Thread: NY police arrest IMF head for attempted rape

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Sacré bleu!

The good news for him is that if this gets him fired and kills off his political career, he can still get a job as a UN peacekeeper.

Ooo... Nice. lol

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Blah. France most definitely will extradite one of its citizens, IF it is warranted. Also, DSK is a French elected official and will certainly get diplomatic immunity, should he require it.

It is my understanding that France does not extradite its citizens. Rather, if it believes a foreign criminal charge is warranted, it instead offers to try the foreign crime(s) in its own courts.

. . . Since the French Constitution contains a provision barring extradition of French citizens, Polanski is living and working freely in France. . . .

https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...7873c6d3f551f2

. . . In some countries, such as Germany and France, extradition of a citizen of that country is always prohibited, although those countries will allow prosecution of their own citizens when they have committed serious crimes abroad. . . .

Extradition, International (by Mathieu Deflem)

. . . Many countries, including France, Germany, China and Japan prohibit extradition of their own citizens. Generally speaking, these countries prosecute the defendants at home and attempt to punish them approximately equivalent to what they would have received in the country where they committed the crime. . . .

White-Collar Defendants' Attempts to Flee Justice Rarely Work - The American Lawyer

Swiss free Roman Polanski; won't extradite director to U.S.
Updated 7/13/2010 By Bradley S. Klapper And Frank Jordans, Associated Press

BERN, Switzerland — The Swiss government declared renowned film director Roman Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a charge of having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.

The stunning decision could end the United States' three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens . . .

Swiss free Roman Polanski; won't extradite director to U.S. - USATODAY.com

. . . Pascale Furlong, a spokeswoman for the French Consulate in Chicago, said that France does not, in principle, extradite French citizens. . . .

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...s/accutane.txt

That is why the US-France extradition treaty does not include extraditing their respective citizens. Because France will not do it for French citizens, no reciprocity on that point exists for the US to extradite US citizens to France, although the US regularly reaches such agreements with countries willing to offer such reciprocity.

. . . ARTICLE V

Neither of the contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects under the stipulations of this convention.

. . .

France Extradition Treaty with the United States International Extradition Lawyers

And even as a sidenote, when the US has tried to use the extradition treaty to extradite its own citizens from France, it has received numerous roadblocks, e.g.,

Ira Einhorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But whether France cannot by law or does not by practice extradite its citizens is really irrelevant to the point that the NY state court with any federal assistance for bail enforcement purposes should ensure that he remains in the NY jurisdiction or at least US jurisdiction to ensure accountability for his alleged violations of its laws. Since there is no extradition mechanism for the US to obtain him if he leaves the US and goes to France and there is a high risk given the charges that he would do so, France has the practice of not extraditing its citizens, and third party nations might not send him back for various reasons, e.g., Polanski with the Swiss decision, he should absolutely remain in US custody until the charges are resolved.

As for diplomatic immunity, he might have some arguments, but he's facing an uphill battle on that because the charges concern his alleged personal misconduct not relating to 'acts immunity' of an IMF official in relation to actions taken in his official capacity and for such purposes.

Immunity defense would be hard for Strauss-Kahn | Reuters

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

I'm sure he won't, as it would probably kill his political career, but my point was that if you were any more sanctimonious you'd probably combust spontaneously.

Quite the opposite. If anything, the sanctimoniousness is French and a misplaced one.

I said he should be held because France has a proven track record of not extraditing French citizens. Not only that, your nation even gives the US a hard time for getting back its own citizens accused or even convicted of the worst crimes, usually giving the US some sanctimonious theatres as was done in the Einhorn case.

If your nation wasn't so protective of French people charged and even convicted of committing rapes and murders in the US from being held accountable in the US no matter how seriously offending or guilty they may be, it would be a different story. But since your nation has that reputation in law and conduct, and NY has him in custody where he is accused of breaking NY's sexual assault and other laws, he should be made to stay put pending the disposition of the charges. Quite frankly, I'd never let an accused or convicted Frenchman free on bail for any noteworthy offence under conditions where they can flee, e.g. must surrender passport and be kept in the jurisdiction under monitoring, until the charges, and any sentences if convicted, are fully resolved. That's because of France and its desire to shield them from US prosecution and any sentencing terms if convicted if they get back home and the incentive to flee that creates.

