Fuck the swiss.

Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request - Yahoo! News

GSTAAD, Switzerland – In a stunning ruling, Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday — no longer confined to house arrest in his Alpine villa after Swiss authorities rejected a U.S. request for his extradition because of a 32-year-old sex conviction.

The decision left the Oscar-winning director free to return to France and the life of a celebrity, albeit one unable to visit the United States.

Hours after the ruling was announced, Polanski's assistant said he had left his multi-million dollar chalet with his family. Half-empty glasses seen on a back porch testified to a hasty exit.

"Mr. Polanski can now move freely," Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared. "He's a free man."

Switzerland, which arrested the 76-year-old Polanski last September as he arrived receive a lifetime achievement award at a Zurich film festival, blamed U.S. authorities for its decision, citing a possible "fault in the U.S. extradition request."

The United States failed to provide confidential testimony to refute defense arguments the filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

The Swiss decision could end the United States' long pursuit of Polanski, who has been a fugitive since fleeing sentencing for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

Beyond the legal issue, the extradition request was complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski's status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, where he holds dual citizenship, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife Sharon Tate was murdered in 1969 by followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.

France, where the filmmaker has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens and Polanski has had little trouble traveling throughout Europe — although he has stayed away from Britain.

The U.S. cannot appeal the decision, but Polanski is still a fugitive in the United States.

"That warrant remains outstanding," Los Angeles Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini said, adding that Polanski could be arrested and sent to the U.S. if he traveled to another country that has an extradition treaty with the United States.

In Washington, the Justice Department expressed deep disappointment over the Swiss action, saying the request was completely supported by treaty, facts and the law.

The underlying conduct in the criminal case against Polanski "is, of course, very serious" and the department is "deeply disappointed" by the Swiss rejection, said Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general in charge of the department's criminal division. He said the U.S. would review its options, but declined to discuss them.

The decision drew cheers and jeers on both sides of the Atlantic.

"The great Franco-Polish director can now freely rediscover his loved ones and devote himself fully to the pursuit of his artistic activities," said French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

His Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski expressed satisfaction with the Swiss decision, saying that "a solution was found that respects the complex legal considerations and personal circumstances of the case of Mr. Polanski."

At Polanski's multi-million dollar Alpine chalet the shutters were open but there was no sign of movement inside hours after the Swiss decision was announced.

A woman who answered the intercom and identified herself only as "Mr. Polanski's assistant" said the director had left with his wife and two young children, Morgane and Elvis. She declined to say where Polanski had gone or whether he would return.

Glasses stood half-empty glasses on the porch, where neighbors say Polanski was having a meal around noon.

Asked whether Polanski had left the home after being freed Monday from the electronic tags that monitored his movements during his house arrest on $4.5 million bail, a police spokeswoman, Ursula Stauffer, said: "Mr. Polanski is a free man. It's not the job of the police to keep track of his movements."

Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss justice minister, said the decision was not meant to excuse Polanski's crime, adding the issue was "not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty."

The government said extradition had to be rejected "considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case."

In justifying the decision, Switzerland also invoked what it called the "public order" — a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.

The Justice Ministry cited the fact that U.S. authorities hadn't pursued Polanski in Switzerland previously, even though he's often visited the country and bought a house here in 2006. It also stressed that the victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago publicly identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal.

The acclaimed director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.

The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.

The office of Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley did not issue any statement about the Swiss decision and he did not return a message seeking comment.

__________________
Give unto Caesar that what is Caesar's, and lie like hell to keep as much of the rest of your shit as you can.

"If you want something said ask a man...if you want something done, ask a woman" Margaret Thatcher

Originally Posted by LiberalNation

The United States failed to provide confidential testimony to refute defense arguments the filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

Why? Is it that the US didn't actually really want to get Polanski?

And I guess the Swiss are pretty happy at poking a finger in the eye of the US justice after the pressure UBS and CS had to endure with regards to the tax evasion thingy...

Quote:

"The great Franco-Polish director can now freely rediscover his loved ones and devote himself fully to the pursuit of his artistic activities," said French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

I wish French politicians, especially those on the left, had the good taste to, if not ostracise Polanski, at least not gloat over his evasion of all legal systems...

