Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski

Of all nations, why was it Switzerland -- the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators -- that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre -- though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

Here are some of the facts: Polanski's crime -- statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl -- was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. 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.

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.

I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But 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.

By Anne Applebaum  | September 27, 2009; 3:13 PM ET
Categories:  Applebaum  | Tags:  Anne Applebaum  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Klein Drowns in the Ethical Shallows
Next: Let Polanski Go -- But First Let Me at Him

Comments

I agree with Anne!! Since we've eliminated pedophilia in this country, and rarely stumble across cases anymore where young girls are kidnapped, or raped, or otherwise taken advantage of, then why go after someone who confessed to statutory rape?

I think it is a perfectly understandable defense to cite his age, his flight from justice, and self imposed exile. Leave the poor man alone! Sex crimes are just not worth pursuing in our enlightened society.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | September 27, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I find it outrageous that the passage of time and "forgiveness" on the part of the victimn are condsidered sufficient grounds to exonerate a fugitive charged with a felony sex crime. Especially insulting is the reference to the Holocaust and the insinuation that being touched by the monstrosity of this crime is reason to allow Polanski a free pass. As a member of society, I demand that the laws of the land be enforced.

Posted by: LaGiaconda | September 27, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that he shouldn't have anything to fear if he is innocent. So why run and hide? Frankly, I don't care who he is, a sexual predator is a sexual predator. They can never be rehabilated or stopped. Castration doesn't help. There is no reason to ever allow a sexual predator out of a jail. Sexual predators should be jailed for life.

On the other hand, I believe that it is perfectly normal for teenagers to want to have sex once they hit puberty and if the age difference is only 2-3 years, then no charges should be filed and the teenagers should not be labeled sexual predators. So I would say no statutory rape charges should ever be file when the teens are close in age and they are consenting.

Posted by: countmyvote | September 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Statutory rape is statutory rape. This author misses the point. All that she says may be true but whether he has truly paid for his crime or not is for a JURY to decide.

Posted by: kushka53 | September 27, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Anne, just what problem do you have with the rule of law?

Posted by: moosejerky | September 27, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Anne,

"There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age."

I have not heard any such evidence. I just finished watching the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which was largely sympathetic to the director, and it states, to the contrary, that Polanski did indeed know she was 13. Could you please provide any evidence to the contrary?

"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all."

With all due respect, if he weren't famous he probably would have served time in prison. As it was, he served 42 days of a 90-day diagnostic sentence in Chino and - had the judge not been getting bad press for perceived leniency - it would most likely have stopped at that. It is true that the judge handled the case poorly; due to that, the passage of time, Polanski's reputation in France, and the victim's desire to move on, I would be surprised if the director receives any further punishment for the crime.

By the way, the charge was knocked down to statutory because the lawyers wanted to protect the girl's reputation and end the situation cleanly with a plea bargain. In fact, the victim has maintained for years that she resisted Polanski's entreaties and that the crime was in fact, rape, not just statutory.

Posted by: MovieMan02831 | September 27, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but his experience with the Holocaust somehow mitigates a 43-year-old man's decision to flee rather than standing to face the consequences of drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl? I agree that at this point it may be pointless to invoke "justice" in celebrating his arrest at this point. And yes there are other circumstances that decidedly factor into a balanced analysis of the case (e.g. judicial misconduct). But to make a Holocaust reference in this context is absurd on its face.

Posted by: AidanL | September 27, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I remember the case when it happened. There was something very disturbing about the girl's mother who set her daughter up with Polanski and led him to believe her daughter was over 18. Pictures shown of the daughter give evidence to the fact that this would be possible. It all came to light when mother and daughter tried to extort an acting career out of him for the daughter. However, the act did occur and he, Polanski, should have used more discretion in who he had relations with.

Posted by: patilee | September 27, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

This article makes no sense, last time I checked having sex with a minor and fleeing the court proceedings are major crimes and no excuses, harsh life or his father died in holocaust mitigates his original crimes. He needs to be tried and sentenced for all his crimes. Just because he is a celebrity with money to burn doesn't give him the license to commit crimes and get away with it. When you commit a crime you pay whether you are poor or rich. Will Ms Applebaum give the same leniency to a poor guy from the hoods.

Posted by: rsachde1 | September 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Re: Anne's outrageous column

It's called circling the wagons folks.

Posted by: scoob1900 | September 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked and absolutely horrified by what Anne Applebaum writes here. If you remember Geimer testified that Polanski performed sexual acts on her after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes. He plead guilty of having sexual intercourse with a drugged little girl. Honestly, please understand this girl was 13 years old. Short of torture or murder, this represents the absolute worst our collective human existence has to offer. Anne's mind is clouded by the celebrity of this figure and is dismissing this crime because she likes Polanski's work and feels sorry for him. I ask Anne how she would feel if these same circumstances existed for her own daughter or regarding another man (maybe a GOP senator) would she really write the same misguided post. This is horrifying.

Posted by: RationalMind | September 27, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

If he were not famous you wouldn't have written this article.

Posted by: jerrycook1 | September 27, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Thank God. The world is a much safer place now that Roman Polanski is in custody.

Posted by: druxy | September 27, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

So, having traumatic experiences as a child excuses criminal activity in adulthood. Spread the word, Applebaum, and our prisons should be nearly empty in no time! Think of all the money we'd save!!! Whoo hoo!!!

Posted by: bkcarolina | September 27, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, I am ashamed of you.

Posted by: citizen50 | September 27, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Anne, you're wrong. Plain and simple.

It's very simple, if you never show up for trial you are a fugitive. The crime stays on the books as long as you have that status.
Period, end of story.

With sex crimes in particular, I agree that there are problems with the U.S.'s laws. There are men who are 18-early 20s who had real affairs with women who are 16, 17, and they get affixed with "sex offender" status because of that. These guys may have bad judgement but being tagged with this status for life (even if they married the girl in question..) That's wrong.

But Polanski? He has no one to blame for his situation but himself.


Posted by: sethj88 | September 27, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey Ann Applebaum do you have a young daughter? How about I rape her??? Please, I just love raping little girls.

Posted by: GroverSage | September 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Get a clue Anne. Better yet, read the actual TESTIMONY of the 13-yr old victim:

Q. What did he say?
A. He asked, he goes, “Are you on the pill?”

And I went, ‘No.”

And he goes, “When did you last have your period?”

And I said, “I don’t know. A week or two, I’m not sure”.

Q. And what did he say?
A. He goes, “Come on. You have to remember.”

And I told him I didn’t.

Q. Did he say anything after that?
A. Yes. He goes, “Would you want me to go in through your back?”

And I went, “No”.

Q. Did he say anything else?
A. No.

Q. How long did he have his penis in your vagina?
A. I can t remember how long, but not a very long time.

Q. Had you had sexual intercourse with anyone before March 10th?
A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how many times?
A. Twice.

