DSK arrested

[chambers]

Are you sure?

According to Wiki:

Some countries, such as France, Germany,[2] Russian Federation, Austria, the People's Republic of China,[3] the Republic of China (Taiwan)[4] and Japan,[5] forbid extradition of their own citizens either by law or by treaty. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to their home country, perceived as to avoid prosecution.[6] These countries often have laws in place that give them jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by or against citizens. By virtue of such jurisdiction, they prosecute and try citizens accused of crimes committed abroad as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.

Susan

Yes I am sure. Wiki is wrong on this one.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

You are right, but it seems to be a complicated issue. It is up to each country to decide whether to allow its citizens to be extradited, apparently.

It may be moot anyway: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rauss-Kahn-waives-his-extradition-rights.html

Susan

 

[Le breton]

You will have to explain to me how that type of reasoning is absolutely outrageous. Here are the facts:
1. France and the United States have a legal agreement that calls for the other to send people to the other country to face criminal charges.

2. Roman Polanski was convicted of a sex crime in the United States. He was awaiting sentencing when he left the country and found a safe haven in France.

3. Roman Polanski is rich and well know. France did not send him back to the United States when the United States tried to extradite him.

4. DSK is rich and well know.

5. Roman Polanski has admitted that he did actually commit the crime of which he was convicted.

I won't go over the details of the Polanski case, but you obviously missed a number of episodes and misrepresent the case.

France does not normally extradite its citizens, in particular will not extradite a French citizen ( or even resident I believe) if he might be subjected to the death sentence (illegal in France). However, that does not mean France will NEVER extradite a citizen towards the US, each case is considered on an individual basis.

Regarding Polanski, he has been a Swiss resident for many, many years and it was Switzerland that refused to extradite him, to many peoples surprise ( 1 the Swiss tend to be pretty subservient to the US 2) after the big Swiss banks and US tax avoidance fiasco that wanted to take a low profile)

I find it ourageous to consider that because ONE Frenchman ( also Pole and US resident at the time) preferred to leave the country

Sorry, wrong key, also time to go, I'll come back and finish later

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

He was indicted today for sexual assualt, so there will be a trial.

Susan

 

[Black-Balled]

Based on past French government conduct...(Roman Polanski) I do not think we should believe ...the guy would be forced to return to the United States to answer for his crimes.

Step into the USA, baybee! I dare ya!

 

[Merckx index]

Based on what has come out so far, neither side has any solid evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dominique-strauss-kahn-indicted-counts/story?id=13640402&page=2

For DSK:

The schedule outlined by his lawyers suggests that Strauss-Kahn's actions were not those of a man who just committed a grave sex crime. According the document, the alleged attack occurred at noon Saturday in his suite at the Sofitel Hotel. At 12:28 p.m., his lawyers say, he checked out of the hotel and joined a relative for lunch a few blocks away at 12:45 p.m.

After lunch he took a car to the airport for a flight scheduled to depart at 4:40 p.m., which had been booked a week earlier. Before boarding the plane, Strauss-Kahn called the hotel to report he had left his cell phone in his room and volunteered information about his location.

Defense attorney Benjamin Brafman told the judge at a bail hearing Monday that "the evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter," suggesting that Strauss-Kahn might argue that he and the woman had consensual sex.

As a defense against a serious crime, this is a joke: “he acted perfectly normal after the encounter”. He’s used to getting his way with women, so he might very well consider what he is charged with as normal, and leave the scene more or less unperturbed.

OTOH, what does the prosecution have?

ABC News has confirmed that police collected several piece of physical evidence from the hotel room, which are being tested for DNA, including a swath of carpet on which the maid spat after allegedly being forced to perform oral sex.

If the sample contains DNA from both of them (sperm and cheek cells), this would be pretty strong evidence of oral sex. But DSK has already admitted to consensual sex, so they need to prove he forced himself on her. If they have evidence of this, they haven’t indicated it as yet.

Investigators also say information downloaded from the suite door's electronic card reader indicates the maid entered the room and never closed the door. The hotel policy requires maids to leave the door open when cleaning. The open door, they say, is proof that the women entered the room to work, not to engage in consensual sex.