Originally Posted by Voland

Also Mr. Strauss-Kahn has to be innocent until proven guilty. Right now a honey trap is not completely out of the question as well. ( raping somebody on his way to a meeting with Merkel does not sound very plausible to me) And while I am not spinning conspiracy theories this story certainly has one or two questionmarks that need to be cleared up.

Of course he's entitled to his fair day in court, even if he knows he's actually guilty. In the US, if he wants a trial, he's entitled to it and the prosecution bears the burden in a criminal case to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt and he bears no burden to disprove them (he can remain silent, has no burden to produce any evidence on his behalf, etc). Could he be innocent and a victim of skulduggery of some sort, e.g., set up for political purposes, extortion purposes, etc? Sure, that's possible too. That's also why I premised the allegations as "if true" or "alleged." I'm not saying he did it...I'm only saying he's accused of it. All that exists at this time is allegations. More information will be forthcoming regarding the merit or lack thereof of the claims.

@O'Sullivan Bere

Hey. I'm doing this for fun, you know. You're trying to give me a headache, or something? Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so I'll just address a few points.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Quite the opposite. If anything, the sanctimoniousness is French and a misplaced one.

Heh. I quoted this for the laugh, I'm not actually going to touch that one.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I said he should be held because France has a proven track record of not extraditing French citizens. Not only that, your nation even gives the US a hard time for getting back its own citizens accused or even convicted of the worst crimes, usually giving the US some sanctimonious theatres as was done in the Einhorn case.

Ah yes, the nasty French dare have their own Constitution. And it's different. And they actually don't bend it like a pretzel just because we ask. Bad, bad, bad, bad French. Moving on.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

If your nation wasn't so protective of French people charged and even convicted of committing rapes and murders in the US from being held accountable in the US no matter how seriously offending or guilty they may be, it would be a different story. But since your nation has that reputation in law and conduct, and NY has him in custody where he is accused of breaking NY's sexual assault and other laws, he should be made to stay put pending the disposition of the charges. Quite frankly, I'd never let an accused or convicted Frenchman free on bail for any noteworthy offence under conditions where they can flee, e.g. must surrender passport and be kept in the jurisdiction under monitoring, until the charges, and any sentences if convicted, are fully resolved. That's because of France and its desire to shield them from US prosecution and any sentencing terms if convicted if they get back home and the incentive to flee that creates.

LoL. As if the US didn't try to shield their citizens from prosecution everywhere all the time. While mistreating foreign nationals at the same time, denying them consular help, for instance. The bitch is, you do it too blatantly, there is such a thing as reciprocity, which is why none of this is even remotely plausible. Incidentally, our laws are simple, they're the same in Paris, Kourou, or Tahiti. Yours are multiple, contradictory, archaic, some are borderline insane, which is why extraditions with your country are a headache. We should bill you. Scratch that, we should sue you. In your country, preferably, because here, we'd lose in five minutes.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

@O'Sullivan Bere

Hey. I'm doing this for fun, you know. You're trying to give me a headache, or something? Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so I'll just address a few points.

So am I. No, just pointing out your own extradition law you should have known as a Frenchman as a correction. Sleep well.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Heh. I quoted this for the laugh, I'm not actually going to touch that one.

You're probably right to run away from it. The 'principle' of thinking it's appropriate for French citizens to commit serious crimes in other countries and shield them from being held accountable in such jurisdictions if they make it to French territory is no laughing matter to those affected.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Ah yes, the nasty French dare have their own Constitution. And it's different. And they actually don't bend it like a pretzel just because we ask. Bad, bad, bad, bad French. Moving on.

If that had any more straw in the stuffing, it would be a fire hazard. Moving on.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

LoL. As if the US didn't try to shield their citizens from prosecution everywhere all the time. While mistreating foreign nationals at the same time, denying them consular help, for instance. The bitch is, you do it too blatantly, there is such a thing as reciprocity, which is why none of this is even remotely plausible. Incidentally, our laws are simple, they're the same in Paris, Kourou, or Tahiti. Yours are multiple, contradictory, archaic, some are borderline insane, which is why extraditions with your country are a headache. We should bill you. Scratch that, we should sue you. In your country, preferably, because here, we'd lose in five minutes.