Q. How did you know that he had his penis in your vagina?
A. I could tell. I could feel it.

Q. What happened after he says “Do you want me to – “was it go through the back?
A. Yes.

Q. What happened then?
A. I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, “Oh, I won’t come inside of you then”.

And I just went– and he goes — and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted up my legs farther and he went in through my anus.

Q. When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?
A. He put his penis in my butt.

Q. Did he say anything at that time?
A. No.

Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really because –(pause)

Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib13.html

"The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski". Anne Applebaum, YOUR article is outrageous.

Posted by: goaway5 | September 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with most of these comments. Applebaum's arguments are weak, and yet her tone so absolute. It's not so much that I think after all these years the man should be sent to prison, particularly given the victim's forgiveness, it's just that Applebaum seems so *certain* that this is an injustice. Such is the role of a pundit, I suppose--to be certain about something.

What he did could not 'happen to any of us', it's a serious crime, and fleeing makes it even worse. I'm not a rule of law absolutist (some laws are unjust I think) but this law is a pretty damn good one.

Posted by: gcwtech | September 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum, you are such an out-of-touch elitist. We should forgive him for raping a little girl because his mother died in Auschwitz? Because the victim says she can live with the memory?

How many generations back should a perp be allowed to claim mitigating circumstances?

And now crime victims should be the ones to decide the perp's sentence?

You've lost your mind.

Posted by: privettricker1 | September 27, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Anne,

I like your arguments! Too bad Madoff didn't get to hire you to defend him for BREAKING THE LAW and HURTING REAL PEOPLE. Way to go! Maybe you still have a chance to join the Allen Stanford team!

Posted by: fung_andy | September 27, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I for one agree with you Anne. While I don't condone the act of having sex with a 13 year old, I find the lack of empathy from many of these other commenters pretty appalling.

Do you realize his wife, Sharon Tate, 8 months pregnant with their unborn child was brutally butchered by the Manson family? This happening to a man that for years struggled to survive under Nazi rule in the Krakow Ghetto, had his mother gassed in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and even with all that was able to keep it together enough to direct some of the greatest films of all time with Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby.

Hasn't the guy suffered enough in his life? Let's see if all your judgement calls are crystal clear after you've had your unborn child butchered along with your wife.

It's obvious from those commentating you also don't know the facts of the case. This wasn't some violent rape of a stranger. This was a young actress/model who willingly went to a house, drank champagne and got in a hot tub naked with Polanski. He didn't have a gun to her head. Should he have had sex with her? Of course not. It was a crappy decision.

But if you study the case you'll also find there was a plea bargain his attorneys had worked out with the DA and the DA backed out at the last minute. There were also several improprieties in the case that have been admitted to. The judge in the case, now dead, was a star-gawking nut who was doing bizarre legal rulings simply to have more facetime in the media. He kept a 'scrapbook' of all his dealings with celebrities in his court...hardly an impartial guy. He had already locked Roman up for 42 days for 'observation'...a bogus attempt to drag out the trial so the judge could get more attention. Frankly, the guy should have been dis-barred.

There's been talk for years that if the case is even brought up again, it would be thrown out because of these errors in the judicial process. With all these factors, who can blame Roman for fleeing back then. Any of you would have done the same thing...especially after what this man has been through in his life.

At least if the victim were adamant about pressing charged I could see some justification but she has long ago said she wished to drop charges Did I mention she got a large civil amount of $$$ years ago from Polanski as restitution? It seems everyone has put this behind them except the DA who is pushing for his arrest now. Smells to me like someone is trying to make a name for themselves at Roman Polanski's expense.

Posted by: babyfacemagee | September 27, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

thanks for the transcript, goaway. that pretty much puts a nail in it.

Posted by: gcwtech | September 27, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

This wouldn't be an issue in many parts of the world, Japan, Philippines, etc...

Posted by: itneverends | September 27, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

There's a sweet little girl up the street from me. My father die in the holocaust when he fell out of a guard tower. I think I'll go rape her now. I'm only kidding to show how stupid letting anyone, rich or poor, get to do these thing to little girls. It sets a bad example to all. Only the Shadow knows the evil that learks in the heart of men and it should not ever be encourage to act by setting a precident like forgiving it. Have anoughter drink of that liberal coolaid Applebaum. I'm ok with forgiving him if we forgive all the others we've sent to prison to be killed or killed themselves first. I not kidding now. Good men, I've known, who've failed to resist tempation have commited suicide rather than go to prison for act less than these. Screw Polanski and all his liberal supporters. He should kill himselve now.

Posted by: hermonmunster | September 27, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

One more thing...this 13 year old girl was no virgin. She had had sex at least twice before by her own testimony. What kind of girl goes to a house with a grown man, drinks champagne, gets in a hot tub...etc. Again...not condoning what he did but he's paid his debt in my book.

Posted by: babyfacemagee | September 27, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Are you F!@#*ing NUTS??? Of course he should be arrested and serve his sentence. If he was Joe Noname, you'd be cheering and proclaiming that justice had been served. He only got away with it because he had money, lots and lots of it.

Posted by: ASW02 | September 27, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I guess there might be a stupider defense of statutory rape, but I can't imagine off the top of my head what it might be. "Oh, I didn't know she was 13, she looked at least 18"; I'll have to remember that one. However, it is typical Anne Applebaum - taking a controversial position, in the hope of generating a firestorm of comment. I doubt it's what she really believes, and if it is, she's even further out of her mind than usual. Still, Anne is a staunch conservative, and a lot of conservatives have evidenced some pretty disturbing views of sexuality over the past couple of years. Perhaps defense of pedophilia isn't such a big step, after all.

Posted by: marknesop | September 27, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Such an "unbiased" headline is what drew me to this article. Yep, you have never been raped or you would never have posted this article. It's okay that he hid out for 32 years, but it's not okay that he's finally being brought to justice. Some of us are cheering. Why is it sad that he's being punished after he had a rotten childhood but the girl he hurt isn't being punished after he ruined hers? I say rah that he was arrested. He'll probably just get a slap on the hand, but a slap is better than nothing.

Posted by: pook1 | September 27, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

If Polanski mother was gasses, why did they spare him? I've seen the movies and documentaries and the children were always gassed with the mothers or feed to the gaurd dogs. I smell BS. The 'Holocaust' has been hyped and lied about by too many Hollywood elitist as a red badge of courage or plee for sympathy. After years of being th poster child for Racism and death(Blus eyes) I just don't care anymore. That horse is dead, stop beating it.

Posted by: hermonmunster | September 27, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I doubt Ms. Applebaum read the transcript; that would entail REPORTING, which doesn't happen at the Post, unless Republicans (Bob McDonnell)or the military (Walter Reed series) are involved.

Why let facts get in the way of your liberal bias? Too uncomfortable.

Posted by: used2beadem | September 27, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

No statute of limitations on rape or murder (homicide's different). Polanski must face justice for his crime.