This is suggestive, but it’s hardly proof. I assume the suite had multiple rooms, so it’s conceivable that the main door could have been ajar, while they were in another room with the door closed. Also, even if the maid did enter with the intention of cleaning, it still doesn’t prove that the sex wasn’t consensual.

Barring evidence of force, it seems to me it would help if they could establish a well-defined timeline—showing, say, that the maid was not in the suite for more than 10-15 minutes. If they had other evidence that the two had never met before—hadn’t DSK checked in the night before??—surely this would strongly suggest nothing consensual occurred. She comes in to clean the room, a strange man she never met before persuades her to have sex, the whole thing is over in a few minutes? I don’t think any jury would buy that. And if it was consensual, why is she denying that so strongly? You almost have to buy a set-up scenario as the only alternative.

Based on what has come out so far, along with DSK’s past history, I think a jury will be strongly inclined to view him as guilty, but guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The maid’s testimony will be crucial.

 

[Le breton]

You will have to explain to me how that type of reasoning is absolutely outrageous. Here are the facts:
1. France and the United States have a legal agreement that calls for the other to send people to the other country to face criminal charges.

2. Roman Polanski was convicted of a sex crime in the United States. He was awaiting sentencing when he left the country and found a safe haven in France.

3. Roman Polanski is rich and well know. France did not send him back to the United States when the United States tried to extradite him.

4. DSK is rich and well know.

5. Roman Polanski has admitted that he did actually commit the crime of which he was convicted.

So, I was writing this

I won't go over the details of the Polanski case, but you obviously missed a number of episodes and misrepresent the case.

France does not normally extradite its citizens, in particular will not extradite a French citizen ( or even resident I believe) if he might be subjected to the death sentence (illegal in France). However, that does not mean France will NEVER extradite a citizen towards the US, each case is considered on an individual basis.

Regarding Polanski, he has been a Swiss resident for many, many years and it was Switzerland that refused to extradite him, to many peoples surprise ( 1 the Swiss tend to be pretty subservient to the US 2) after the big Swiss banks and US tax avoidance fiasco that wanted to take a low profile)

I find it ourageous to consider that because ONE Frenchman ( also Pole and US resident at the time) preferred to leave the country

and had to go, now I'll continue :
I find it outrageous to consider that because ONE Frenchman ( also Pole and US resident at the time) preferred to leave the USA to escape a judge who was reneging on their agreement, any other Frenchman who is indicted for a crime or misdemeanour in the US must be considered as a likely fugitive from justice and consequently submitted to a harsher treatment and increased suspicions? That seems normal to you?

Replace in the previous paragraph the word Frenchman by the word Jew and see how it sounds!
(Polanski and Strauss-Kahn both happen to be jews.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, I was writing this

I won't go over the details of the Polanski case, but you obviously missed a number of episodes and misrepresent the case.

France does not normally extradite its citizens, in particular will not extradite a French citizen ( or even resident I believe) if he might be subjected to the death sentence (illegal in France). However, that does not mean France will NEVER extradite a citizen towards the US, each case is considered on an individual basis.

Regarding Polanski, he has been a Swiss resident for many, many years and it was Switzerland that refused to extradite him, to many peoples surprise ( 1 the Swiss tend to be pretty subservient to the US 2) after the big Swiss banks and US tax avoidance fiasco that wanted to take a low profile)

I find it ourageous to consider that because ONE Frenchman ( also Pole and US resident at the time) preferred to leave the country

and had to go, now I'll continue :
I find it outrageous to consider that because ONE Frenchman ( also Pole and US resident at the time) preferred to leave the USA to escape a judge who was reneging on their agreement, any other Frenchman who is indicted for a crime or misdemeanour in the US must be considered as a likely fugitive from justice and consequently submitted to a harsher treatment and increased suspicions? That seems normal to you?

Replace in the previous paragraph the word Frenchman by the word Jew and see how it sounds!
(Polanski and Strauss-Kahn both happen to be jews.)

Yeah great. Both these tards / asshats had their collective little smokies / pecker's in the wrong place. A couple of regular PERVERTS!

