What If Roman Polanski Had Raped Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
John on September 30, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I used to love What If? It was a Marvel comic book in which you got to see how the world would be different if certain key events had gone differently. For instance, what if Spider-Man had joined the Fantastic Four?
So I have a little hypothetical for you? What if Roman Polanski had drugged and sodomized Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
In case you’ve missed it somehow, Polanski is a film director who 30 years ago drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. He was convicted of a lesser charge (statutory rape) but fled the country to avoid sentencing. This week, Polanski was arrested and is finally going to be extradited back to the States to face justice.
Hollywood has been busy speaking up for the victim in the Polanski case. That victim it turns out is not the 13 year old girl he drugged and raped, but Polanski himself. Harvey Weinstein, Monica Belucci and Debra Winger are a few of the celebrities demanding Polanski’s release for time not served. Whoopi Goldberg didn’t go quite that far, but did defend him as not having committed “rape-rape.”
It’s not just Hollywood though. At the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum (such a nice name) thinks the rape story is bogus. The LA Times has been mitigating the facts of the case as well.
The far left seems to have a lot more sympathy for the convicted rapist than it does for the actual victim. This is the same crowd that believed Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes and members of the DOJ prosecuted for allowing the “torture” of Kahlid Mohammed. In that case it was the person committing the act that was wrong. Even if Mohammed confessed to being the mastermind of 9/11, he still had rights!
Not so much with Samantha Geimer, the 13 year old rape victim (now in her mid-40s).
If, somewhere in an alternate universe we could mash these stories together, I wonder who the left would root for? Certainly the interrogation of Khalid Mohammed never went as far as drugs and forcible sodomy. You can imagine what would’ve been said if it had. So what would they have said if Polanski had been the interrogator? Which is the immovable object and which the unstoppable force? Who can say (maybe Harvey Weinstein?). [On second thought, maybe Stan Lee is the better answer?]
If only we’d seen this a few years ago, Bush could have avoided all the negative headlines by simply hiring has-been directors to run interrogations. Barack Obama might want to keep this in mind.
Addendum: Eric the Red at Vocal Minority says “I can just see Whoopi Goldberg defending Bush, Cheney, and the CIA interrogators now: Hey, come on. It wasn’t torture torture!”
It’s funny cause it’s true.
Category: Popular Culture |
John,
September 30, 2009 @ 3:50 pmGreat, GREAT, observation!
Best thing I’ve read all day.
I think the case can be made that there are real parallels between Roman Polanski and Abu Ghraib prison.
Bother involved “abuse” and in both cases, photos were taken by the perpetrators.
Roman Polanski = Abu Ghraib
September 30, 2009 @ 4:17 pmPolanski = Abu Ghraib? LOL I think there’s a huge difference between taking a guy’s clothes off and having a dog bark at him versus raping a thirteen year old. Rape = Frat Pranks? I don’t think so. But Neo hook me up with whatever you’re taking. I could use something for my back pain.
September 30, 2009 @ 6:37 pmI think you’re missing the obvious ethnic angle behind the people defending Polanski.
Polanski, Appelbaum, Goldberg, (Woody) Allen, Weinstein, Winger.
Oh, and Goldstein.
What do these people have in common?
September 30, 2009 @ 11:18 pm“What do these people have in common?”
They all went to college? Perhaps they all get together over the internet as members of a celebrity bridge club?
Oh, they’re all Jewish! Could it be a conspiracy? A Zionist plot? Could they all be members of Mossad, protecting one of their own?
OH! Perhaps it’s part of a Papel plot!…Oh, I like that one! If its not the Zionists, it just has to be the Papists!
How very inconvenient for your little ‘observation’ that so many of the 100 directors, actors, etc. are NOT Jewish.
http://www.indiewire.com/article/2009/09/29/over_100_in_film_community_sign_polanski_petition/P1/
But don’t give up hope perhaps the rest are Catholics!
October 1, 2009 @ 12:19 amPersonally, I think Polanski being sentenced to a year in federal prison for every year he evaded justice would be appropriate. Oh, and being assigned a cellmate by the name of Bubba…and with no possibility of parole.
For once, lets make a public example of the rich and famous.