Posted by: Martial | September 27, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

There are two questions here. I do not have an opinion on Polanski. Lots of 'on the one hand, on the other hand.' I am not sure.
Another question is Switzerland. And here the author is right. This is a country that had been hiding money stolen from murdered Jews. They had been doing it for decades, until that young security guard exposed them. Now their banks have money deposited by criminals from all over the world. Swiss laws on that matter are in contradiction with US and international laws. For this reason alone, US troops, after some rest from their duties id Iraq, had to be transferred to Switzerland to change regime there (it is a joke). Now they arrested Polanski to look better, implying 'we cooperate with the US?' 'By the way,- this cheese-loving nation is saying,'- look at Polansky, ha-ha-ha.' No doubt, in addition to cheese, Swiss make good chocolate and wrist watches, but otherwise they do not look very appealing to me.

Posted by: Inkstand | September 27, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mrs Applebaum, your article is simply biased and a non-sense. It is really a pity that people like you can write articles in an important newspaper like Washington Post. Mr R. Polanski was arrested simply because an American Judge issued an international arrest warrant ? Do you know what is an arrest warrant ? Do you know what are international treaties ? How is your idea about the rule of the law and justice How old were you when the facts happened ? And what do you exactly know about the case and the file ? Your justifications... the dead of the mother, the dead of the father, he paid already a lot (in lawyers' fee, etc.) etc........ are absolutely ridiculous. The American Judge was and is investigating a person on the base of precise facts and circumstances. Till now there is no decision and Mr R. Polanski has the right to defend himself in Switzerland and, if the case, before USA Courts.Would you have written the same words for other not famous people or/and if the victim would have been your daughter ?

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 27, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

The only reason Mr. Polanski has earned this sympathy, many years later as a man in his '70s, is because he broke the law and escaped from the country to become a fugitive. To forgive him his debt to society because he broke the law and left the country is to reward him for his crime.

Not only was he guilty of rape, he was also guilty of evading the charges. No matter how famous you are, or how talented, this cannot stand in a country under a fair rule of law.

You cannot treat some people differently than others under the law. If Mr. Polanski weren't so famous, then the police may not have known his whereabouts. But regardless, he committed these crimes and justice doesn't have a time limit here.

As for his extenuating circumstances as a survivor of horrible events, that doesn't give him leave to be a criminal and hurt others. Many pedophiles were sexually abused as children themselves, but we can't give them a break. His age is another extenuating circumstance that can't be factored in. Didn't we recently try and elderly man for a murder of civil rights activists? What about hunting down former nazis in their old age, after living decades as good citizens?

In the end, prosecutors must follow the law. All of these other circumstances can come into play in court and during sentencing. But you can't simply ignore these charges because he was successful in evading them years ago.

Posted by: hillmannic | September 27, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Anne,
If you were merely seeking notoriety at any cost, then you have succeeded. What depressingly poor judgment you exhibit. Your prattle is an affront to civilized behavior. Your family must be ashamed.

Posted by: JohnRice | September 27, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Too bad he isn't in the CIA. He would be home free.

Posted by: rusty3 | September 27, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Why not let the jury decide? Respect for our legal system requires this much.
It is possible that the victim never believed he would stand trial, so rationalized that it was “OK”; that she didn't want publicity anyway, put it behind her. But had RP not fled the country, she may have figured differently.
RP has had tragedies in his life; so have we all.
“but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways “ You mean versus sitting in a jail cell for years, which is what regular Joes must endure, for statutory rape?
This is my first AA column, having linked on over; not very impressive.

Posted by: heyaz | September 27, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I fully agree with Anne Applebaum, even though I have no sympathy for Roman Polanski -- if it's true he did indeed use drugs and alcohol to have sex with the adolescent.

The point is: The charge against Polanski was Statutory Rape. That's it. Not rape. Not using drugs. Just statutory rape.

I was 13 when I had my first sexual experience -- the same age as the girl with whom Polanski had sex. I wasn't raped, but according to US law, the man who had sex with me would have been considered a sexual offender. Statutory Rape.

Although I found the sex liberating -- I knew by then I was gay, but I'd been raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, etc. -- our puritanical society would have perceived that experience as something evil. Never mind the fact, that the evil -- i.e., the mental and emotional rape I suffered -- was committed by those well-intentioned priests and their perverse dogma, teaching me to fear my body and hate my sexual orientation.

Anyhow, I can easily imagine some ambitious district attorney, judge, etc. making a nasty public case out of what happened (though neither I nor the man I had sex with are public figures like Polanski) in order to make a name for themselves as law-enforcing gods for the delight of a braindead, sex-crazed public. Even though, in truth, the DA, the judge, and the public didn't give a damn about my well being.

The same goes for many of the self-righteous people here criticizing Applebaum's piece. Those are the people who couldn't care less about damaged adolescent and children -- unless, of course, there's sex & drugs involved in the mix. But hey, why shouldn't every concerned citizen have their little fun, too?

So, Polanski may face extradition to the United States. Wow. I feel as safe as when I learned that Martha Stewart had been arrested.

Posted by: pierrep | September 27, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

by any reckoning the decision was bizarre -- though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

Applebaum, what is the idea of justice that you have? Apparently, a bizarre one, as well. A crime is a crime, even it was committed 200 hundred years ago, and whoever dit it must pay for it. Just like the Manson bunch that killed this perver's wife, this guy must pay for his crime. I don't really know how this paper allows you to write a column with statement like that.

Posted by: RIVASF1@WESTAT.COM | September 27, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I really think time has run out on the prosecution's case, long ago. I very much doubt the LA District Attorney has made any new friends here among a number of governments which would have been in a position to help with present-day crime, but now will be less willing to co-operate with the US brand of justice (or injustice as many see it). This isn't murder and the victim doesn't want to go through a trial and has forgiven Mr Polanski. Is there anybody in the US government and "justice system" that has an ounce of common sense, looking at this I sincerely doubt it. Meanwhile the taxpayers get to pay for a prosecution nobody except some ambitious DA wants, and Polanski has more than enough money to keep his lawyers busy until the day he dies. What a waste of US time, resources, and good will.

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | September 27, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I note that the longest posts are those with long-winded explanations of why we should ignore the law. We are a nation of laws, not whims. When we become a nation of whims, we will cease to be a nation.

Posted by: barneyrl | September 27, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

if i drugged and raped a 13 year old virgin damn sure i would get long jail time and tortured by other prisoners.

but this guy gots to live jetset life in paris.

this is a very serious crime,

what does switzerland past actions have to do with this case??

so his family died in Holocaust that is no justification for raping a little girl.

if you defend this pig then let me visit with your daughter

Posted by: jojostar999 | September 27, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

So we should let anyone who has had a rough childhood rape 13 year olds because 30 years later they will forgive their rapist? Wrong. Polanski should stand trial. He committed a crime against a child and needs to pay the price.

Posted by: retabroad | September 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Someone in 2009 (a woman, no less!) who has no objection to the adult perpetrator of child rape avoiding the legal consequences of his crime.

Welcome to weird and less-than-wonderful 12th-century world of Ann Applebaum.