 

[patricknd]

Yeah great. Both these tards / asshats had their collective little smokies / pecker's in the wrong place. A couple of regular PERVERTS!

At least they're not irregular perverts.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Based on what has come out so far, neither side has any solid evidence.

It is probably safe to say that not everything has come out and the press and public do not know all, if any, of the evidence.

Susan

 

[chambers]

So, I was writing this

I won't go over the details of the Polanski case, but you obviously missed a number of episodes and misrepresent the case.

France does not normally extradite its citizens, in particular will not extradite a French citizen ( or even resident I believe) if he might be subjected to the death sentence (illegal in France). However, that does not mean France will NEVER extradite a citizen towards the US, each case is considered on an individual basis.

Regarding Polanski, he has been a Swiss resident for many, many years and it was Switzerland that refused to extradite him, to many peoples surprise ( 1 the Swiss tend to be pretty subservient to the US 2) after the big Swiss banks and US tax avoidance fiasco that wanted to take a low profile)

I find it ourageous to consider that because ONE Frenchman ( also Pole and US resident at the time) preferred to leave the country

and had to go, now I'll continue :
I find it outrageous to consider that because ONE Frenchman ( also Pole and US resident at the time) preferred to leave the USA to escape a judge who was reneging on their agreement, any other Frenchman who is indicted for a crime or misdemeanour in the US must be considered as a likely fugitive from justice and consequently submitted to a harsher treatment and increased suspicions? That seems normal to you?

Replace in the previous paragraph the word Frenchman by the word Jew and see how it sounds!
(Polanski and Strauss-Kahn both happen to be jews.)

Polanski was arrested in Switzerland when he entered the country to accept an award. He was not a resident of Switerland. He was and is a resident of France. Strauss-Kahn due to his large amount of personal money and a home country that may not (based on French law and pass experience) return him the the United States to face justice. Many people in the United States do not get bail in their cases everyday. What harsher treatment and increased suspicions are you speaking of?

 

[rhubroma]

What I don't get is why this should be viewed as such a "shocking revelation."

He had been known for years, among the vip circles, to be quite the unscrupulous womanizer. Men of power have always behaved this way. The question at hand should be whether or not DSK crossed that line separating adicted libertarian from predator. But this is something for the courts to establish, not a popular lynching stirred up at the hands of the American mass media.

And I'm not defending him. In fact, if he did rape the women that has accused him of doing so, then the law should react with the just severity it has at its disposal in such cases, irrespective, of course, of the position he once held. However, what has come to us by way of the US mass media is not very edifying to its justice system, because potentially undermining to the rules of due process that everyone, including the rich and powerful, should be guaranteed by the constitution. Which is the exact contrary to the claims made by the ideologues across the Atlantic, who rather see this as a demonstration of the egalitarian virtues the US justice system, which apparently pays no attention to status or rank (while inferring that Europe's, and particularly France's, does). Never mind cases like Iran-Contra or even OJ, but it would be too obvious to explain why these get automatically forgotten in such an analysis.

I don't want to believe that because this is potentially a sexual offense against a woman, or even that it involves a despised Frenchman, that its sensitivity has made a public pillory acceptable by the images and reports. If so, then this is an example of a medievalism unbefitting of a modern democracy. While it begins to establish a net cultural difference between America and Europe in this regard.

Right now there are too many unanswered questions for the court to resolve.

 

[Le breton]

Polanski was arrested in Switzerland when he entered the country to accept an award. He was not a resident of Switerland. He was and is a resident of France. .........

I agree, he is not, was not, a resident of Switerland
However I know He was, is a resident of Gstaad in Switzerland, Suisse if you prefer.
Being a Swiss resident myself, I had many occasions to have this fact confirmed to me in the last couple of years.

 

[Christian]

This case reveals a very different understanding of the justice system on either side of the ocean.

French and Europeans in general were appalled by the images of DSK in handcuffs on his way to jail, but that is normal in the US. Apparently the state attorneys will tipp off the press for the exact time of this "appearance" and then use these images later to persuade the jury. A producer was heard saying to his cameraman "Get the handcuffs, get the handcuffs!". I am sure the mandatory "mugshot" will be released promptly.

