13 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonOn this latest occasion, can we now say that Polanski has been subjected to due process? And is there any illegality involved in him 'going free'?
Hell man! We had a lengthy thread on that a several months ago. One that you participated in quite a bit.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe Swiss are probably bitter that the IRS went after UBS last year. Technically, the Swiss had the right to do what they did. It's their jurisdiction, they can do what they want. But it was a calculated slap in the face to the United States. They were stalling on the extradition question and they let him go on a technicality.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=polanski
Whatever. Let the Swiss go ban the minaret and then turn around and get all sanctimonious about our criminal justice system. It's just the ugly Americans up to no good, such as wanting to bring a child rapist to justice. Maybe we can send the Swiss all of our child rapists. They're welcome to them.
Let them keep their bloody Nazi gold and continue to be a haven for American tax evaders; then maybe they can raise their level of sanctimony next time we want to try a child rapist in order to drown out their amorality.
I hope the IRS puts UBS out of business.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76Should they have sent Polanski to the U.S. despite the objections they presumably had and the jurisdiction/technicality that they enforced in order to avoid U.S. anger like the anger this has caused you? Is this a 'bad ally' type transgression by the Swiss nation? Serious questions, not picking at your scabs here.
Technically, the Swiss had the right to do what they did. It's their jurisdiction, they can do what they want. But it was a calculated slap in the face to the United States. They were stalling on the extradition question and they let him go on a technicality.
13 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI don't know all the ins and outs of the case. But "we're releasing him forever because you didn't show us some documents we asked for" seems a bit trivial to me.
Should they have sent Polanski to the U.S. despite the objections they presumably had and the jurisdiction/technicality that they enforced in order to avoid U.S. anger like the anger this has caused you? Is this a 'bad ally' type transgression by the Swiss nation? Serious questions, not picking at your scabs here.
As far as I'm concerned, extradition between countries who basically trust each other's justice systems should be enforced unless there's a clear miscarriage of justice. Considering that the evidence is pretty clear that Polanski did something here, I don't think it appropriate for Switzerland to, in effect, usurp this case from the jurisdiction of the United States. The incident happened in the US and he fled pending charges in the US. For Switzerland to say "well, show us every scrap of evidence and we'll decide whether he's guilty before extraditing him" shows an incredible lack of faith in the US justice system.
Switzerland shouldn't extradite him to avoid US anger. They should extradite him because it's the right thing to do. Unless we're dealing with a lawless country, if one allegedly commits a crime within the borders of another sovereign nation, that nation has the right to try him. If Switzerland's position is that the US is a lawless country, that's where the sanctimony comes in.
Edit: Regarding the other things, maybe the Nazi gold thing was a bit uncalled for, but it does bother me that Switzerland intentionally enforces banking rules that encourage citizens of other countries to avoid lawful taxation by their home countries. Same for the Caymans, etc.