Posted by: WhatHeSaid | September 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

ok i see she wasn't a virgin my mistake but he is still a rapist peadophile

Posted by: jojostar999 | September 27, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

If "paying for his crime" means living the life of a rich and famous movie producer in France, then maybe we should all turn pedophile.
Although an inconvenient truth, we remain a country of laws. There is no statute of limitation on rape and no pardon granted for celebrity. Polanski's case can only be settled in court; unless the Swiss get cold feet, that's where he'll get his day.

Posted by: willowglen | September 27, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Hmm. I don't recall that Mr. Polanski ever bothered to ask this young girl, no matter how seductively she dressed, no matter how much 'older' she looked (it would be friggin amazing if a 13-year-old appeared to be 'legal'). He was a sleaze in his behavior, it was pedophilia, and he got caught. End of story.
Cease the violin music and the mention of his family's background and the concentration camps.
And the loss of his wife. The bad taste of this writer to USE that to justify letting this guy bypass the law! Shame on Ms. Applebaum.
Doesn't Mr. Polanski know that he will be arrested in certain countries because he 'fled prosecution'? Of course he does. Now he can weasel his way out of this, fine. Cue the applause. If he doesn't, let him explain how little the law means to him.
Whine, moan and complain. Make him a special case. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Blah, blah. There's a special place in journalist hell for someone who writes this kind of apology for that kind of crime.
Oh, and by the way, wasn't it the young YOUNG girl's mom who filed charges when she found out? Good for her. Polanski might have gotten away with it but for Mom's outrage.

Posted by: KathyWi | September 27, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Roman's favorite song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g59azmXHOVI

Posted by: Martial | September 27, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The only possible excuse for Applebaum's column is that it is Yom Kippur -- the time of atonement.

Yom Kippur is also the time for the performing of the ritual of kaparot.

In kaparot, orthodox Jews wave a live chicken over their heads three times while reciting: "This is my exchange, this is my substitute, this is my atonement. This chicken will go to its death while I will enter and proceed to a good long life, and peace." The chicken is then slaughtered.

Perhaps Applebaum thinks that a dead chicken would be sufficient atonement for Polanski's rape of a thirteen-year-old.

The ritual is no more bizarre than Applebaum's column.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | September 27, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum is right in her opinion because it's her opinion - and only an opinion.
That said, I would only support extradition in this case if the now 45-year-old victim called for it. She does not and, by the way, doesn't forgive Polanski. Rather, she and he settled the matter out of court to their mutual satisfaction. There's simply no obvious reason to push this now after over 30 years...

Posted by: Davidd1 | September 27, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth, Anne! The entire case against Polasnki has been specious. I think it's disgusting that at the same time I've been reading stories about how certain ignorant folks want the savage monsters who killed Sharon Tate to be released from prison - we go and arrest this 76-year old man. What happened to the statute of limitations?!

Posted by: Tuffjesse | September 27, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

he should have manned up back then instead of running...

Posted by: DwightCollins | September 27, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse


can you have it both ways?
..."he suffered professional stigma" but
...he recently received an Oscar. And was on the way to receive another one. What stigma?

Applebaum 'bets' he wouldn't been arrested it he hadn't been samous. Okay,

but equally, he wouldn't have been given Applebaum's little praise peace if he hadn't been a Jew...if parts of his family hadn't died in Auschwitz. In which case rape doesn't matter at all...

Posted by: whistling | September 27, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Few press outlets have commented on the curious timing of the arrest. Polanski has a second home in Switzerland and has been traveling to that country openly for thirty years. The Swiss police could have easily found him sooner if they had wanted to.

The arrest will further divide the U.S. and Poland. After the bungled recent missile defense reversal, the Polish public has a poor opinion of America. The arrest of Polanski, who is a national cultural icon in Poland, will only make matters worse.

Posted by: Sammy1000 | September 27, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick and tired of the "Holocaust Excuse"!

If this lady, who was the victim at 13 years old, commits for example; the crime of murder can she use the "rape victim of the rapist of the Holocaust family excuse?"

A sex offender rapist is still a rapist sex ffender no matter what religion or nation they belong to.

A crime is still a crime. Let him stand trial.

This author is shocking for her lack of knowledge of rape/sex abuse of minors and children in our society. Perhaps instead of defending the person sexually abusing a minor write about and support the victims!

Posted by: deborahzaki | September 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Howe different is this from the case of the 83 y.o. man from Wisconsin who is being deported because he was a Nazi guard? They are both horrific situations, but the guard was much younger than Polanski and probably did not have much say in what he was forced to do as a soldier.

Posted by: Windy5 | September 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

This editorial is a tacit acceptance of statutory rape. i am shocked that the Washington Post endorses this point of view.

Posted by: Baltimore5 | September 27, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Good grief. How can anyone write a column suggesting a child rapist who flees prosecution and evades authorities for more than 30 years be spared because the victim dreads revictimization and the perpetrator had a tough life as a child? The law is the law, and Polanski should face a jury of his peers.

Meanwhile, this should be is a great teaching moment for Conservatives. If it was appropriate to simultaneously impeach Bill Clinton (while he was sending a cruise missile into Afghanistan to destroy an Al Quaida camp, no less) and it's appropriate to prosecute Polanski for a 32-year-old crime, then it should be appropriate to investigate Bush/Cheney for violations of law and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law as well.

I agree that Polanski should be prosecuted. The law is the law. But the same goes for Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: plasmatron | September 27, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I've seen a picture of the girl at 13, and she looked 13. Furthermore, if you are at all uncertain of if a girl is 18, you don't propose sex to her.

Then he didn't propose sex in a civil manner. He sedated her, gave her champagne and right out raped her against her protests.

It is not up to the victim to decide if this should be pursued or not. I understand her feelings, but the mere fact that the terrible things that have happened to Polanski in his life are supposed to excuse a violent sex crime, makes me ill at ease.

It is not OK that he takes his sufferings out on a child. I don't feel sorry for him for being arrested. I don't like to hear that France is "shocked" by the arrest and wants him "reunited with his family", as if he were a very old and helpless person needing protection.

Obviously there are some political reasons in the background for this arrest as this time. Sadly, I don't think anyone cares about the sex crime.

Posted by: asoders22 | September 27, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

LIberals have no problem with diddling children...the normal world does......

Liberalism on display is losing support globally ... 2010 will mark the end of a foolish experiment with wishful thinking.

Liberalism is a failed concept..reality bites it in the but daily...see ObamaCare, Obama's foreign policy, Obama's economic policy ...and on and on.

Posted by: georgedixon | September 27, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I hope Polanski thanked Jesus every day for the last 31 years that he's rich and white. If he wasn't, it would have been an international manhunt and the only "Oscar" he wouldve gotten is the cellmate he'd have for 15-20 years.

Posted by: ASW02 | September 27, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Why outrageous?

Ahhh, lets not forget Applebaum's husband is Polish.

Posted by: wassiv | September 27, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Anne

The first rule of law in these United States

is "Don't do the crime if you can't do

the time".