People have been throwing the word "perverse" around in this thread, but this is what Europeans find perverse: the public humiliation of a suspect who was, at the time, not even sure to go to trial. As I mentioned before, in Europe this would go straight to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Just imagine it wouldn't have gone to trial - DSK's political career had already effectively been destroyed, just by these images. This reveals a fundamental difference: in the US the freedom of speech is valued higher than the protection of a person's honour and privacy, whereas the opposite is the case in Europe.

At the same time, one cannot oversee the hipocrisy: Europeans were very interested in the very same images of Michael Jackson, Chris Brown and so on, and no one was appalled at the public humiliation they had to face also. In that sense, DSK is not being treated better or worse than anyone else in the US justice system, just equally bad as everyone else.

Another huge difference is in the sentence that DSK faces in the US and the one he would face in Europe. Right now he is looking at 74 years in the US, whereas IINM the highest penalty in most European countries is 25 years for murder. If DSK was judged in Europe, he would be looking at a sentence between 3 months and 5 years, the latter being highly unlikely.

It is often said that the European justice system protects possession better than it protects life (i.e. the penalty for destroying a police vehicle is higher than the one for attacking a police officer) but I think we can safely say that both the European and the US possible jail time are very extreme.

 

[L'arriviste]

French and Europeans in general were appalled by the images of DSK in handcuffs on his way to jail ... I am sure the mandatory "mugshot" will be released promptly.

You mean this ... ?

PS. I wasn't appalled at all. Whatever the flavour of justice, the main thing is that justice is seen to be done. Personally, I still think this whole thing stinks of a set-up almost a week later.

 

[chambers]

This case reveals a very different understanding of the justice system on either side of the ocean.

French and Europeans in general were appalled by the images of DSK in handcuffs on his way to jail, but that is normal in the US. Apparently the state attorneys will tipp off the press for the exact time of this "appearance" and then use these images later to persuade the jury. A producer was heard saying to his cameraman "Get the handcuffs, get the handcuffs!". I am sure the mandatory "mugshot" will be released promptly.

People have been throwing the word "perverse" around in this thread, but this is what Europeans find perverse: the public humiliation of a suspect who was, at the time, not even sure to go to trial. As I mentioned before, in Europe this would go straight to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Just imagine it wouldn't have gone to trial - DSK's political career had already effectively been destroyed, just by these images. This reveals a fundamental difference: in the US the freedom of speech is valued higher than the protection of a person's honour and privacy, whereas the opposite is the case in Europe.

At the same time, one cannot oversee the hipocrisy: Europeans were very interested in the very same images of Michael Jackson, Chris Brown and so on, and no one was appalled at the public humiliation they had to face also. In that sense, DSK is not being treated better or worse than anyone else in the US justice system, just equally bad as everyone else.

Another huge difference is in the sentence that DSK faces in the US and the one he would face in Europe. Right now he is looking at 74 years in the US, whereas IINM the highest penalty in most European countries is 25 years for murder. If DSK was judged in Europe, he would be looking at a sentence between 3 months and 5 years, the latter being highly unlikely.

It is often said that the European justice system protects possession better than it protects life (i.e. the penalty for destroying a police vehicle is higher than the one for attacking a police officer) but I think we can safely say that both the European and the US possible jail time are very extreme.

The state attorneys will not be able to use the images later to persuade the jury. They are not allowed into evidence. The pictures or videos of the suspect in handcuffs is not a big deal in the United States because everyone knows that if you are arrested for the crimes he was arrested for that he would have been in handcuffs. In the United States the media does not report the name of the victim unless the victim wants her name released. I have read reports that the French press has reported the victim's name and details of her and her family. What about her public humiliation?

 

[chambers]

What I don't get is why this should be viewed as such a "shocking revelation."

He had been known for years, among the vip circles, to be quite the unscrupulous womanizer. Men of power have always behaved this way. The question at hand should be whether or not DSK crossed that line separating adicted libertarian from predator. But this is something for the courts to establish, not a popular lynching stirred up at the hands of the American mass media.