Quote:

Switzerland also invoked what it called the "public order" — a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.

Huh? Quite apart Polanski's case, I don't see what's lofty about the idea of keeping your citizens safe from the abuse of the law. I guess that Guantanamo-prone US legal system doesn't care about small stuff like that...

Oh and by the by, 90 days in jail for rape? Even considering it was 1977, it makes you go "hmmm...."

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Whatever happened to the statute of limitations? Even the girl says she just wished everyone'd just shut up and fuck off.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Whatever happened to the statute of limitations?

Technically, it's the fact that he ran away that's the issue, not the rape.

Quote:

Even the girl says she just wished everyone'd just shut up and fuck off.

We don't always listen to the victims. Although, in this case, I'd definitely be tempted to. The case was murky to start with and, unpleasant as Polanski might be, that's not a valid reason to prosecute him forever.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Why? Is it that the US didn't actually really want to get Polanski? And I guess the Swiss are pretty happy at poking a finger in the eye of the US justice after the pressure UBS and CS had to endure with regards to the tax evasion thingy...

Probably ... and I am sure more things went on behind the curtains than were publicly explained. However, Switzerland had legally no other choice.

Polanski's lawyers claimed that a deal had been cut between Polanski and the (meanwhile deceased) California judge. According to that deal, Polanski would plead guilty and the judge would let him go free after his first 42 days in prison (actually: psychiatric evaluation). Polanski accepted the deal, pleaded guilty, and then the judge reneged on his promise and decided to send Polanski to prison again.

If this story is indeed what has happened, then Switzerland could not legally extradite Polanski to the U.S. Thus, the Swiss justice minister requested an explanation from the U.S. authorities, giving the U.S. a deadline to respond. The U.S. failed to respond, and consequently, Widmer-Schlumpf was forced, in accordance with Swiss laws, to set Polanski free.

Quote:

Whatever happened to the statute of limitations? Even the girl says she just wished everyone'd just shut up and fuck off.

It's worth considering the ethical issue at stake behind continued pursuit of Polanski. Supposing that he had been extradited to the US and given one of those absurd sentences that US courts specialise in (say, a prison term of 150 years), what is the end that that is supposed to serve?

Quote:

Technically, it's the fact that he ran away that's the issue, not the rape.

But how many years ago did he run away?

Under the French system I think that the statute of limitations gets suspended if you disappear abroad, unless the authorities know perfectly well where you are and don't make any effort to get you back.

Quote:

We don't always listen to the victims.

Understatement of the year award...

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Johann Hari: So that's OK then. It's fine to abuse young girls, as long as you're a great film director

The Swiss government has admitted "national interests" may be a factor

Tuesday, 13 July 2010

So now we know. If you are a 44-year-old man, you can drug and anally rape a terrified 13-year-old girl as she sobs, says "No, no, no," and pleads for her asthma medication – all according to the victim's sworn testimony – and face no punishment at all. You just have to meet two criteria – (a) you have to run away and stay away for a few decades; and (b) you need to direct some good films. If you do, not only will you walk free, there will be a huge campaign to protect you from the "witch-hunt" and you will be lauded as a hero.

Roman Polanski admitted his crime before he ran away and, for years afterwards, he boasted from exile that every man wanted to do what he did. He chuckled to one interviewer in 1979: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?

"But... fucking, you see... and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

But this is not enough, it seems, for the Swiss government to return him to the US to face trial. They have found a legalistic loophole that enables them to let him go – while admitting "national interests" may be a factor. This may be a reference to pressure from neighbouring France to free their citizen. As a Swiss citizen, I think I can say without being offensive, we all remember the bargains Swiss governments have made in the past to preserve their "national interests". This is in a long tradition of helping criminals and calling it Swiss hard-headedness.

The campaign to release Polanski has leeched into the open a slew of attitudes I thought were defeated a generation ago. Whoopi Goldberg said it wasn't "rape rape".

Others hinted darkly that she wasn't a virgin. So if a 13-year-old has been abused before, she's fair game for all future rapists? The French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi, who led the campaign, said a little bit of child molestation isn't his problem when Great Art is at stake. He wrote: "Am I repulsed by what he got up to? His behaviour is not my business. I'm concerned about his movies. I like The Pianist and Rosemary's Baby."

