This. x3. He has no track record of any description. Unsubstantiated claims of an attack on this author can't be held against him, though I'm sure they will help shift a few copies of her book. I think it's fair enough commenting based on the reports coming out of a trial, but the guy has only just been arrested - we don't know what happened yet. He may well be guilty, but no need to rush to judgement. It's only fair that the guys gets his 'due process' especially when we (on BT) have been complaining about the same for the likes of Bradley Manning. ....even if this guy is probably as guilty as hell.
Actually if I recall the United States suspended Habeas corpus and a bunch of other basic legal rights for foreigners in order to be able to more easily imprision and prosecute people they picked up in Afghanistan. Of course this guy'll probably get plenty of due process, 'cos he's rich. Also Pookey, he is actually completely immune from anything, although that immunity has already been implicitly waved by him going with the police, and calling his lawyer.
I can't say I'm too worried about an almost incomprehensibly rich and powerful white guy getting busted. If he is innocent, he'll have a flotilla of attack-lawyers converging on the case right now and he'll come out looking like the second coming of Jesus. Sure, it may scupper his political ambitions a bit but excuse me if I'm not too agonised if his career prospects are limited to being just insanely rich, powerful and influential rather than insanely rich, powerful, influential and the leader of a G8 country. If he is guilty, he'll manage to get off with a relative slap on the wrist, courtesy of the same flotilla of attack-lawyers. Either way, it's only the maid that got screwed. If he was a poor black guy, I'd be more concerned about questions of innocent until proven guilty. With this guy, not so much. He can look after himself far, far better than we will ever be able to look after ourselves.
Should it matter how rich he is (or not)? Any more than what race or religion? Is a miscarriage of justice any less abhorrent if it is experienced by a rich guy? Surely justice should be blind to these things. While I accept that money can often buy you a better defense, surely you shouldn't penalise him because he is wealthy? Why not just leave his money out of the debate and concentrate on his innocence or guilt? I hope his jurors are more circumspect; not only would we not want them to convict an innocent man because of his wealth, but we would also want to avoid a guilty man wriggling off the charge because he makes a case that he has been pre-judged based on his wealth.
If I understand correctly, he would have to demonstrate that he was acting at the time in his official capacity as the head of the IMF. However, his visit to New York was personal, not official, so he would have no grounds to claim diplomatic immunity.
Nope, I looked into it. While most diplomats only have immunity while carrying out the role from which they gain that immunity, the head of the IMF has a sort of super-immunity, he's pretty much immune from punishment for any crime anywhere. It's just convention in diplomatic circles not to use diplomatic immunity for crimes you did commit, or don't mind fighting, if you want to keep your job in those circles.
Interesting. That seems to go against what is being reported in the news. According to an NPR article, which was written using information from AP articles, the IMF itself has said that he would not be able to claim immunity.
Fair enough, pretty sure it was the economist I read the above in, but it's a moot point anyway because he's not attempting to claim diplomatic immunity.
Shouldn't matter, but does. Don't get me wrong: innocent into proven guilty, right to a fair trial and all that. It's just that I am not that concerned that he will be the victim of a miscarriage of justice because he is very unlikely to be.
this pretty much.. high powered lawyers can do just about anything looks like he's guilty though.. she has a bulletproof story from what I've heard (door was open- she had the card in the door indicating she was housecleaning, ect..) and he was running away what makes me sad is she's a single mother who immigrated here, has a job and was just trying to make it.. that's how a lot of people started- then you have his old guy from france (how the heck did he get to be that age acting like this.. it has to be the money/power) who rapes you because he's probably done it many times before if he's guilty, he needs to get the buttsecks in prison- it will be a fun time at rikers.. think of it like a little vacation drinking penis noire
Holy Thread Revival Batman! While we shouldn't be too quick to jump to the opposite conclusion, perhaps some of us were right to suggest caution: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13993866 Unlucky - the week that his successor is appointed, he is given a ray of hope that he'll be vindicated. On the other hand, there is still room for a few more twists and turns.
An interesting development The whole lying on the asylum claim isn't something that IMO should hold much weight, but the fact that she went back to work and cleaned another room before reporting this does seem fairly suspect.
Not really. When you are in shock you seek refuge in familiar routines and activities. Denial is a wonderful thing. You carry on in a daze until something causes your brain to suddenly catch up on recent events. It proves nothing one way or the other.
It may potentially prove EVERYTHING in the American courts, which of course is the most important element in this. It ain't over yet, but it's far less than the clear cut case that some thought.
Innocent until proven guilty. Funny how all this has completely ****ed up his IMF leadership and French presidential campaign ... Just saying.
Well, he did admit to consensual sex (the prudent thing to do if you left DNA in the shape of sperm behind) and he left in a bit of a hurry. Something happened.