Posted by: ivnprt | September 27, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he fled in a "panic," but he must have stopped panicking at some point in the last 30 years. I don't understand why the holocaust would make someone want to sodomize a child.

Posted by: markfromark | September 27, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

As Barney Frank might say to you, Anne:
"WHAT PLANET HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING ON?"

Posted by: efg31 | September 27, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Just too many rabid comments in this forum. As a start perhaps it may be appropriate to become conversant on any subject before posting. The documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" would be a good start. It is hard to hear the facts and not conclude that Polanski was seriously mishandled by the justice system already. Both his attorney and the prosecutor felt he had little option but to leave the country.

Posted by: thomson1 | September 27, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Anne,

By any chance do you have a 13-year-old daughter that I can date? Don't worry, by the time that she is 45 and has a couple of kids, I'm sure that you will have gotten over it, esp. since I'm not famous.

Posted by: hisroc | September 27, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I can not understand what Anne’s reason is for trying to justify a sexual predator; child molester.
It is not statutory rape when the girl was only 13. It was pedophilia. A 13 year old girl is just barely into her menstrual cycle and is still a child. Statutory rape is more when the girl or boy are around 16-17 and consent to having sex with someone older. Pedophilia was not as well known at the time when Mr. Polanski committed the crime. He more than likely would have been charged with pedophilia had it been more commonly used. So basically Anne feels, by her article, that pedophiles need to go free, if they are old. I guess all the priests that committed pedophilia can breathe a sigh of relief, now that they have Anne backing them. Most of them are old now; most of them had their conscience bother them. As far as Mr. Polanski having a rough life, most of the criminals in prison could say they had a rough upbringing and life, it’s not an excuse Anne. Maybe Anne is an elitist, and she just wants the rich and famous pedophiles to go free? Maybe it’s because they both have things in common, like both of them being in the media industry, is that why she is all for letting a rich pedophile go free.

Posted by: galium | September 27, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Anne,

I know this piece is an absolute put-on.

Perhaps you actually conjured up these ideas in some fleeting moment before your morning coffee kicked in. But, you surely know that no caffeinated adult could possibly believe this sophomoric silliness.

It almost reads like an Onion parody.

IF the US had some kind of international reputation for irrationally pursuing foreigners (who may have left behind an unpaid ticket or a damaged rental car) THEN maybe you would have a point.

Bringing up the "Holocaust" angle is the epitome of "dirty pool" (and on a famous Jewish holiday called "Yon Kippur" which has something to do with ATONEMENT! an issue with some relevance to RP although he may have married outside of "The Faith").

Posted by: Chaz149 | September 27, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Ann u r lost, can you imagine any pedo getting toasted and cheered like the famous polanski ? no because the crime is vicious and savage, it is predatory. If anyone has a daughter , sister of that age , u only have to ask how u would feel. Afraid of unfair treatment ? well, I guess every criminal fears that, unfortunately not every perv has hollywood and the press toasting him. No society is "enlightened" or "civilized" when there youngest members are allowed to be victimized .

Posted by: snapplecat07 | September 27, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

A member of Polanski's family supposedly died at Auschwitz. This is why he shouldn't face punishment for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl according to Applebaum. Now that IS bizarre reasoning! The media always defends these Hollywood slime.

Posted by: intotheword2 | September 27, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

What drugs are you on, Anne Applebaum?

Since when is it ok, just because someone is a famous director, to anally and orally rape a 13 year girl after drugging her, and then flee the country before sentencing?

The victim may have "moved on" -- and good for her, but society has an obligation to stand up and insist that dirty old men who drug and rape young children are duly punished. And since you don't seem to be entirely clear on the judicial process, Polanski faces no trial on the rape, because he is already convicted. He faces sentencing on the charge.

Earning an Academy Award doesn't give you a pass on rape, and neither does being rich, French, or a survivor of the Holocaust.

Posted by: bk0512 | September 27, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Polanski's crime does not have anything to do with his experience during the Holocaust. On the contrary, evoking the Holocaust in this context is an insult to the people who suffered and were most brutally killed in the pogrom. Having survived one act of violence does not give you a permit to commit crimes with impunity for the rest of your life. Anne, come to your senses. Polanski is a shameless, unrepenting womanizer and criminal, and it's about time that he paid for what he did.

Posted by: motherforobama | September 27, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

If that 13 year old girl had killed someone, the state would have the right to determine that she was aware enough of what she did to be tried as an adult.

But the state can not decide that she's aware enough to agree to have sex. I do understand that statutory rape laws can and often do protect youngsters from predatory adults. But each case should be judged on its own merits. In this case, the "victim" wants the matter dropped. No one can argue she's not now old enough to know her own mind. Her wishes should be respected.

As for recidivism - I don't think Polanski's arrest will suddenly halt that. He's either continued to have sex with under-age girls or he has not. Given that there is no evidence he's continued to do so, he shouldn't be tried or convicted because of a statistic. He may have been a libertine, but he was not a rapist or a pedophile.

Posted by: nlynnc | September 27, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

To Tuffjesse:
There are no statute of limitations for felony rape cases, such as this one that involves a child. If you commit a crime as serious as raping a child, you will be brought to justice no matter how long you hide and run.

Posted by: motherforobama | September 27, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

When George Bush and Dick Cheney are in jail where they belong, don't whine to me about how sacred the rule of law is. People got high on the O.J. Simpson trial and now they find they've become addicted to high-profile busts: Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton. Wow, lots of fun! In Polanski's case, especially considering the involvement of supposedly "neutral" Switzerland, I'd give him a break. We have enough criminals in the U.S. without importing them. This girl had a wild and crazy time with a famous film director more than 30 years ago. Is this really a pressing criminal justice issue now? If he weren't famous, I don't think this lynch mob would be quite so hungry for justice. I've actually been to Sharon Tate's grave. I think Roman Polanski has paid plenty.

Posted by: rbmurals | September 27, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Of course we should forgive him.

He's rich and successful! Those kind are easy to forgive, and the easier it is, the more we should do it. Let's forgive all the rich and successful people right here & now, and promise never to prosecute them for any crimes they may have committed.

There, don't you feel better?
Don't you sleep better, and feel safer?

Just think: that great system of Justice that shelters the rich and successful is only for our betters.

You and I don't qualify.

Posted by: mminka | September 27, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I assume all who've posted insisting on Polanski's arrest are also insisting on the arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of all the Catholic priests who committed similar crimes...as well as the arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of those in the Catholic hierarchy - bishops and perhaps the Pope himself included - who knew what was going on and, instead of holding those priests accountable, simply transferred them to other parishes where they could continue their "activities." Just as importantly, I'll also assume all those specifically of the Catholic faith upset by this column have refused, since knowledge of those crimes first came out, to participate in any Catholic mass or ritual until such arrests, convictions, and imprisonments are a done deal.

Thank you for your consistency.

Posted by: barbyrahmirfluor | September 27, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I think we need a new standard for justice.