That's worth saying again – this campaign was led by a man who thinks the drugging and raping of a child is "not my business", when compared to a film about Satan inseminating Mia Farrow.

The novelist Robert Harris, who is a friend of Polanski's, said: "It strikes me as disgusting treatment." He wasn't talking about the child-rape. He was talking about the attempt to punish the child-rape. He said Polanski was being subjected to a "lynch mob"? Where is this lynch mob? All I can see are people patiently suggesting the law should be enforced and he should be given a fair and open trial. This is the opposite of a lynching: it is sober justice.

Do these defenders of Polanski understand what they are saying? Harris has four children. If a great film director drugs and rapes them tomorrow, will he call the police, or will he say it would be "disgusting" to do so? Would he say the police and prosecutors trying to protect his children were a "lynch mob"? If the rapist ran off, would he say that after three decades on the run (boasting about his crime) he should walk free?

Now the campaign has succeeded. So congratulations to Whoopi and Bernard and Robert: an unrepentant, bragging child-rapist won't face his day in court, thanks in part to you. Have fun at the victory party. But you may want to leave your daughters at home.

Johann Hari: So that's OK then. It's fine to abuse young girls, as long as you're a great film director - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

From SwissInfo

Polanski verdict makes "legal sense"

Isobel Leybold-Johnson and Urs Geiser
swissinfo.ch
Jul 13, 2010 - 15:43


Swiss legal experts say that Switzerland has overall made a pragmatic and correct decision in not extraditing film director Roman Polanski to the United States.

But opinions over the Atlantic differ, particularly among the justice authorities in Los Angeles who want to pursue a 33-year-old child rape case against Polanski.

On Monday the Swiss authorities decided not to extradite the 76-year-old Oscar-winning director. Polanski was arrested in September 2009 in Zurich on his way to a film festival, before being placed under house arrest in his Gstaad chalet. He is now said to have left the country.

Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the decision had been taken after Washington’s refusal to give access to confidential documents.

“I think in the end we can say that the decision is correct and it makes sense,” Peter Cosandey, a former Zurich prosecutor with expertise in international assistance matters, told swissinfo.ch.

Cosandey said the move was based on two grounds, with the main one being “a possible defect” in the US extradition request.

Switzerland wanted the transcript of former Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson, who was in charge of the case in the 1970s, which deals with the question of whether Polanski had already served his sentence.


Jail question

The Franco-Polish director was in a Los Angeles jail for 42 days before being released. He then fled the country in 1978, shortly before he was scheduled to appear in court again.

“That’s an important question because if Polanski has already served his sentence then there is no basis any more for a criminal case and as a consequence for an extradition request,” Cosandey said.

The second, more auxiliary reason, concerns the concept of protection of confidence according to public international law. Here the argument is that although the Polanski case dated back more than 30 years, the arrest warrant was only issued around five years ago. The question is why, Cosandey said.

“So there was no extradition request until September 2009 even though the US authorities must have been aware of Polanski’s travels not only in Switzerland but also in other countries,” he said.

“Polanski was never caught at a border control, so the Swiss government argues that Polanski must have been confident that nobody was after him when he accepted this invitation to the Zurich film festival.”


Unusual case

Stefan Heimgartner, an expert in international legal assistance at Zurich University who has looked into the Polanski case, also said the Swiss extradition decision was correct.

“But I wonder whether the missing documents were really that crucial for the decision,” he told swissinfo.ch.

He also raised doubts over the US’ interest in criminally prosecuting Polanski over the past 33 years. He concluded: “Political aspects most likely played a part in the decision-making. But this is not unusual in an unusual case.”

Cosandey added that Polanski’s fame should not in theory have influenced the case but that it was hard to say overall. The director had received a lot of media attention, but Cosandey also pointed to international high profile mutual assistance cases where courts had resisted outside pressure.


US disappointment

In the US justice officials have said they thought the extradition request was completely supported by the facts and law.

It cannot legally appeal the Swiss decision, but the arrest warrant remains active.

“The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case," said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.

