that's right you can go to paris and stroll down Mumi abu Jamal Street! the killer of officer Danny Faulkner has a street named after him in Paris... gimme a break. This kind of loathing of anything that smacks of accepting responsibility for one's own actions fits with the French Elite's way of thinking... do anything. I wonder how they would feel if they were the victim of a crime?
As to the common Frenchman who labors honestly running a small farm of vinyard, I suspect that they shake their heads in shame wondering whatever happend to their once enlightend country... you know that country which gave us philosophers, artists, scientists, and some of the founding tenants of modern democracy??? Now they have riots where unskilled workers and immigrants want maximum pay for the least amount of work.... where indeed!?
If we are not careful, we will replicate that in this country.... and all we will be left with is a very musty stale arrogance.
I've observed in the past that intelectuals, artists, the French, and especially French intellectuals and French artistes, do not garner much respect in the USA. Maybe we're benighted and unsophisticatd? But no matter, as French philospoher Bernard-Henri Levy and assorted other French intellectuals and artistes have gone to bat for Roman Polanski. Levy's reasoning? That as someone who has lived under the iron fists and brutal heels of both Nazism and Communism, RP has suffered enough and ought not to be so poorly treated as to be arrested and jailed like a "common terrorist."
It's not clear that every one of his running mates agrees completely with Levy's reasoning, but simply join in his conclusion.
Here's the poop from the horses ass, er, excuse me, the horse's mouth, which originally graced the cyberpages of The Huffington Post. Not every signer of Levy's petition is French - I see at least 2 American and a Britisher subscribing to Levy's "thoughts" or at least Levy's conclusion. [The link will allow you to access reader comments on Levy's post].
The Huffington Post October 4, 2009
Bernard-Henri Lévy French philosopher and writer
Posted: September 28, 2009 08:14 PM
My journal, La Règle du jeu, is working in support of Roman Polanski and mobilizing writers and artists through the following petition:
Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison.
He risks extradition to the United States for an episode that happened years ago and whose principal plaintiff repeatedly and emphatically declares she has put it behind her and abandoned any wish for legal proceedings.
Seventy-six years old, a survivor of Nazism and of Stalinist persecutions in Poland, Roman Polanski risks spending the rest of his life in jail for deeds which would be beyond the statute-of-limitations in Europe.
We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States. Good sense, as well as honor, require it.
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Salman Rushdie
Milan Kundera
Pascal Bruckner
Neil Jordan
Isabelle Adjani
Arielle Dombasle
Isabelle Huppert
William Shawcross
Yamina Benguigui
Mike Nichols
Danièle Thompson
Diane von Furstenberg
Claude Lanzmann
Paul Auster
Xtra Bonus : here's Levy's c.v. from Wikipedia [not always the most reliable source]:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/postmessage.asp?BoardID=39&Page=1
even I can't get behind that way of thinking.
Polanski took advantage of a child, even a pervert like me can't forgive or forget that. IMO he deserves every year in prison that he will hopefully spend. I am a realist however and I am aware the chances of Polanski actually spending years in an American prison are doubtful.
It shows a side of some liberal’s value system for what it truly is, garbage.
that's right you can go to paris and stroll down Mumi abu Jamal Street! the killer of officer Danny Faulkner has a street named after him in Paris... gimme a break. This kind of loathing of anything that smacks of accepting responsibility for one's own actions fits with the French Elite's way of thinking... do anything. I wonder how they would feel if they were the victim of a crime?
As to the common Frenchman who labors honestly running a small farm of vinyard, I suspect that they shake their heads in shame wondering whatever happend to their once enlightend country... you know that country which gave us philosophers, artists, scientists, and some of the founding tenants of modern democracy??? Now they have riots where unskilled workers and immigrants want maximum pay for the least amount of work.... where indeed!?
If we are not careful, we will replicate that in this country.... and all we will be left with is a very musty stale arrogance.
You are right when you wonder whether the average Frenchman who runs a small farm (or store or other enterprise) thinks in the same ultra-liberal manner typical of the "elite."
I have gone to Europe almost every year for the past 30 years, and it is funny how in every country I meet lots of people who are totally out of sync with the "leadership."
Perhaps the biggest split that I see most often is in the area of death penalty and criminal law, since my business is crime, so that comes up when I meet people in cafes and places.
I am always astounded at the number of people who support the death penalty, although any individual EU country is not able to bring it back. (Scary thought re loss of sovereign powers.)
One Irish guy gave a great version of his "Two Strikes" law. The first time you take a gun and put it to the guy's knee or elbow and test fire, hopefully producin' a large bang. Then you put it to his head and say, "Next time, it's your fooking brains. Now be a good boy."
Not one person in the pub thought this was a bad idea.
