« The Pith and the Pulchritude that is the Surber | Main | "Beneath the trees where nobody sees / they'll hide and seek as long as they please" »

September 27, 2009

To paraphrase WAPO's Anne Applebaum: Hey, if you can dodge arrest long enough child rape is okay by me


Schmo writer for WAPO gets down with the "Oh, poor baby" defense: PostPartisan - The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski
He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.... Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.

Really? Read an excerpt from the trial testimony, Anne:
Q. Did he say anything after that? A. Yes. He goes, “Would you want me to go in through your back?” -- The Smoking Gun: Archive

It is beyond my poor powers to express my loathing and contempt for scribes like Applebaum. She should be ashamed but she has clearly long lost all capacity for shame.

Intensifying the reek of corruption wafting from her article, Applebaum neglects to mention that her husband, Radoslaw Sikorski is currently trying to be Obama to pardon Polanski
"I am considering approaching the American authorities over the possibility of the U.S. president proclaiming an act of clemency, which would settle the matter once and for all," said Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski...

You'd think the Washington Post would have guidelines for this sort of obvious conflict of interest. You'd think.

Posted by Vanderleun at September 27, 2009 8:35 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

Check the most recent post at Patterivco -- he is reporting what Applebaum did NOT report -- that she (Applebaum) is married to a minister of the Goverment of Poland who is lobbying our government not to prosecute Polanski. oneline here: http://patterico.com/2009/09/27/in-advocating-for-roman-polanski-anne-applebaum-fails-to-mention-that-her-husband-is-a-polish-politician-actively-lobbying-for-polanskis-freedom/

Posted by: Clayton in Mississippi at September 27, 2009 8:48 PM

sorry -- I've been following this story tonight all over the 'net and was so furious with all that I've read that I didn't finish reading your item before I responded -- please delete.

Posted by: Clayton in Mississippi at September 27, 2009 8:52 PM

Nope. I was updating with that fact as you were commenting. Good call.

Posted by: vanderleun at September 27, 2009 8:54 PM

So this past week Barack Obama pulls the missle defense shield from Poland. Will he now do them the big favor of pardoning the world's most famous Polish Pedophile?

Posted by: Boots at September 27, 2009 9:22 PM

Considering the professions we are talking about, the proposition that Polanski ever suffered a ding to his professional reputation is a howler.

Posted by: james wilson at September 27, 2009 9:24 PM

I assume if the victim were her daughter, she'd feel a little differently.

Posted by: ahem at September 28, 2009 7:01 AM

Maybe he should be extradited -- back to Poland!

Poland to castrate paedophiles
REUTERS 26 September 2009, 12:46am IST
WARSAW: Poland approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for paedophiles ... convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.

"The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person," the government said.

from The Times Of India, online at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/europe/Poland-to-castrate-paedophiles/articleshow/5058218.cms

Posted by: Clayton in Mississippi at September 28, 2009 8:17 AM

"To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular."
What a pig, to say such a thing.
In particular, have you ASKED the victim??!!
And poor poor polanski...couldn't come bask in the adulation of his like-minded freaks in hollywood, with his oscar in hand...

(Eesh, I hope he doesn't appear anywhere with his oscar in hand...)

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at September 28, 2009 9:19 AM

Yes, the Post does have a conflict-of-interest guide for its writers; posted in the comments of that Patterico note. Not that its writers are actually expected to abide by it....

Posted by: Pete Madsen at September 28, 2009 10:24 AM

One of the bridges over the river Charles used to have a giant spray painted graffiti "Castrate rapists" . Having worked in a hospital when younger with child victims of such scum as P, I think this fair.

Posted by: retriever at September 28, 2009 11:27 AM

Her story (and defense of him) reminded me of all those Kennedy eulogies, where his victim was also treated as just an anonymous nobody, only worth mentioning in passing.
Naturally, many of those were written by "Feminists" like this.

Posted by: ktgreat at September 28, 2009 12:01 PM

I would love for Obama to pardon or give clemency to Polanski. Any stupid, eggregious action that this administration can add to the growing list of grievances that are starting to look like the main content of the Declaration of Independence would be fine by me.

I won't hold my breath, however -- Obama and company may still have some survival instincts left intact.

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at September 28, 2009 12:11 PM

Presumably this woman does not have children. But if she does, I pity them.

There is no statute of limitations on JUSTICE, regardless the puerile whining of "can't we all just get along" Applebaum. The pedophile must be treated no differently than he would be if his crime was committed yesterday. Would Applebaum and all her cronies be calling for this to be glossed over if it was George Bush who had raped a child decades ago?

Posted by: AskMom at September 28, 2009 5:33 PM

In other words, just because this crime was committed years ago, he should not have to pay for it? So Ms. Applebaum, in your way of thinking, it would be alright for all the people who committed war crimes against the Jews in Germany, to be free because many of them were tried years later? Any crime that has a span of many years behind it should be just ignored because in your way of thinking, the crime already has been paid? Yea, right.

Posted by: Cilla Mitchell at September 29, 2009 6:20 AM

If Polanski was a Roman Catholic priest, there would be no question about a stute of limitations.

Posted by: Kevin at September 29, 2009 9:43 AM

The question I would like to ask the Anne Applebaum's of the world is this:

"Where were you when your soul died?"

Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 29, 2009 1:13 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)