They'll do that in places that are known for having serious civil rights deficiencies and/or politically contrived arrests like Iran, North Korea, etc. And yes, sometimes if a person is a connected person of some sort they'll get undue cover, but what's new in that anywhere in any nation.

As for consular help, I've long criticised the US for its deficiencies and hypocrisies on that topic. The US vigilantly demands full entitlements and enforcement of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations requirement to advise foreign detainees of their right to contact their consulate and seek assistance when it comes to US citizens being arrested abroad. They even seek that when the US citizen is also a citizen of the nation where they are arrested where the VCCR is inapplicable given the person is also a citizen of the arresting nation. Yet, it has contemptuously failed to enact the ICJ's very reasonable remedy for VCCR violations in the Avena decision into domestic law despite having participated in the case, and many arresting agencies do not give that advisement to detainees although they should out of negligence, negligent unawareness, or lack of due consideration of the obligation.

As for the rest, I'd generally disagree. Every nation including France has some unwise laws but for the most part the US justice system is a solid one, even offering many additional rights that the French system does not.

And whilst there are many jurisdictions in the US with their own codes, the extradition treaty with France--as with most nations--concern agreed types of conduct for extradition, not precise statutory language agreement. It also includes the customary dual criminality requirement, namely that if such conduct being charged in a US jurisdiction is criminal in France too, then it's extradictable. Conduct like rape and murder constitute criminal conduct in France as in the US, and it's on the list of extraditable conduct named in the treaty.

It's not a hard thing to apply that treaty. What's hard is how often France makes it with exempting its own alleged or convicted criminal citizens, theatrical grandstandings upon request for others often geared at making social statements about the US, etc.

Yet, I note from Ireland last week when back visiting my family, the Irish High Court has granted France's extradition request for an Irishman accused by France of murdering one of its filmmakers in Ireland even though the Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland believed there is insufficient evidence to charge him under domestic law.

Court rules Bailey can be extradited to France
Updated: 21:55, Friday, 18 March 2011

The High Court has cleared the way for the extradition of Ian Bailey to France to face questioning in connection with the killing of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier in 1996.

Mr Bailey is wanted by French authorities in connection with the killing of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier in Cork in 1996.

. . .

Court rules Bailey can be extradited to France - RTÉ News

Under France's criminal code, French courts have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute anyone who is believed to have murdered a French citizen, even if it occurs outside France.

I hope Bailey gets due justice if he did it. But that's the point...I don't wish the US or Ireland to be a safe haven for American or Irish murderers just because of their nationality and neither should France shield their own from that. The hypocrisy of going so far to hold anyone accountable who harms a French citizen anywhere whilst protecting French fugitives accused or convicted of serious offences elsewhere from extradition to such jurisdictions isn't excusable IMO. Justice isn't about being French...it's about holding criminals accountable when they should be by those most entitled to do so, namely the nation and its victims suffering the violations.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

As for consular help, I've long criticised the US for its deficiencies and hypocrisies on that topic. The US vigilantly demands full entitlements and enforcement of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations requirement to advise foreign detainees of their right to contact their consulate and seek assistance when it comes to US citizens being arrested abroad. They even seek that when the US citizen is also a citizen of the nation where they are arrested where the VCCR is inapplicable given the person is also a citizen of the arresting nation. Yet, it has contemptuously failed to enact the ICJ's very reasonable remedy for VCCR violations in the Avena decision into domestic law despite having participated in the case, and many arresting agencies do not give that advisement to detainees although they should out of negligence, negligent unawareness, or lack of due consideration of the obligation.

As for the rest, I'd generally disagree. Every nation including France has some unwise laws but for the most part the US justice system is a solid one, even offering many additional rights that the French system does not.

And whilst there are many jurisdictions in the US with their own codes, the extradition treaty with France--as with most nations--concern agreed types of conduct for extradition, not precise statutory language agreement. It also includes the customary dual criminality requirement, namely that if such conduct being charged in a US jurisdiction is criminal in France too, then it's extradictable. Conduct like rape and murder constitute criminal conduct in France as in the US, and it's on the list of extraditable conduct named in the treaty.

It's not a hard thing to apply that treaty. What's hard is how often France makes it with exempting its own alleged or convicted criminal citizens, theatrical grandstandings upon request for others often geared at making social statements about the US, etc.


