[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by farouk

But my two cents' are that North Americans can prefer to pursue their backyard self-absorption in the illusion that their actions won't affect their international standing.

If detaining criminals makes people stop being your friend: then they were never your friend to begin with.

Justice delayed is justice denied: if Americans had had to wait months before a likely Presidential front runner who should have had diplomatic protection anyway, was discovered not to have committed a crime after all

Hold up there a minute. Me being detained for "months" before being found innocent would not be "justice denied", but for someone more rich it would be?!?

But he should have been afforded diplomatic protection and a one way ticket out. (Honestly, he was even sitting on a plane, waiting to take off.) Otherwise other countries are likely to act in the same way towards American leaders. (Remember how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's aides were physically abused in Khartoum? Diplomatic protection should be respected, otherwise you have chaos.)

The US does respect diplomatic protection....

Strauss-Kahn did not have diplomatic protection because he is not a diplomat.

The issue in the end is credibility. Or to put it differently, He said/she said.

Absolutely... if only we could invent some sort of "court system". We could get some citizens together and have a "trial" and determine if there's proof beyond any "reasonable doubt".

Or we could follow your demand and just assume he didn't do anything because he's important.

He should have diplomatic protection, given the bailing billions job he had on behalf of governments.

You do realize that the French didn't give him diplomatic immunity? If France (which has gone to great lengths to protect child rapist Roman Polanski) didn't think he should have immunity: why do you? You keep talking as though it's the US that refused it.

PS: Bias towards ppl who make accusations, never mind the effect they can have?

Filing a false police report would carry rather severe peanalties under US law.

slap: Meanwhile, world affairs just wait, right?

Yea: Hollywood has the same problem when their actors get arrested.

This is why there is diplomatic protection.

Which Strauss Kahn does not have...

[Ax]

Farouk, I would expect any country to arrest and hold any American citizen, whether diplomat or civilian, for any kind of violent or sexual crime. Diplomatic immunity is not meant for heinous crimes, but rather misdemeanors or traffic violations etc. A sexual crime is a sexual crime and nobody, but nobody should be able to get away with it. I think it's time that we start looking into arresting more of these diplomats that sexually assault anybody. And I think that other countries should do the same.

There is no excuse for sexual crime. NONE. And punishment should be swift and severe. Not only that but investigations should be swift. If DSK had been allowed to leave he'd never return to the U.S. and the French would never extradite him so if he is guilty he'd be getting away with rape. We have to investigate while we can and we can only do that while he's here.

If you can continue to defend a suspected rapist because of straining foreign relations then you are no better than any rapist out there.

[farouk]

Ax:

If you read the news, he isn't charged with actual rape.

All they have to go on is he said/she said. Regrettably, the DNA doesn't necessarily prove anything, one way or another. (Let me see you try to talk in the same way about a US Presidential nominee in a Pakistani jail because of he said/she said.)

JL: re. 'waiting', I was referring to an entire country, America or France, having to wait while its Presidential front runner sorts out he said/she said. And re the diplomatic status thing, his job was far above the pay grade of most diplomats.

(And by the way, I don't have any time for the guy.)

[Demon_Hunter]

Maybe I'm missing something here. No country has had to put anything of serious national importance on hold because of this.

What has locking this guy up done to harm or slow down international economies or governments? ...?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by farouk

If you read the news, he isn't charged with actual rape.

Seems like splitting hairs. He's been charged with attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by farouk

Ax:

If you read the news, he isn't charged with actual rape.

All they have to go on is he said/she said. Regrettably, the DNA doesn't necessarily prove anything, one way or another. (Let me see you try to talk in the same way about a US Presidential nominee in a Pakistani jail because of he said/she said.)

JL: re. 'waiting', I was referring to an entire country, America or France, having to wait while its Presidential front runner sorts out he said/she said. And re the diplomatic status thing, his job was far above the pay grade of most diplomats.

(And by the way, I don't have any time for the guy.)

Lets be clear: I don't want a rapist in the whitehouse. I'm pretty sure I stated that in my last post that I am COMPLETELY fine with a country holding ANYBODY on charges of violent or sexual crimes. ANYBODY at ANY time.

Your argument boils down to "they are important so it's okay if they're a rapist."

[farouk]

A:

No, my point is: proving it & credibility.

I think the posts are starting to go round and round in circles.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Ax

Farouk, I would expect any country to arrest and hold any American citizen, whether diplomat or civilian, for any kind of violent or sexual crime. Diplomatic immunity is not meant for heinous crimes, but rather misdemeanors or traffic violations etc.

That's not really correct.

Diplomatic immunity is not *meant* for any crimes at all... it is *meant* to prevent dimplomatic breakdowns caused by (essentially) hostage taking.

Generally: It's only important betewen adversarial nations; most friendly nations cooperate in enforcing each others laws.

There is no excuse for sexual crime. NONE. And punishment should be swift and severe. Not only that but investigations should be swift. If DSK had been allowed to leave he'd never return to the U.S. and the French would never extradite him so if he is guilty he'd be getting away with rape.

I must assume that the court felt the same way (that he was a flight risk), or he wouldn't be held under arrest.

I would suspect that the judiciary and state department will both have already done some signifigant vetting on the accusation.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by farouk

A:

No, my point is: proving it & credibility.

I think the posts are starting to go round and round in circles.

No, you said I'd be upset if an American presidential candidate were arrested while in a foreign country in a manner similar to DSK. And you were wrong. Nobody is above the law.



NOBODY.

[JesusFreakGirl]

Originally Posted by farouk

This is why the US, too, has an obligation, to people in a similar situation with a wide international role and who potentially attract such manipulative hostility, to look after them and if they are becoming an embarrassment to put them quietly on the next plane.

So you're saying that if you are a person in power, it is the responsibility of other countries to cover your arse, protect you, and get you out quietly and free you from embarassment?

I believe that everyone should be held accountable for thier actions, no matter who you are or where you are from. You commit a crime on foreign soil, you stay there until your time is paid according to your crime. I don't care if you are French, Canadian, American, Brazilian, who knows. I don't care if it happened in the US, England, Germany, South Africa. I don't care if you are poor, middle class, rich, or a diplomat/politician. God doesn't pick favorites and treats all sin the same - you are either pardoned by the blood of Christ or you pay the penalty. And I don't think that any judicial system of any country should pick favorites either, you commit a crime - you go to trial and you pay the price.

How would you feel if a rich man raped your daughter and got out of it because he was a person of power? You'd want him to pay the price for what he did. So don't defend him saying that he should be quietly sent home to France.