Obama Administration Formally Requests Polanski’s Extradition
Polanski’s hiring of Eric Holder’s pal apparently didn’t work:
The Swiss government says the U.S. has formally requested the extradition of imprisoned director Roman Polanski for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.
I’m not going to compliment Obama on doing the right thing here, because it’s like what Chris Rock says about obeying the law and police orders. It’s what you’re supposed to do.
The Swiss government says the U.S. has formally requested the extradition of imprisoned director Roman Polanski for drugging and raping
having sexin 1977witha 13-year-old girl.FTFT
kaf (16e0b5) — 10/23/2009 @ 6:56 amAfter his behavior regarding the Gate’s arrest, he probably sincerely believes he deserves a compliment (hell, why not a medal?). He’s defined deviancy down to the level of plankton.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/23/2009 @ 6:56 amRe the decision of the administration: even stopped clocks are perfectly right twice a day.
quasimodo (4af144) — 10/23/2009 @ 7:22 amWonder if President Hollywood has some confidence (real or imagined) that Polanski will get off easy?
Extradition – with a wink to his movie star supporters that he’s got it covered?
Matador (e01f85) — 10/23/2009 @ 7:46 amQuestion for the lawyers……..I realize that no one can know what a Judge is really thinking, but legally, is the Judge allowed to take Polanski’s flight into consideration when he decides on an appropriate sentence?
Roscoe (d95ba6) — 10/23/2009 @ 8:01 amI’m wondering if there is a statute of limitations involved here. Or does the fact that he pled out eliminate that?
JEA (b29a48) — 10/23/2009 @ 8:14 amJEA
The statute of limitations stops running when the case is filed. there are lots of rules and exceptions to that, but you bet your ass that if he had a statute of limitations argument he would have already prevailed on it.
Patterico
i will praise them. i think of the obama administration as a room full of children. of course they are supposed to do that sort of thing, but its important to give praise as they are learning. on the other hand, if it was the bush admin, no praise, because they were grown ups.
So very good obama admin. here’s a gold star and a lollipop.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/23/2009 @ 8:27 amThe Obama administration knows there’s no political gain whatsoever from defending someone like Polanski, who committed a vile crime. Perhaps Obama’s having two daughters entered into the equation.
As a rule, Obama will do what he can for his supporters, up to the point where he would get seriously hurt. Then it’s under the bus, baby!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/23/2009 @ 8:39 amUnfortunately, given this administrations track record, there is only one reason that Holder followed through: Polanski isn’t black.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 10/23/2009 @ 8:47 ambut legally, is the Judge allowed to take Polanski’s flight into consideration when he decides on an appropriate sentence?
Comment by Roscoe — 10/23/2009 @ 8:01 am
Absolutely. Even if it is not an enumerated sentencing factor, it still goes to lack of remorse and willingness to rehabilitate.
nk (df76d4) — 10/23/2009 @ 9:02 amNk
Not to mention that flight is a crime, too.
I fully expect to see him charged with some version of fleeing the jurisdiction or the like.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/23/2009 @ 9:31 amnk, isn’t there a criminal contempt charge possible?
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 10/23/2009 @ 10:14 amGive them praise when they do the right thing.
It’s like training a dog.
mojo (8096f2) — 10/23/2009 @ 10:58 amI’ll bet dollars to donuts that Obama lets him go to trial and if he’s convicted, pardons him.
Jim Rose (39d88d) — 10/23/2009 @ 11:27 amYeah, sure. That’s gonna happen. Why don’t you step back for a second and try to lay out the political logic behind that brilliant plan?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/23/2009 @ 11:55 amI’m not going to compliment Obama on doing the right thing here, because it’s like what Chris Rock says about obeying the law and police orders. It’s what you’re supposed to do. Hmmm… this is the same Chris Rock who hired now convicted felon Anthony Pellicano to clean up a personal mess and denied the well known knowledge of his tactics in and around Hollywood. -source, Fox News 4-4-08…. but wait, Fox isnt really a news organization, is it.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 10/23/2009 @ 12:00 pmBesides Leviticus’ point, Jim, that’s not possible. The President cannot pardon for state crimes, only for Federal.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2009 @ 12:05 pmThere is probably more than one California charge that can be brought against him for fleeing, since he was on bail post-conviction. Escape comes to mind. And there is federal UFAP but I have heard federal DAs do not like to step in if the State is doing an adequate job on the same conduct even if the offense goes by a different name.
nk (df76d4) — 10/23/2009 @ 1:00 pmbut wait, Fox isnt really a news organization, is it.