I can assure you that the average guy in Paris driving a cab, or practicing medicine, or working at a bank has about the same level as fondness for child molesters as the average guy doing the same job in Dallas.
There is a fairly long list of Hollywood elite that have publicly supported him.
I wonder what their attitude would be if a business man (non entertainment) were guilty of the same offenses? I would be willing to bet that they would be blaming Bush/Cheney for protecting one of "their own" and crying for the guy to do life in prison.
Bill Ayeys too.
I don't care how smart or how talented someone is, if you do despicable things like Polanski did, you must pay the price. And that price is one that can never be paid in full.
Ayers' crimes are different but still despicable. But many of the elite still like him. Hell, some even work in the White House.
And I'm not pointing the finger at our President. But some of his "esteemed" staff fit the description well.
for druging and raping the daughter of a friend... academicians also have joined the band wagon of "if you have 'contributed to society' then you get a pass to do whatever the hell you want to others"
sick.... very sick. however, in McIntosh's case the trial was appealed and he received a sentence more appropriate for the crime... but sheese what do we have to go through to protect innocents?
Before you throw the French elite under the bus and join the RP lynch mob, should we at least consider these questions?
1. If RP drugged and raped and sodomized a child as so many of the cable TV talking heads have huffed and puffed about, why did the officer who prepared the probation report not recommend jail time -only probation and a fine?
2. This guy concluded that there was some evidence the girl “was willing.” The medical exam negated any forceful anal sex and other doctors concluded no force was used. And
if the girl truly said no, no, no as he had sex with her as she said in the grand jury testimony, why didn’t she at least call for help from Angelica Huston and a second woman who were in the house at various times?
3. Why was the DA willing to plead down to unlawful sex with a minor if there was evidence to support a rape and sodomy charge? They said they wanted to spare the victim the ordeal of testifying but that is true in all statutory cases, albeit we had a famous defendant here. Perhaps bc they did not believe the grand jury testimony either and did not think she would hold up on cross examination?
4. And most vexing of all, given that the girl admitted to two prior sexual experiences, why didn’t the police investigate and charge these two men?
5. Is this not a case of rampant selective prosecution? Would RP have been prosecuted at all if he were not famous?
Or should we all just join the always even minded Nancy Grace in repeating over and over that RP "drugged and raped a child." I mean, it's not like she was wrong about the Duke Lacrosse team ( whom she also villified for months until the true facts came out) is it.
For me, I would wait until the actual facts are known before I would make a judgment that he is guilty of anything other than the crime to which he pled- unlawful sex with a minor. He deserves all the punishment the law provides for this crime, which is California is not even always a felony depending on the circumstances.
If that isn't a felony under California law, than California needs some new laws.
This wasn't a case of a 21 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend. This was a case of an adult drugging and raping a child. Unless someone can prove that the facts of the case are different than what's is on the record, than the guy deserves years in prison.
Do you have a daughter? Do you have a teenage daughter? If you did, trust me, you wouldn't be trying to justify either Polanski's innocence, or that the case has holes and needs to be dismissed.
She was a 13 year old girl. Wrap your your little warped brain around that. If that happened to my daughter, I would have personally hunted that son of bitch down, and exacted my own personal hell on that low life little weasel.
If I do have a daughter, and if I allowed this to affect my judgment in concluding that RP should be judged on the actual facts rather than what is known to date, then I would not be qualified to be a juror and sit in judgment on him.
You and the other posters seem to be missing the point (which I kind of expected) which is that I not trying to justify his "innocence" (he is not innocent- we know he committed a crime, we just do not know which crime) or supporting dismissal of the case. My beef is with the media experts who say without qualification that he "drugged and raped a child," with the selective prosecution of RP because of his celebrity, and with many of the same people wanting to just move forward with respect to the judicial findings of torture of two of the Gitmo child detainees by the CIA (a question you not answer when I raised in my first post).
We are talking about Polanski. Let's resolve this issue first, then you can start another post on GITMO.
I assume you know he accepted a plea deal. I assume you read the transcript. You know he pleaded guilty to a felony count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl. You do know he gave up the right to a jury trial. You do know that he knew he was going to prison. You do know he fled the country unlawfully.
Why are you arguing the known facts? Fine, let's bring him back. He can either attempt (unlikely to happen) another plea deal, or accept a trial by jury. I prefer the latter. This country and world needs to know that you can never ever ever do that to a child.
the innocent.... all the innocent. Not just some hot 13 yr old who says no, rather even the hot 13 yr old who begs you for sex.