In Los Angeles, District Attorney Steve Cooley said authorities would seek Polanski’s extradition again, "if he's arrested in a cooperative jurisdiction".

Cosandey said a new extradition request to Switzerland could in theory be filed, but would not make sense as Polanski was no longer in the country.

“He might come back to his chalet in Gstaad and probably he is safe, but of course we do not know what the US authorities will do,” he added.

The views of Los Angeles legal experts, quoted on the agencies, ranged from seeing the Swiss move as a slap in the face to those who thought Cooley’s office had left it too late to prosecute Polanski.

Cooley has accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free. In doing so, he also says the country has rejected the American courts’ competency.

"The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat," he said in a statement.

From SwissInfo

Polanski decision angers US audience

Susan Vogel-Misicka
swissinfo.ch
Jul 13, 2010 - 13:53


Disappointment, disgust and some understanding – reactions in the United States to the Swiss decision to set Roman Polanski free have been mainly negative.

As the news spread, those in the legal and entertainment industries were quick to voice opinions. Readers have also been keen to put their two cents’ worth in.

“Shock: The Swiss set Polanski free” was the headline on Time magazine’s website, saying that the decision practically guarantees that the 76-year-old director will be able to avoid prison for the rest of his life.

As the Los Angeles Times put it, “Once again, Polanski is saved by legal nonsense”. Meanwhile, a Washington Post columnist wrote, “As long as Polanski steers clear of US justice, why don’t we steer clear of his movies?”.

The New York Times referred to a new cultural trench between the US and Europe as a result of the extradition attempt to prosecute Polanski for a 1977 sex case involving a 13-year-old girl. Yet it questioned whether he had already been punished enough – or whether his fame and talent had masked the severity of the crime.

The answer to that was clear for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley.

“I am deeply disappointed that the Swiss authorities denied the request to extradite Roman Polanski,” saying that his office had complied with the requirements for the extradition request.

In a prepared statement, Cooley said the Swiss decision was a “disservice to justice and other victims as a whole”.


“Very divisive”

Steven Gaydos, executive editor of Variety magazine, took a pragmatic approach. “It looks good for [Cooley] to go after Polanski; it plays well with Joe Public because Polanski is an easy guy to demonise – he has a foreign accent, he’s a Hollywood director and celebrity,” Gaydos told swissinfo.ch.

He went on to say that the case was “very divisive” in the Hollywood community, pointing out that things have changed a lot since the Sixties and Seventies, when there was a culture of free love.

“It’s not clear that regular working people in Hollywood support Polanski … it’s now a more buttoned-up corporate world, and one good thing to come out of it is that people are more educated about sexual exploitation and see it as a serious crime,” Gaydos said.

Some have wondered whether Polanski’s behaviour would have been tolerated had he been a Catholic priest rather than a talented filmmaker.

Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told swissinfo.ch that she was disappointed with the Swiss justice system’s ruling.

“The Swiss did not act appropriately in this case. Polanski should not be rewarded for hiding from law enforcement,” said Blaine, calling on consumers to boycott the work of Polanski and his supporters.

“The Swiss decision is an incredibly important and sad event for both governments and, most of all, for children who are abused,” she said.


Feedback frenzy

American readers around the world have been commenting passionately about the case. While voicing dismay at what had happened in 1977, many said they felt that the Swiss government had acted correctly in freeing Polanski on Monday.

As a number of them pointed out, Switzerland had detained Polanksi and put him under house arrest while looking into the matter – which was far more than France, his adopted country, had done.

Yet other posters expressed outrage, focusing on the crime itself rather than the rejected extradition request.

The majority of feedback to swissinfo.ch’s article was against the decision. The story was picked up by the Drudge Report, a well-read conservative news aggregation website.

Some readers went as far as to describe Switzerland as a land of chocolate and child abusers; others said they would be boycotting the nation and its products.

These sorts of comments attracted fierce criticism from fellow Americans.

“Hypocrites! Where was all the disgust and anger before the Swiss held him? The Swiss are not the problem, the US is,” said one.

“I would like to thank all of you redneck posters that just made it more uncomfortable for American tourists who travel to Switzerland and enjoy its beauty,” said another.