October 1, 2009 @ 12:25 amDon’t get me wrong, I think it’s disgusting that Polanski has escaped justice for so long, but it’s worth pointing out that if anyone genuinely wants to defend the rights of Samantha Geiner, they should take into account the fact that she has asked for the charges to be dropped and the conviction overturned.
I disagree, if the conviction was sound, if he actually did this, then whatever mitigating circumstances, he needs to be punished. It’s disgraceful that a Western nation like France has been giving him shelter and allowing him to carry on his work.
October 1, 2009 @ 2:58 amGreat post!!!
If I had a daughter and someone raped her, I would track the bastard around the world and kill him.
October 1, 2009 @ 7:27 am“if the conviction was sound, if he actually did this, then whatever [the] mitigating circumstances, he needs to be punished.”
The facts are:
The victim has stated that she forgives Polanski and would like the charges dropped.
But the case is The State of Ca. vs Roman Polanski NOT Geiner vs Polanski, it’s not a civil case it’s a criminal case and that makes all the difference.
Polanski’s guilt is not in question at all, he freely confessed to get a plea bargain.
They had him on rape, giving the girl Quaaludes and forcible sodomy. She told him no, repeatedly. He forced her.
He made a plea bargain to get the sentence reduced. Polanski claims he believed the judge was going to renege on the deal (almost unheard of) and fled.
There’s little to no evidence this is so but even if true, fleeing is not a legal option. By fleeing he committed another crime.
he needs to do hard time.
October 1, 2009 @ 8:16 amA good chunk of the names are insignificant French and Italian people no one’s ever heard of.
I forgot to add Darren Aronofsky. Of the Americans of significance defending him, they are overwhelmingly Jewish.
Pattern recognition is not your forte.
October 1, 2009 @ 9:19 amKeith,
It’s a good point, but as you say crimes are taken as if against the state not the individual. The state should continue to hold him accountable even if she feels differently.
Polanski has hired a top lawyer and friend of Eric Holder, so I’m sure his rights will be protected.
October 1, 2009 @ 11:12 am^has a JEWISH last name.
^is not jewish, but a confessing Christian and a seminarian.
^Thinks that PRCalDude isn’t nearly as clever as he thinks and is at least twice as insane as half the people would think he is if he weren’t but he is.
^Thinks that PRCalDude is a leftist troll agent provacatuer (wookie!)
October 1, 2009 @ 11:39 amI forgot to mention that Bernard Henri Levy is the guy who started the petition Geoffrey linked above. Also Jewish.
I think we’re directing our fire at the wrong people this time. The “Left” isn’t defending him, just a small ethnocentric subset.
October 1, 2009 @ 11:53 amI don’t really think anybody is defending what Polanski did to Geimer that night. It’s fairly clear that Judge Rittenband was guilty of judicial misconduct and that any judgment against Polanski would have been thrown out on appeal. Rittenband, violated several rules of the court, by talking about the case with a reporter and a prosecutor who was not involved in the case. Rittenband asked both for their input on what Polanski’s punishment should be, which is totally outrageous. On top of that, Rittenband had formally agreed in chambers to the plea bargain which the prosecutor had offered, so the final hearing was supposed to be a formality. Then, after getting a pep-talk from the outside prosecutor (David Wells), Rittenband started bragging that he was going to renege on the deal when Polanski walked into court and put him “in prison for the rest of his life.” As a first offender, Polanski was guilty of a Class B felony which only called for probation or up to 2 years in the County Jail. The doctors who evaluated Polanski for 42 days at Chino, recommended no jail time, which is why the prosecutor asked for time-served and probation in the plea bargain. Under the law, it cannot be stated that the plea bargain was another example of coddling a celebrity since it was within the state’s sentencing guidelines for the offense. Today, even the prosecutor says he doesn’t blame Polanski for fleeing under Rittenband’s threat. If there had been no judicial misconduct, it is highly unlikely that Polanski would have fled. At most, he would have paid a fine and spent a few months in jail. So his decision to flee is mitigated by the judge’s behavior. I think that’s why some people are supporting Polanski today. It’s not because they’re minimizing his crime.
October 1, 2009 @ 2:53 pm