If the victims forgive bank robbing, theft, assault, and the like, there's no crime!

Doesn't that make you feel better?
Now you can sleep better, knowing that if
you just forgive your assailant, no crime occurred.

Whew, that was easy!

Posted by: mminka | September 27, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Knee-jerk reactionaries seem to be ruling this discussion. Judging from the way people ignore the facts of the case and zoom in on the emotional aspect, the last thing I'd request is trial by jury in the USA. People seem to have the lost the ability to think critically... or to think at all.

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | September 27, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

He didn't know her age??? He couldn't tell the difference between a girl of 13 and a woman??? It's also important that he drugged her before he raped her. If he had faced his crime, he could come and go at will. This exile was his choice.

Posted by: WdbrgWanda | September 27, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Health care, education, war, unemployment
Oh, yes, I forgot, we have no other more pressing matters. . .

Posted by: laramy1 | September 27, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Actually, this would have been a good time for Anne to remind people of her marriage to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The rationalizations she advances here should embarrass her. 13 years old, but Roman didn't know how old the girl was? Twice referring to the decision to flee as due to panic? He's had about 30 years to overcome that bout of nerves.

A 45 year old man has sex with a 13 year old girl and it's rape, period. I'm not sure why calling it statutory rape makes Anne feel better about it. It was sordid and criminal, and now Roman will have to pay a little more for his transgression, but will likely not be extradited in the end. Maybe he can gather his nerve and compensate for his earlier bout of "panic" and agree to face justice, once and for all.

Posted by: Seytom1 | September 27, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

She included every mitigating circumstance except that the girl was sexually experienced.

Everything about this case, just like the Tate-LaBianca murders, is messed up. The only things more perverted than the crimes themselves are the ways that the various governments and media outlets act.

Posted by: blasmaic | September 27, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I say lock him up and throw the key away. He pled guilty, let him serve his sentence.

Posted by: delusional1 | September 27, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I do not agree with Anne. The crime was not the violation of an individual who was minor then and is willing to forgive now, it was a crime against the state.

Murder and rape are crimes against the state as well as against the victim. The victim at the time it was committed was violated as a minor, not the 45 year old now.

What has the HOLOCAUST got to do with it?

Posted by: zebra4 | September 27, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

That the Swiss are barbarians is nothing new.
They trumpet their history as a "neutral" nation during the Holocaust, while the facts show otherwise. They denied entry to thousands of Jews fleeing the Swiss' co-religionists, and, indeed, fellow ethnics.

To add perversion to perversity, they then kept the blood money of the dead, depriving their heirs, as well as that of the surviving victims. The "settlement" was a joke, pulled together at the last minute, when New York State threatened to end relations with the Swiss. They kept most of their bloody stolen money.

The "crime" with which Polanski was charged was a joke. He didn't know the girl's age, but that is just the beginning. And the end, IMHO. There were "irregularities" in the trial to say the least. It was a kangaroo court, and if anyone should be tried, it is the presiding judge and district attorney who pressed the "case."

This nation, indeed the world, owes an apology to Polanski, for depriving him first of his father, for torturing his relatives, and then for the slaughter of his wife, eight months pregnant with their child, and of his friends.

When Sharon Tate appealed for mercy for her baby, she was told "No mercy," by her murderer, who stabbed her in the belly. IN THE BELLY. Polanski was not spared this knowledge.

In the meantime, a gentile religionist, one Mathew Schmaltz, has asked that the murderer be allowed to return home, as she has been diagnosed with cancer.

Sick. Truly mentally ill, this Schmaltzy man and his followers are.

And so is this country, if it does not demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski, allow him to return home, and overthrow his asinine conviction.


Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Good heavens. It was his responsibility to know her age! --and it would still have been rape if she'd been an adult. Drugging someone and then having sex with them is rape. Not to mention dangling the lure of extraordinary professional opportunity before the victim and her family. And I'm guessing that most sex criminals have a great deal of pain in their past. That doesn't mean they aren't sex criminals.

Nor does being a Holocaust survivor excuse the perpetration of atrocities on others! In so many individuals, the memory of atrocity has deepened compassion rather than spawning sadism. And no, I don't feel too sorry for Polanski having to accept an Oscar from abroad!

This is an astonishing editorial. I am by no means a law & order freak... but this is an astonishing editorial.

Posted by: sjohnston1 | September 27, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

So much time, so much exile, so much imposition. So much ink spent telling the whole tale of the crime and the subsequent exile again and again over the years.

Polanski should have turned himself in decades ago.

Posted by: restons | September 27, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Unlike most others I don't have a strong opinion either way - just a question - what weight should be given to the victim who apparently has forgiven Polanski and doesn't want the trial and the harm it will do to her family? Does that count for nothing?

Posted by: oderb | September 27, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

A more just proposal:

So much time, so much crime, decades old of theft from those tortured to death, etc.

Shouldn't the Swiss Consulate, the Swiss Ambassador be arrested, pending return, full return of the blood money?

What are they doing on US soil? What are they doing on any soil belonging to the community of nations, from which they have clearly exiled themselves?

Let them stay home, eat cheese, fitting for moral mice.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Amen. A colossal waste of taxpayer money to extradite and prosecute someone just for ego. Surely they are more important criminal cases in Los Angeles!!??

Posted by: BushMustGo | September 27, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm disturbed by the assumption that those who call this man a rapist are reactionary. My politics are very liberal. I've seen the documentary and I have sympathy for the man as a fellow suffering human being. And: rape is rape--wherever it happens, whoever perpetrates it. (And yes, that includes clergy.) I'm simply astonished that anyone would find reasons to minimize this.

Posted by: sjohnston1 | September 27, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Lousy editorial, Anne. As in, very poor arguments and reasoning. Justice should pursue those who flee, the common man and the famous. I could not care less about the fate of his parents or whether he has talent. Nor do I care what the victim thinks. You are defending someone who drugs and rapes a 13 year old...good thing she wasn't my child. He would not have lived this long. And it is not for you to say that he has been punished enough...that decision belongs in the courts.

Posted by: postoastie | September 27, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect." ???

Though for a time Polanski was a suspect?
Why would you include that innocuous detail, Annie?
Are we now supposed to possibly believe that Manson was innocent of Tate's murder? Or that Polanski possibly paid Manson's crew to do it? I just don't know why that comment is in this article where you are making a point about Polanski being a victim!?!

Posted by: emdragon | September 27, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm relieved that most posters are appalled by Anne's column, as I am. Yes, he's a brilliant director; he's popular, rich, famous, and a victim of the Holocaust. But he also raped a thirteen-year-old. It doesn't matter if ahe forgives him or not--this doesn't apply in a criminal case.

Posted by: iona123 | September 27, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Anne. Rich, famous, white people who have encountered tragedy in their lives really should not be held legally accountable for their crimes. Indeed, how dare the courts even bother him about plying a 13-year-old with drugs and then having sex with her? My goodness, she should feel HONORED that such a great ARTIST would take the time to have sex with her at all! It's just like the Bishops argued when so many of their priests were charged with molesting the youngsters under their care: What in the world can we do to protect the REAL victims of all this adult-on-child sex, the perpetrators? Who will be THEIR advocate? Thank you, Anne, there are few people who would ever even consider taking on this noble task.