Dude, that is an obligation and it is that for which I find those who defend RP to be reprehensible. as to all the other issues you cite, could it be that all that happened because of WHO he was, and that he got the light approach because of "who he was"
I will give the man some slack because of who he was: a holocost survivor... (oh but so sorry, according to liberal love child Ahmadinejad, THAT never happened), or the husband of murdered actress Sharon Tate (murdered by the followers of Chuck Manson.... oh, but according to the liberals, a revolutionary visionist, who was and is a political prisoner who deserves to be free)....
yea.... lets let em all go.... that make ya feel good.???? The bastard raped a 13-yr old child. Get that through your head.
benefited him in his initial treatment. Conversely, I would not give him any slack for being a holocaust survivor or having prior trajedies in his life.
But since the issue I posed was "shouldn't we consider these unknown factual questions before we decide if he committed the crimes charged or only the crime pled," I certainly can't agree with your "because he was an adult" rationale. That is why he has no defense to the unlawful sex with a minor charge and should be punished for this, but it has nothing to do with whether he has been unfairly charged with the more serious crimes in the indictment, and whether the media is being unfair in saying he commited these crimes when we just do not know yet.
Does it really matter whether or not he is guilty of the other crimes?
He fled the country to avoid justice, any prison term he is likely to receive at this late stage in his life is apt to be a life sentence. From everything I have ever read on the subject, and that includes the notoriously left winged biased wikipedia, he deserves several years in prison at the very least. That's good enough for me.
I see no reason to argue the events of almost forty years ago when the facts that we can all agree with lead to the same results. RP belongs in prison, for how long really doesn't matter at this point.
both legislated and non-legislated. protection of children and other innocents is certainly one of them... but then again, we can't ask Michael Vick's dogs... can we?
1. It obviously matters to him, since if the original plea recommendation stands and is accepted by the judge, he would do no jail time at all for the sex offense and would only pay a fine.
The jumping bail offense is of course another matter-surely there would be some jail time for that and servedly so.
2. More importantly, the crime he committed bears on the resource allocation issue that I raised in my first post. If the only crime is unlawful sex with a minor plus bail jumping, then I don't think the State of California should money extraditing and trying him at a time when they under court order to release 40,000 prisoners and I think he would qualify for release for these crimes (Phil disagred but he was guessing, as I am).
If he raped a girl by force or drugs, then by all means go after him whatever the cost.
A man that admitted to having sex with a child, who subsequently fled to Europe in an attempt to escape justice for his crime should only be subject to a fine, and hence we should just forget the whole thing?
Wow isn't that a nice message to send to the pedophiles of the world?
the prosecution, the security, and the appeal, I am with you 100% that California should prosecute this guy to the full extent of the law for this charge.
Since OJ was 9 million, I'm ballparking 1 million for this one but I'm sure you can cover that.
Yes, we can send a great message to the pedophiles of the world with YOUR MONEY that we won't stand for that. Of course, when California releases Polanski a few months later bc they can't afford to keep the lights on in the prison, the pedophiles might be a little confused as to the message, but I still think we should do it as long as we can use YOUR MONEY instead of money the state does not have.
So send me a check right away and I'll forward it on to California.
for just the slightest possible chance of getting an indictment where it pertains to Gitmo, but you find it "ficscally objectionable" to bring a child abuser and quite possibly a child drugger and raper to justice. I find your fiscal objection rather disingenuous.
If the man was a corporate excutive in any other industry, you wouldn't care what the cost was.
I'll remember how fiscally responsible you are the next time you try to rally support for some left wing cause. I don't even know how anyone from either side of the aisle can overlook child abuse. This should not be a partisan issue, but it sure looks like the left is all for excusing this man's crimes because he made a few movies.
and sentenced, California will most likely have to release RP from prison bc as a nonviolent sex offender who is not a threat to society based on the last 30 years, he will fit the release guidelines.
So California spends a million and then has to let him go.
If the US convicted any of the CIA tortured the two children at Gitmo or in Afghanistan, they go to prison for a long, long time.
Seems a better use of resources to me.
both this year and next. So assuming a conviction during that time he would have been released at least as far as the guidelines are reported.
I understand the legislature, however, rejected the release of elderly prisoners part of the plan so that is no longer true. However, this means CAlifornia remains in violation of the fed ct order since without the release of the elderly prisoners Cal cannot come close to meeting the federal release order.
So unless the fed order gets reversed, I predict California will have no choice but to reinstate the governor's plan for release of nonviolent prisoners over 60.
This girl was 13! No 13 year old can consent to sex in any US state.
He drugged her!
He pleaded guilty.
I my opinion it was cut and dried. By skipping the country he violated the terms of his plea bargain. He should get the maximum sentence for the crime he pleaded guilty to, and one year for every year he was a fugitive from justice. IMHO.
But I'm afraid with the overcrowding of California prisons he may get less than he may have gotten in '78.
and let nature take it's course. I wonder if the cons that would be fucking him in the ass would claim it was consentual sex as well? lol