Looks like Polanski will get away again.
- Thread starter Cainkane1
- Start date
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Ohhhh I am not one dimensional. I am 2D ! And soon 3D ! I am all for the rule of law. But that does not stop me considering that when the rule of law FAIL, then I would rather break the rule and flee. Why isn't that hypocrite do you ask ? Because of the difference in balance of power and duty. A governement has A DUTY of respecting the rule of law. They are elected or called to serve and have to swear it, for this they explicitely get some power given by the citizen. OTOH an individual citizen while having to respect the law, do not get such a power. The imbalance in the situation make it so in my view that while the governement MUST be taken to task to always respect the rule of law, an individual MAY under certain circumstance be called to break it. Being accused to be guilty, while being innocent , when appeal don't seem to work that well, is one of such a case where the duty get trumped by personal freedom and safety.
And before you rise a strawman, It does not apply here, because it is something between two state which are beholden to hold the rule of law no matter what by their respective citizen, and Polanski is definitively not innocent.
PS: tar and feather if you prefer.
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
TO make a better clarification : I put a higher burden on elected entities , than on individuals.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
No tar and feathers, here. You've made a reasonable explanation of your position, and I respect it, even if I disagree.
I was kinda wondering if you just had issues with people going to prison, since avoiding prison is the outcome of both scenarios.
Seriously, one question raised by your post: does it matter that Polanski is not a citizen of either of the governments in question?
But not badly enough to follow the procedure you previously agreed would be necessary to get an alleged criminal back.
In particular, the LA District Attorney was apparently the lead attorney in opposition to the unsealing of the documents, knowing that if they stayed sealed, Polanski would not be extradited. It sounds to me like the LA District Attorney did not "want" him back
You'd be wrong, then. Part of "rule of law" includes the idea of procedural safeguards; if you want to punish a criminal, there are certain hoops that the state must jump through, and failure to jump through those hoops means that a criminal will go free.
The US established a set of hoops with the Swiss a long time ago; those hoops include provision of documents on demand. They knew when they established those hoops that failure to jump through them would probably mean a failed extradition.
... and then they chose not to jump through the hoops.
So it sounds to me like everyone got what they wanted.
Polanski walks free, as he wanted.
The records remained sealed, as the LA DA wanted.
And the extradition failed, as the Secretary of State apparently wanted.
jimtron
Illuminator
And the victim didn't want him in prison...
So a clause in an extradition treaty subject to an interpretation by Swiss authorities now becomes the RULE OF LAW.
Defending the indefensible. The Swiss could have extradited, I believe they have shown cowardice by pandering to people who want to give the USA a bloody nose.
And despite the sophistry of some, Polanski remains unsentenced. The plea bargain makes that clear. He took off rather than facing the music after a serious crime. Scum.
Defending the indefensible. The Swiss could have extradited, I believe they have shown cowardice by pandering to people who want to give the USA a bloody nose.
And despite the sophistry of some, Polanski remains unsentenced. The plea bargain makes that clear. He took off rather than facing the music after a serious crime. Scum.
Last edited:
As has been pointed out countless times, this is irrevelent.
That is correct. I can even point you to the relevant point in the US constitution where this is stated, if you like.
You can stop defending the indefensible any time you like.
Not, according to Swiss law, without being shown further documents -- documents they requested but that the US chose not to provide them.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
If this is true then I hope the DA loses his job. Do you have anything to back up that assertion?
It's a matter of opinion, so I'm not "wrong".
In this case, what you choose to see as "procedural safeguards", I see as willful obstructionism and placing a higher importance on bureaucratic read-tape than on justice.
Just because they can make us jump through hoops doesn't mean they should. It's clear they never intended to honor our request.
I'm sorry that the idiots who drafted these treaties weren't smart enough to realize that they shouldn't leave open-ended "ask for whatever the hell you want" provisions in them. And I'm also sorry that the particular Swiss officials involved are big enough ******** to insist on second-guessing another court of law. I hope someday this comes around to bite them in the ass.
Now that's just, well, stupid. That you aren't willing to compromise to get what you want doesn't suddenly mean that you really wanted to not get it. It just means that some desires can be trumped by other considerations.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
No tar and feathers, here. You've made a reasonable explanation of your position, and I respect it, even if I disagree.