And I'm not defending him. In fact, if he did rape the women that has accused him of doing so, then the law should react with the just severity it has at its disposal in such cases, irrespective, of course, of the position he once held. However, what has come to us by way of the US mass media is not very edifying to its justice system, because potentially undermining to the rules of due process that everyone, including the rich and powerful, should be guaranteed by the constitution. Which is the exact contrary to the claims made by the ideologues across the Atlantic, who rather see this as a demonstration of the egalitarian virtues the US justice system, which apparently pays no attention to status or rank (while inferring that Europe's, and particularly France's, does). Never mind cases like Iran-Contra or even OJ, but it would be too obvious to explain why these get automatically forgotten in such an analysis. I don't want to believe that because this is potentially a sexual offense against a woman, or even that it involves a despised Frenchman, that its sensitivity has made a public pillory acceptable by the images and reports. If so, then this is an example of a medievalism unbefitting of a modern democracy. While it begins to establish a net cultural difference between America and Europe in this regard.

Right now there are too many unanswered questions for the court to resolve.

What about the Iran-Contra case? The United States convicted eleven administration officials that were involved in that case. The OJ case? I think that he was guilty myself but the state of California failed to prove their criminal case well enough to convince the jury to convict. Los Angeles County spent over $9.2 million trying to prosecute OJ.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

The state attorneys will not be able to use the images later to persuade the jury. They are not allowed into evidence. The pictures or videos of the suspect in handcuffs is not a big deal in the United States because everyone knows that if you are arrested for the crimes he was arrested for that he would have been in handcuffs. In the United States the media does not report the name of the victim unless the victim wants her name released. I have read reports that the French press has reported the victim's name and details of her and her family. What about her public humiliation?

Yeah, her career as a chambermaid in France is shot to pieces now.

This all stinks. The only question in my mind is the level to which this is a set-up at one end of the scale or that those that want him gone have taken advantage of a randomly arising situation at the other end of the scale.

 

[Christian]

The state attorneys will not be able to use the images later to persuade the jury. They are not allowed into evidence. The pictures or videos of the suspect in handcuffs is not a big deal in the United States because everyone knows that if you are arrested for the crimes he was arrested for that he would have been in handcuffs. In the United States the media does not report the name of the victim unless the victim wants her name released. I have read reports that the French press has reported the victim's name and details of her and her family. What about her public humiliation?

Thanks apparently that was wrong information then, I read it in an article somewhere. I haven't seen the victim's name anywhere though. Usually the names of victims are not printed. There is a similar case in Germany right now (a famous TV spokesman accused of raping his girlfriend), and a big magazine, "Stern", used a fake name in their latest article about the trial

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Yeah, her career as a chambermaid in France is shot to pieces now.

I find this statement incredibly offensive. Why are her life and reputation worth less than his?

Susan

 

[rickshaw]

Amen

I find this statement incredibly offensive. Why are her life and reputation worth less than his?

Susan

I agree 100%

 

[Captain_Cavman]

I find this statement incredibly offensive. Why are her life and reputation worth less than his?

Susan

I'm sorry that you are offended.


She hasn't got a life or a reputation in France. What has she lost?

 

[Race Radio]

I'm sorry that you are offended.


She hasn't got a life or a reputation in France. What has she lost?

What? Do you not think being sexually assaulted then being accused of being part of a conspiracy is damaging?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I'm sorry that you are offended.


She hasn't got a life or a reputation in France. What has she lost?

Yes, but she has them in the US. Why doesn't that count?

Susan

 

[Captain_Cavman]

What? Do you not think being sexually assaulted then being accused of being part of a conspiracy is damaging?

Yes. In the US.

The issue was whether she has suffered further by having her name published in France. And whether that additional suffering was comparable to the level of additional suffering SK was put through (whether merited or otherwise) by having his mugshot plastered over every media outlet in the world.

After due consideration of the lady's career prospects in France, I felt the two were not comparable.

Yes, but she has them in the US. Why doesn't that count?

Susan

Because they (her life and reputation) are being protected in the US.