Posted by: Ladyrantsalot | September 27, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

postoastie:

Justice should pursue those who flee, the common man and the famous.
-------------------------------
Absolutely. Hence, the failure of the Swiss to turn over 70% of the blood money it stole from Holocaust victims requires that they be tried in a court of international law. Their representatives in this country should be removed from US soil, and their membership in the UN revoked, pending trial.

As well, the kangaroo court that "tried" Polanski must be investigated. Since neither the presiding judge nor the district attorney can be tried for "errors," the next best thing should be done. Post their names prominently everywhere, and hold judges accountable for obvious misdeeds. Ditto, district attorneys.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse


Anne - consider yourself harrumphed.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | September 27, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

applebaum, are you in there?
you think because she said she forgave him that it is okay for him to get away with this? WHERE THRE IS INDISPUTABLE AND where it is proven beyond a doubt this man should be hanged... publicly to send a message to others.

how dare you treat a defensless person like trash? HOW 'BOUT IT BEING YOUR DAUGHTER, SISTER?????

shame on you.

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | September 27, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

you say because of his age it serves no purpose?

it sends the perfect message::::: WE WILL HUNT YOIU DOWN AND JAIL YOU FOR MOLESTING ANYONE, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN... how's that for justice?????

now he gets to retire and DIE in jail... nice, i say because he's been accustomed to the very best, now let him squirm, literally.

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | September 27, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial . . ."

No, he fled after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. Please correct the post.

When you do, consider sharing with your readers the evidence that Polanski anally raped a 13-year-old girl after drugging her, then ejaculating in her anus.

Posted by: Patterico | September 27, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I am very disappointed that you would call this arrest outrageous. The man raped a 13 year old girl. There is nothing that disputes that fact. The fact is, in America, you can't rape a thirteen year old girl. You can't rape anyone. Rape is against the law. The man needs to pay for his crime by serving his sentence as ordered by the court. It doesn't matter that his career suffered, he wasn't able to collect his Oscar, or that he fled to another country to avoid his sentence, he hasn't paid for his crime. He needs to pay. My question for you, Anne, is simple. If your daughter was raped by Michael Moore, and he fled the country after he was convicted, would you be so forgiving after he was caught in thirty years?

Posted by: WatchingUSFall | September 27, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Anne,

Your position is bizarre.

Are you familiar with the concept of crimes against society? It is in society's best interest that rapists are held accountable for their crimes. The fact that he paid his victim to plea his case does not change the fact that he confessed, and justice must be served.

Posted by: dodgerfan2 | September 27, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Obviously there is much misplaced sympathy for the 13-year-old "girl" who looked and behaved much older than her age, including having sexual intercourse with others before ending up in Polanski's arms. What we have here is a sexually promiscuous woman with an underage birth certificate and a sexually promiscuous man who was willing to try out anything that came his way. It's a case of mating a lit fuse (Polanski’'s lust) with dynamite (a Lolita).

The "little girl" apparently had an ambition to be an actress and was willing to tryst a famous movie director to further that goal. Many beautiful young women in that particular locale of Southern California seem inclined not to place themselves above this sort of thing--nor is this a new phenomenon in the world history of female entrepreneurship.

Thus, this is not really a case, as most would like to imagine, of an innocent underage girl being lured off the street into a sexually predator's car, but a sexually experienced "fallen angel" knowingly jumping into it with her own plan of predation--the sexual life of the young is not as romantic as adults would like to delude themselves. Indeed, if the Los Angeles County Prosecutors' Office actually had the zeal and resources to pursue every case of Hollywood personalities sleeping with willing underage girls (or boys), there wouldn't be Hollywood movie industry.

Having said that, Polanski was a fool, first, by not recognizing that the woman with a mismatched birth certificate was a land mine waiting to detonate upon contact, and, second, by jumping the bail, instead of trying to "appease" the witnesses with a generous offer of financial settlement (as Michael Jackson had done to the open knowledge of the general public, and numerous others have, to no open public knowledge).

Undoubtedly, Polanski must be forced to account for jumping the bail, but as for the other, "rape" charge, there is no reason to make much of it, as both victims (one of hormonal, and another of trying to overreach her ambition beyond her age) don't want to see this case to go on; and there is no reason for the LA Prosecutors' Office to pretend that it is also a victim, as the public is never the victim of sexual indiscretions between the wiling partners, but a meddlesome and overzealous voyeur.

Posted by: GeorgePS | September 27, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Paterico:

Re: Your post

WRONG. The attempt to have the case against Polanski dropped due to judicial misconduct have been ongoing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/roman-polanski/
--------------------
The Swiss think they'll ingratiate themselves to us by behaving as they have. I doubt it. The victims of their Holocaust blood money cry out from the ground.

Ironically, and I'll stop there, the French refused.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

She's right. And while we're at it, let's let Garrido go too. I'm sure he won't reoffend.

Posted by: AllieR1 | September 27, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

“Tax grants for jihadi enablers: Another slap in the faces of Lockerbie victims’ family”
Obama approves 2.5 MILLION dollars to one-party LIBYA.
$200.000 to a fund ran by Gaddafi’s daughter and another $200,000 to a fund ran by Gaddafi’s son.
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
And obama chose to make this announcement the day of Gaddafi’s speech.

Libya is a filthy rich country; why do they need our taxpayers’ money and if they did what are they DOING receiving money from us especially when we have to borrow it to give to them?

To all you supporters of obama what is your explanation for this? Tax money paid by families of the Lockerbee-deceased crash paying mony out to Gadaffi??????????????

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | September 27, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Stop playing the Holocaust Card Ms Applebaum. The fact that his parents died during the holocaust does not excuse his crime. This man is a pedophile and child rapist who must be brought to justice. He belong behind bars.

Posted by: ynebu | September 27, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

GeorgePS: You know nothing about rape. Your remarks exemplify the treatment that causes most rape survivors not to report the crime. IT DOES NOT MATTER whether she was ambitious, sexy, seductive, or "askin' fer it" in any other way. She was thirteen and she was drugged. That is rape.

I can't read any more of this, and I will never read another Applebaum column. I am utterly appalled.

Posted by: sjohnston1 | September 27, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled at Ms. Applebaum's take on this criminal. He is a pretty cool guy, a big director and his wife was killed so let's just let him sodomize a 13 year old or two. It's too bad that things like this don't set precedents for other child molesters, because then we could tell them all "what the hell, just go free, no big deal."

Posted by: hz9604 | September 27, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The attempt to have the case against Polanski dropped due to judicial misconduct have been ongoing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/roman-polanski/

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Roman Polanski is no famous black celeb like O.J. Simpson, who murdered his wife and friend and got away with it.

