It’s (by all indications deservedly) unkind to the judge on Polanski’s case.
I am not giving a legal opinion here, but IMO that is the dumbest reason for not extraditing someone, whatever the law says.
Actually France will not extradite her own citizens for any reason. A French citizen who commits a crime abroad and returns to France can be tried in a French court under French law (though this option was not pursed in Polanski’s case), but not extradited.
I was unaware of this, unsurprisingly considering the US media only reports when white blond girls are missing, murdered or raped. 20,000 dead and the guy skips bail and the US is okay with that?
But on the subject of Polanski, isn’t it ironic that this time he was saved by Nazi bastards?
Our local guardians of morality enjoy contemplating the salacious details of Polanski’s abuse of a blonde teenager. Of course, they are pointing in horror, they assure us…
Those other crimes? Just a bunch of dead foreigners. Many of them not white.
why?
let’s take a not-really-analagous case, and ask about your feelings (i.e. not your legal feelings, but your sense-of-fair-play feelings):
you drive down a road 2x per day. speed limit is 35 mph. you go 45 down this road all the time. every day, both times, the same cop car is there, and porky is out with his gun, clearly radar gunning you. let’s even say he waves at you when you drive by, and has a big ol smile on his face. you never get pulled over. this goes on for a month. then one day you’re doing your 45, and you get pulled over.
Do you think you have no moral (I repeat, not legal) grounds to be a bit pissed off? to feel that that’s a bit unfair?
Yes, there is a difference between a moving violation and a rape and imprsionment conviction.
There’s a difference between thirty-year-old convictions, in which the victim has publicly indicated her preference that the matter go no further and the convict is 7,000 miles away, and normal ones.
Which apparently even India’s officials agree is because of a lack of evidence, consistent with the India-U.S. extradition treaty:
how would you feel about getting your speeding ticket, though?
Yup. Union Carbine India, though ostensibly a wholly owned subsidiary, was run almost entirely independently. Doesn’t mean UC employees weren’t to blame, but Anderson wasn’t one of them.
um, that quote isn’t India agreeing with anything. That quote is the Indian analyzing why their extradition request was turned down. It says nothing about the officials agreeing with the grounds of the reasoning.
I’m sure the USA felt legally justified to refuse the extradition, citing insufficient evidence as a reason. This sounds similar to one argument the Swiss government raised: that they wanted more evidence from the US government (see point 1 in my post 12, from a Swiss newspaper article) before they extradite Polanski.
My larger point, though, is that I am surprised that I hear so much discussion about Polanski (it probably doesn’t help that I love in the Greater Los Angeles area) but I hardly heard a peep about the Anderson case for example. This is another example of celebrity fascination (combined with the ever-popular sexual element) that dominates the news, to the detriment of more important reporting.
The US had the UK sign an asymmetric fast track extradition treaty which was intended to be used to extradite terrorist suspects - note that this does not require the suspects to actually be charged with an offence in a US court.
This has caused huge concern in the UK, especially when it was invoked to extradite white collar fraudsters instead of the origninally intended terrorists.
Its unusual for suspects to be extradited without at least a prima facie case, which usualy involves an in absentia court hearing to list the charges, but that’s what the US has with the UK.
You will note that there is no such reciprocol arrangement to extrdite suspects from the US to the UK, we have to jump through many more hoops to achieve extradition, so it is incredibly rare for the UK to even bother trying.
I imagine this is similar position to other EU nations, and the problem is that we now know for absolute certainty that the US routinely uses torture on suspects, many of whom have never been charged with any offence whatsoever, and who do not have proper recourse to independant legal council.
We had plenty of Irish terrorists who had been convicted of extremely serious offences including multiple murders who the US courts refused to extradite, this being on the grounds that the murders were political.
Now the US is like a big bully who didn’t want to play with everyone else, but when it needs our help, gets all huffy about it.
The US would like to get it’s hands on Abu Hamza and the UK would love to get rid of him, but the US disgraceful behaviour with regards to suspects has compromised all that.
So US citizens, what does it feel like to have the boot on the other foot, you lot have been doing this to the UK and no doubt with the wanted individuals of other nations for years, and now you complain, well suck it up!!!
To give you an idea about what I am speaking, look at the following link.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/factcheck+are+ukus+extradition+rules+lopsided/166700
Well, the Bhopal disaster was in 1984, and Anderson fled prosecution in 1986. The only reason it’s a news item today is because the local chief magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest last year.
The Indian national government had previously claimed jurisdiction over the criminal charges filed in relation to the disaster, and basically aided and abetted his flight from India, possibly to avoid scaring off foreign investors.
Anderson is now 89 and senile, so it’s not clear that he’d be found fit to stand trial even if more evidence was offered.
I don’t expect it to be in the news today, but one would think it would have been more of a splash in US papers in July or August of last year when the arrest warrant was issued, and again when the US denied extradition (I am not sure when the US officially denied extradition). The crime in the Polanski case occurred in 1977 and he left the USA in 1978, so the Polanski issue is even older than the Bhopal disaster.
Yeah, but Polanski raped a teenage girl, while Anderson is only maybe responsible for 20,000 deaths.
Legally, the decision seems quite bizzare to me.
From what I’ve read, the story is something like this:
Oct. 22, 2009: US makes formal extradition request, supplies all required materials
Mar. 3, 2010: Swiss Federal Office of Justice, a subordinate branch of the Swiss Federal Dept of Justice and Police (FDJP), requests the Gunson transcript from the US, even though it is not required to be provided under the treaty. Concurrently, Polanski’s lawyers ask an LA County judge to unseal the transcript.
April 30, 2010: The official spokesman for the FDLP makes a public statement that the Gunson transcript is irrelevant to the extradition request, and there is no need for the Swiss authorities to review it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10517248
May 10, 2010: Judge Espinoza, sitting in LA County, denies the motion to unseal the transcript, noting that Gunson is alive and in the jurisdiction and thus available to testify in first-hand and in person in any California proceeding. Specifically addressing the possible relevance of the transcript to the extradition proceedings, he cites to the statements of the FDJP that the transcript is irrelevant to the extradition proceeding and relying on those representations, refuses to unseal the transcript for the purposes of sending it to Switzerland.
May 13, 2010: US DOJ informs the Swiss of Espinoza’s decision.
July 12, 2010: The FDJP announces that the extradition request is denied b/c of the US failure to provide the Gunson transcript, a failure that was a direct result of their own prior statements that the transcript was uncessary and irrelevant.
I have no interest in the pro/anti-US bickering. I merely state that the actions of the Swiss authorities lack coherence.
Well, that is only one of the reasons they cite for denying the extradition request, but still, it seems like the Justice Department over there is suffering from a sever case of craniorectal inversion disorder. They need to make sure that everyone over there is talking to each other. 