Dggcrpp, instead of posting your usual incoherent ramblings, how about answering some outstanding questions that have been repeatedly brought up on this site. Specifically –
– when did you work for CBS, and in what capacity? You said that you personally knew Gunga Dan – did you know him well enough to have smelled his flopsweat, as you claimed you did regarding Rush?
– what did you specifically talk about when you met Von Braun in the hallway of your dorm? And you met him in your underwear, yes?
– when you served on super – secret assassination squads operating in Latin America, whom did you target for elimination?
– you also claimed to have traded energy futures while working at Enron. What was that time period, and how did you perform in that capacity?
– you said previously that you worked at NASA. Was that in jet propulsion systems, or was it something else related to their lunar missions?
– you said that you were selling newspapers on the streets of London during Thather’s time as PM. How long did you do that kind of work, and how did an American citizen who was a child at the time get that kind of job?
– last but not least, you said that you played kickball in the snow with the US Embassy staff in Moscow. Was that at roughly the same time as when you were working at CBS?
How ’bout some answers, sweetheart?
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/23/2009 @ 1:27 pmThere must be a cabinet post available
Ted (b3ef41) — 10/23/2009 @ 2:01 pmDmac:
Why waste your time asking for dcsca for any clarification?
You know it will not address your points. Because it has no point.
You know you can never change its mind. Because it has no mind.
Sad little troll comes here to garner attention, and probably gets paid by the post. Every time it repeats the leftist meme du jour.
I’ve dealt with its type before. Best to ignore it, because it feeds on the attention.
And, while I realize that our host is loath to ban anyone except for “good cause”, I would submit that he ban it post haste. It has been banned in the past, it adds nothing to the discussion. I am confident that it will only be a matter of time until it “steps over the line again”.
I am a defender of free speech when the speech has some merit. But its speech is empty speech. It is like a little child begging for attention by being an obnoxious ass. Its speech is empty, its speech has no value, its speech is only to provoke a reaction. Hell, its speech has devolved to the point of lacking even humor value.
You will never get an answer from it.
You are trying to educate the uneducable. You are debating the undebatable. You would have better luck trying to teach a pig to sing, and you know what they say about that.
There is a theory, know as “Invincible Ignorance”. The theory is bascially that “the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It’s not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue”. If we had a picture of the commenter, it would have appeared next to this quote.
See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy
Since the commenter has shown the unwillingness to debate in good faith and directly answer questions directly posed to it, its postings are unworthy of attention. Therefore, I propose that it simply be banned.
That is my opinion, and I hope that Mr. P. gives it the attention the opinion is due.
Dr. K (adb7ba) — 10/23/2009 @ 4:35 pmThere are one or two who should be banned but DCSCA is not one of them. Just ignore him. There is a word for it, but for the life of me I cannot remember it.
nk (df76d4) — 10/23/2009 @ 5:18 pmOstracizing.
nk (df76d4) — 10/23/2009 @ 5:19 pmPolanski = done with money.
papertiger (7b38bb) — 10/23/2009 @ 5:20 pmThe San Quentin glee club production quality is going to get a boost.
Shift from rebuke to shun.
papertiger (7b38bb) — 10/23/2009 @ 5:24 pmJust a quick Thanks to nk……..
Roscoe (418231) — 10/23/2009 @ 9:39 pmI think that when anyone is extradited the state/country that pulls them back can only proceed on the specific charges that form the extradition request. If he is not charged with flight now he won’t be unless it is part of the request
cdn (f1d97d) — 10/25/2009 @ 7:45 pm