I hope Bailey gets due justice if he did it. But that's the point...I don't wish the US or Ireland to be a safe haven for American or Irish murderers just because of their nationality and neither should France shield their own from that. The hypocrisy of going so far to hold anyone accountable who harms a French citizen anywhere whilst protecting French fugitives accused or convicted of serious offences elsewhere from extradition to such jurisdictions isn't excusable IMO. Justice isn't about being French...it's about holding criminals accountable when they should be by those most entitled to do so, namely the nation and its victims suffering the violations.

While risking to get off topic a little, I´d say I can confirm that the US are regularly trying to shield their citizens from legal prosecution in other countries, for example when it comes to your overseas military. I live not far from two US airbases, Ramstein and Spangdahlem ( both in Germany) and it is regular complaint among the german authorities that the Americans on the bases refuse ANY kind of cooperation once an American is involved in a legal prosecution ( and normally just send them to the states without allowing access for german police or investigators). The US as far as I understand claim NATO law gives them jurisdiction over misconduct of their soldiers even when other citizens are involved, but the Germans often see that as an excuse to shield them from prosecution even for illegal actions.
One example of that was a case in autumn two years ago where a car with five airforce soldiers that were coming back to the base pissed from a trip around town crashed into a bus with polish wine-harvestworkers, killing five and injuring more, while the soldiers got out more or less unharmed. German police investigating the incident were informed the next day ( while the airforce initially promised cooperation) that the guys were on a plane to the US and could not be reached anymore unless the Germans or the Polish wanted to file charges in the US. And it took an intervention by the german state governor, the polish ambassador to Germany, and the german defence minister to make the airforce promise compensation to the families ( if they were actually payed I don´t know).
In another case that made some waves a US soldier was accused by german police of having killed his german girlfriend for jealousy. The guy never even had to answer charges since he was transported to the US DURING the investigation where he became "unreachable" and only received a life sentence in absentia.
And another case like that was even worse was the Cavalese incident in Italy, when a US military plane cut the rope of a Ski lift, killing 20 ski tourist from a number of european countries :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavales...disaster_(1998)



Shielding your own citizens rightly or wrongly isn´t something limited to France.

Originally Posted by Voland

Given Mr. Strauss-Kahns image of beeing a "womanizer" and given the fact that he would not be the first french politician to stumble over his dick a "honey-trap" is certainly a possibility. It doesn´t matter after all if the accusations stick or not, his career is finished and it is clear who profits from that. But I admittedly have problems to imagine plausibly that a guy in his position who can easily afford to spend the night with a handful of callgirls rapes a roommaid ( who he cannot expect not to tell her story) that just by chance enters his suite while already on departure for a meeting with the german chancellor. I have no horse in this race personally but something in that story does not really seem to fit for my taste.

Are you SURE of that? Particularly if this works out to be groundless. The French have one characteristic I've always admired. They admit their public servants to be sexual beings without cavil or shame. In America we expect that even Caesar should be above suspicion, let alone his wife.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Are you SURE of that? Particularly if this works out to be groundless. The French have one characteristic I've always admired. They admit their public servants to be sexual beings without cavil or shame. In America we expect that even Caesar should be above suspicion, let alone his wife.

All post -war french presidents except De Gaulle have had the image of a philanderer, something that is not necessarily an obstacle to a political career in France. It was not a secret that ex-president Mitterand had at least one extra-marital daughter f.e. and Sarkozy divorced his wife and married Carla Bruni while already in office.
Rape will be something different though, especially if the case is not cleared 100 % in his favour.

Originally Posted by Voland

French president Sarkozy may have opened a bottle of champagne upon hearing the news today

Along with François Hollande I imagine, the (ex) number 2 in the polls for the socialists primaries elections to choose their best canditate to face Sarkosy in april 2012

Originally Posted by Voland

All post -war french presidents except De Gaulle have had the image of a philanderer, something that is not necessarily an obstacle to a political career in France. It was not a secret that ex-president Mitterand had at least one extra-marital daughter f.e. and Sarkozy divorced his wife and married Carla Bruni while already in office.
Rape will be something different though, especially if the case is not cleared 100 % in his favour.

Didn't sem to hurt Polanski's popularity.