I was kinda wondering if you just had issues with people going to prison, since avoiding prison is the outcome of both scenarios.
Seriously, one question raised by your post: does it matter that Polanski is not a citizen of either of the governments in question?
I don't think it is relevant. Actually I think a lot of things cited ehre around are not relevant:
* Polanski is old / ill
* Polanski is an artist / a film maker
* she said yes (I don't care , she was 13)
* she pardoned
* the sentencing was not done
* he is not a ciztizen of X,Y,Z country
and the list is endless.
The only things I see relevant for the extradition is whether the due process is respected or not. After that, once extradited , it is in the hand of the US judge, as long as the extradition condition are espected (for example if there had been a risk of death penalty, it msut be excluded etc...).
Bottom line here, is whether people agree or not, it did not go past the "we refuse to give you that sealed document" stage. End of story for the Swiss.
Now the USA can certainly repeat the extradition with another country (or , let us say, wait another 23 years...).
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Again you ahve your CAUSALITY all wrong.
If the swiss did not want him extradited they would have said "go away" to the US. They did not. Initially they saw no problem extraditing, then asked for a document for clarification and the USA refused.
See, it is not hard, the direct causality is the USA NOT WANTING hard enough to get Polanski, after the SERIOUS crime he comited on a minor.
Liomking I usualy like your psot, but it looks to me you let your anger kill your logic here.
Check the AP newswire; it's all over there.
It may be clear to you. I've made my opinion clear upthread. My opinion is given that the US has steadfastly refused to acknowledge or investigate the possibility of judicial misconduct -- under Swiss law, a judge cannot make a 'non-binding' plea bargain -- that Swiss asked for the additional documents to permit the US to save diplomatic face.
In that sense, you are probably right. The Swiss would have refused extradition because the extradition request would not have been valid under Swiss law, because of demonstrable misconduct on the part of the judiciary. The US would have been offered an opportunity to come clean and accept the plea bargain as binding (essentially fixing the problem) but refused to do so.
That US law allows judges to welsh on deals doesn't mean that the Swiss need to support the US in that.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Hu. HOW ? They presented the hoop (to take your own word) and *YOU* refused to jump, thena ccuse the swiss of stopping the extradition. Hu...... I think this is beyond pale.
*YOU* are second guessing the Swiss legal expert, and THAT without any own legal swiss law expertise. And you call them on second guessing ? Pot ? Kettle ?
WHO was willing NOT to compromise ? The USA which refused tto show the document. *NOT* the swiss which requested to see the document to proceed.
Really I have to wonder why you *ALL* seem to respect the USA's law expert decision, but spit in anger at the Swiss's ?
The *FIRST* to say "NO" in this story were not the Swiss. The *FIRST* was the USA. Jeez, is that hard ?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Evidence? I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see what you are basing this on.
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
Or perhaps not. According to a report I read tonight the Prosecutors says the US Justice department never told them about the request and that the Swiss could have had the documents. The Justice Department says they did tell the Prosecutors and that the Prosecutors are big stories and are just trying to shift the blame (or something like that). Upshot is that they are now saying that the documents could have been given. Bit late though.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
btw we are not the only ones being divided about the case.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/special...vided_over_Polanski_release.html?cid=17951726
Swiss press divided
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/special...vided_over_Polanski_release.html?cid=17951726
Swiss press divided
The Yanks will no doubt moan, but we don’t owe them anything. (Blick)
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
The same reaction happens when an extradition is refused, it quickly go balistically politic. But if one dig around (like for example for France) one can see that even poor schmucks , non celebrity, are refused extradition if all condition are not met, or braked for years until the condition are met. Heck even the USA do the same. If the same situation come up again then we 'll see if tehre is the same decision taken.
"legally dodgy decision " from a Zurich newspaper I think i will take that with a grain of salt.
"legally dodgy decision " from a Zurich newspaper I think i will take that with a grain of salt.
Maybe it shouldn't be irrelevant? At least not in cases like this when so much time has passed and the victim is now an adult. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that what happened (if it did in fact happen) is ok. I just think that the wants of the victim should matter more than anything any of us think. At least after this much time has passed.
Last edited:
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
drkitten, why are you ignoring the Swiss statement that they didn't need the documents they claimed they did actually need after the documents were not provided?