- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The French stand in the way.
Fait accompli.
The French stand in the way.
You're correct, they only aided and abetted the crime of flight from justice (a felony in every jurisdiction). They ALSO are guilty of harboring. So two crimes instead of just the one.
The French are your buddies, too, unless you're anti-American.
Seriously, I can't believe how much anti-French sentiment there is among ignorant right-wing nuts in the US -- you all should be praising France, not decrying it. France, historically, has been and is probably the US's most reliable ally, and indeed without France there would be no US in the first place.
Further to that, the French political system and the US political system and general culture are remarkably similar -- both countries fought to overthrow tyrants, establish republicanism, and served as a liberal bulwark against reactionaries across the world, and continue to do so today. French and American foreign policy are largely identical in the broad strokes, and, along with Britain, France and the US represent the general trend of Western civilisation and work actively together to promote it.
I just don't get why some conservatives hate France. Was it the Iraq War thing? Well that went realllly well. But then why isn't there similar hate for Britain, who refused to join the US in Vietnam?
I suspect it's rivalry -- given so many cultural, historical and current similarities, there's bound to be some brotherly rivalry. Each believes it represents the best form of Western civilisation.
Even so, the vitriol is a bit much, for so close an ally, no?
No one said they did. It was a question to get you to start thinking about it. Why doesn't the FBI send someone? Is France protecting him? Or just not helping the US by handing him over? Why do you even care more than the victim?
Ok, now someone has made a political issue of it.
If any of that was true, he should have been on Clinton's list in 2001.
Virtually all of that is half truth, if that. They are not now, nor have they ever been our "buddies". And that anti-French sentiment isn't confined to the right alone, never was. In fact just about every member of the greatest generation felt just that way about France. They haven't been much of a reliable ally and they showed up once to help us in the Revolutionary War (Yorktown), the Dutch did far more for us. Oh, and they SOLD us weapons. Not to mention they'd been killing us before and after.
The answer to the question is - no, they are not now, nor have ever been a close ally.
You're correct, they only aided and abetted the crime of flight from justice (a felony in every jurisdiction). They ALSO are guilty of harboring. So two crimes instead of just the one.
We know France is protecting him because they've denied extradition requests, and they intervened with the Swiss and got Switzerland to deny the extradition request when Polanski traveled to Swizerland in 2006.
They have a legal right to do that, but we also have a right as the American public to remind the French that we're displeased. It can't really escalate beyond that.
As to why the feds aren't involved (and they aren't, this is still a local case), I'm smart but I'm not THAT smart. I actually have no clue how that process works - how something goes from being a local case to being a federal case... so I wouldn't begin to know how to answer that. It would be interesting to look in to though.
So they're just not helping the US. That's all. Extradition proceedings operate wherein the law enforcement with the legal authority to work in a place basically do a favor for those unable to legally operate and hand him over. France just isn't doing the favor. Okay, moving on to important matters in the world...
Ah, crap! Still talking about this one. Okay: YOU'RE displeased. I don't care. You don't speak for everyone.
They don't because it would open a can of worms. France doesn't have to "protect" him. They just don't have to help the US. A sin of omission, not commission. They're not do anything except not helping. That's all.
Oh I'll disagree with that. The French are an ally. They're just a special kind of "high maintenance" ally that needs to be argued with almost nonstop.
Also I agree, let's not make the Revolutionary War support out to be some act of altruism. It was in France's interests that Britain should be defeated. That's why they supported us. The same reason we supported South Korea during the Korean war. It was in our interest that the Soviets not gain a foothold in that part of Asia. Same old geopolitics, different players/era.
If it's so unimportant to you (and you keep saying it is) why do you keep returning to debate this? I mean, you've been here pretty much all day. You seem to have some interest in this topic as well and if you don't, well.... bye.
I care in telling you that this is such a nonissue it may as well be another Casey Anthony thing. I deeply care that you know that this is simply National Enquirer nonsense and if you think it even comes close to be something of merit on an international stage, you're gonna break my heart.
Sorry if that bothers you.
How touching. I'm sure you were there on every Casey Anthony or Trayvon Martin thread telling the OP how pointless those debates were too, right?
Were they trying to tie it to international politics? Tell me if so.
Do you or do you not think the discussion moved past that and into French-American relations?Was I? The OP just asks Americans if the Roman Polanski deal affects their own view of France. You're close to going on ignore, bud. You're not making any real points anymore.
Do you or do you not think the discussion moved past that and into French-American relations?
You're free to ignore me: you can add that to the list of things I don't really care about. You can ignore everyone that doesn't say what you want, if you like: a third thing I don't care about.
Not even on my radar.A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.
He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.
After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.
To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.
The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.
How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?
A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.
He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.
After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.
To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.
The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.
How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?
:shock: Seriously?
Yeah, seriously.
I've explained to you numerous times what I meant and why I said what I said.
You want to argue (troll) just for argument's sake.
You tell me the position I'm actually taking.
Go ahead.
"Because of X, Y, Z things which are important to ME (but not what France has in mind), France occupies the 'moral high ground."
Okay, so in principal what's your problem with me taking that position?
How? They're not citing anything you do for their reasons. They're citing objection to the death penalty, which does not apply.
It's my position that you ascribed moral weight to what they do, and you did.
It's also my position that "moral high ground" exists in the actual position they take, not Nietzschean result. If you intend to murder someone because you hate them or want their money, it doesn't make the act or the intention moral just because you inadvertently stopped that person from murdering someone else.
It's not a matter of opinion that France isn't doing it for the reasons you state as being the moral issues of the case.
Because I guess, in retrospect, I can see where my saying that France "occupies the moral high ground", if we take that "phrase" as the idiom it is, might actually mean something that I'm not saying .
Is this really a petty debate over semantics?
That's really what it's looking like.
You are ascribing a moral position to France based not on what they're actually doing, but what you find important about the case.
I guess it's what you're deciding to call it.