to rape prior to fleeing?

    Just curious.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    In other news, the Catholic Church has just relocated 20000 priests to Switzerland.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/roman-polanski-is-a-free-man-with-some-key-conditions.html
    In the end, the statements by Swiss authorities left more questions than answers. It was unclear if the Swiss courts did not give proper notice to U.S. authorities in asking for documentation or if U.S. prosecutors failed to hand over relevant documents as part of their extradition request.

    "The important thing here is they didn't turn over papers," Goldman [Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Law School.] said. "The court also made the argument that Polanski had no way of knowing he would be extradited if he went to Switzerland. I don't think any American court would have said that."

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7104773.html
    WASHINGTON — The head of the U.S. Justice Department's criminal division has expressed deep disappointment over Switzerland's rejection of a U.S. extradition request in the Roman Polanski case.

    Lanny Breuer says the U.S. request that Polanski be brought to the United States was completely supported by treaty, facts and the law.

    Breuer says Polanski's conduct was very serious and that the Justice Department will review its options.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Does anyone really think that if the situation was reversed, the US would have agreed to extradition?

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    "The court also made the argument that Polanski had no way of knowing he would be extradited if he went to Switzerland."

    Next time I flee justice I'll just use the ol' "I didn't know I could be be extradited" defense.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Does anyone really think that if the situation was reversed, the US would have agreed to extradition?

    Yes?

    Its rape of a minor.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Does anyone really think that if the situation was reversed, the US would have agreed to extradition?

    This is a terrible argument, because even if it's true, we'd still be complete assholes.

    He raped a 13 year old. He admits this.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Wow dude, you should definitely get a job at Fox News or another credible source of truthiness for that brilliant insight.

    Since you seem to be so well versed in Swiss Expedition policies, tell us, why AREN'T they expediting him?

    Do you agree with josh's brilliant and enlightened take on this situation? Let's repeat it for clarity:
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Yes, clearly the Swiss arrested Polanski and then kept him under house arrest for months, just to stick it real good to America.

    Let's look at that statement again, I'll bold a pretty hilarious section of it
    In this case, it seemed to be, "We don't have any reason to hold him other than the fact that the Americans want him. Release him!"

    Apparently they wanted him so much they weren't willing to release 30 year old court documents. Why is everyone ignoring those documents? What's in those transcripts that is so damaging that the US is willing to let a child rapist walk?

    Thanks that didn't answer a thing.

    Again, what do YOU think is their reasoning for not extraditing (I was using the wrong term before, my apologies) a confessed rapist, child molester, and man who fled from justice?

    I was under the impression that they don't fucking NEED 30 year old documents when all they need to release is the statement that says he admitted to it.

    I'm not sure how you hand over papers saying someone didn't do something they were supposed to do. Maybe a paper that says "TIME SERVED BY MR. POLANSKI" with "ZERO HOURS" on it?
    Why do people keep bringing up "plead guilty" as though it's relevant?
    Because it makes it pretty clear that he is guilty and there's no good reason ("They didn't release these papers they asked for!" is being silly) that he isn't being extradited?

    I'm really kind of curious what the papers could've POSSIBLY had in them that would make it easier to extradite him.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    openflyopenfly Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Yeah I dunno how you let a guy go who has been convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old. That shit is B A N A N A S Bananas.

    openfly on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Does anyone really think that if the situation was reversed, the US would have agreed to extradition?

    For a child rapist? I'd hope so. The US gave Noriega to France on money laundering in April, 3 years after he had already completed his US prison term. The US gave Suwit Prasoprat, a US citizen, to Thailand on drug charges - and Thailand is not a place you want to be brought up on drug charges in, some drug charges are punishable by death there. And the charge against Prasoprat, smuggling 3 kilos of heroin for distribution, is one of those capital offenses.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Does anyone really think that if the situation was reversed, the US would have agreed to extradition?

    If some country had asked for the extradition of a rapist who had publicly plead guilty with the current administration and government?


    Yeah, I think we'd have done it. For no other reason than child molesters trigger the FOR THE CHILDREN voting block.

    kildy on
  • Options
    DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Does anyone really think that if the situation was reversed, the US would have agreed to extradition?

    This is a terrible argument, because even if it's true, we'd still be complete assholes.

    He raped a 13 year old. He admits this.

    Well, technically, doesn't the plea bargain agreement state something like,

    "Mr. Polanski, 44, had a consensual encounter with a 13-year-old girl, during which he performed sex acts on her she probably didn't even know the word for, and the fact that he got her drunk and gave her Qualludes is a complete coincidence", even throwing in an angle on how this grade-school kid may have "seduced" a middle-aged man?

    Amazingly, the state was willing to accept such an absurd story, which goes to show just how far money will take you. But of course Polanski couldn't be bothered to serve out a very lenient sentence (something like 90 days?) on these ridiculously reduced charges.

    I'm also kind of curious as to whether he was ever charged with making child pornography. He more or less admitted to that, too IIRC.

    Duffel on
Sign In or Register to comment.