Maybe, that was Roman's mistake. Wrong complexion, wrong religion, too much victimized by the christians. Gotta get even, them cross-luggers.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Obviously there is much misplaced sympathy for the 13-year-old "girl" who looked and behaved much older than her age,
00000000000000000000000000000

how do U live with yourself?
if she was 102 it is wrong.
RAPE IS A CRIME EQUALTO MURDER AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED THE SAME.

anyhow they got him, and despite your opinion or applebaum's he will rot in jail... go visit him... that might make you a better person?

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | September 27, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Alan Turing, who invented the computer, and broke the German code Enigma, thereby helping the allies win WW2, was prosecuted because he was gay. And hey, people, what he did was ILLEGAL under the law in Britain then. So it was right that he should be punished, correct? The law is the law!

Turing eventually committed suicide because he could not bear the drug treatment which was forced on him.

Recently the British government apologized to him, but that is not going to bring him back to life is it? I guess with people like the ones on this forum thirsting for Polanski's blood, he will be brought back to the US for trial and the 76 year old man will be punished for something which happened 30 years ago. We will all be pleased that the law was "obeyed" just as it was in the case of Alan Turing. For shame!

Anne, I agree with you, but I doubt that the sexual puritans will hear you. They want blood.

Posted by: rohitcuny | September 27, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Is this another case of a Jewish person arguing on behalf of a Jewish criminal, like those who argue on the behalf of Israelis convicted of spying on the U.S.? It seems to me the height of hypocrisy that Anne Applebaum asks us to consider Polanski's age, his Jewish background, and the fact that he has already suffered through the inconveniences of his exile as mitigating factors whereby society should forgive Polanski. Try telling Jewish war criminal hunters that they should consider age and the inconveniences of exile and stop hunting these criminals -- it just doesn't work that way.

All people should be treated equally -- you do the crime, you do the time. No special treatment here, please.

Posted by: toch | September 27, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

to rohitcuny,

What you are saying is that pedophilia will be legal sometime in the future so don't put anymore pedophiles in jail?

Posted by: galium | September 27, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

toch (Or is it Tush):

Re: Your post

Evidently, Gentile person, you didn't read my earlier comment. Had your very type in mind as I penned it:


Of course, Roman Polanski is no famous black celeb like O.J. Simpson, who murdered his wife and friend and got away with it.

Maybe, that was Roman's mistake. Wrong complexion, wrong religion, too much victimized by the christians. Gotta get even, them cross-luggers.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Polanski had affairs with many young "actresses" who were about 15 which indicates pedophilia. He also pled guilty to statutory rape in a plea bargain. That is why all the other charges were dimissed.
HE PLED GUILTY in the LA case. As a citizen of France he could have stayed safely in that country. He has been trying to have the LA County DA dismiss the case to no avail so he dared the US government to arrest him by leaving France.

Posted by: ocotillo169 | September 27, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The attempt to have the case against Polanski dropped due to judicial misconduct have been ongoing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/roman-polanski/

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Anne, Why don't you have someone drug you, anally rape you, have it get in the press, and then see what your attitude is.

Posted by: evelyn911 | September 27, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

to Farnaz1Mansouri1

You also penned it about yourself. Your comment is just as bigoted as toch's comment was.

Posted by: galium | September 27, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Anne,

I don't know whether or not you have a thirteen-year-old daughter. If so, is she sexually active? Are you the sort of parent who doesn't know who she sleeps with and when?

Does she do drugs? Is she hanging out with much older men until the wee hours of the morning?

You know, I'm half a mind to say let this trial happen. First, the original judicial misconduct must be revealed. Then the victim, and victim she was, but not of Polanski should be brought forward.

Yes, she should. Don't want to see it, but christians like blood.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

What a stupid as$ed column. The girl, for whatever reason, may have forgiven him, but he's still a rapist.
Guess you probably voted for and suupported Clinton with your mndless, twisted, peverted logic, huh?

Posted by: LarryG62 | September 27, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

galium:

What is bigoted in Anne's post, A Hole?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure what he was eventually charged with but I have read the victim's account. This was not merely "statutory" rape. A grown man plied a 13-year old girl with alcohol and drugs then raped her anally, against her protests. Quite a tribute to the memory of his parents and deceased wife.

Posted by: Cossackathon | September 27, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

galium,

O, mea maxima cupa. You referred to Tush. The day when Jews will be on par with christians for racism has not yet dawned. It would take two thousand years, cross lugger, minium.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum endorsed Obama in 2008 election, she is not another nutjob conservative! As such, I think she's someone like me who realizes that Mr.Polanski has taken many progressive stances politically (eg. speaking out against George Bush), as such we should judge his character as a whole. Mr.Plolanski is not such a bad man and deserves a fair shot.

Posted by: brucecarson2008 | September 27, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Ms. Applebum.

The main character in this 'drama' is the victim. She is more than ready to go on with her life.

He too has has his share of pain.

Maybe this turn out to be good for him. Chances are he will be pardoned or the case dismissed and he will be able to come back to the USA.

I hate what he did but this case is passe. Let him go on making movies.

I just hope he learned from the lesson. That's all that matters.

Posted by: coqui44 | September 27, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum's outrageous article and apology of Polnanski. Shame

Posted by: JohnDebba | September 27, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Anne my dear, you are a moron. How bout we let Polansky rape your 13 year old daughter and then you can write an apology piece for him. Did he promise you a part in his next movie? If so, it should be a short ride to the federal pen.

Posted by: tellall1 | September 27, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Statutory rape is a crime against Society--not just the young woman.

Appelebaum is one fries short of a Happy Meal.

Posted by: JaxMax | September 27, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if it were Anne's 13 year old daughter who was fed champagne, and tranquilizers, and then raped and sodomized
30 years ago, if she would be so forgiving today. This looks like another example of the Liberal, "it's OK, as long as it is not in my back yard", ethics.

Posted by: fgoepfert1 | September 27, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

tellall1,

Gee. How about you don't take some responsibility for your thirteen your old daughter so that she is 1. not sexually active, 2. sleeping around with god knows whom, 3. doing drugs, 4. keeping company with much older men until the wee hours of the morning?

Just a suggestion, tellall1.

And whilst I'm suggesting, how about demanding an investigation for judicial misconduct regarding the original trial, as Polanski's attorneys have been doing for a long, long time?

Hows about it?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

tellall1, my dear, you are an A hole.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Since we can't seem to find and arrest Osama Bin Laden, I suppose that the government needed a win of sorts, but this is right up there on the list of idiotic criminal prosecution. What fools we are.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | September 27, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Rape is rape, and 13 is waaaaaaaaaay too young to even think about any sympathy.

Polanski skipped bail, and the law really really hates people that do that. Much more so than what they actually did.

And you Anne Applebaum of all people, a woman, defending this sack of s***?

I don't care how many zillion "extenuating" circumstances there were, letting him go now just says to the folks in the American justice system, okay, skip bail, be on the lam, rape of a 13 year old is okay, and let bygones by bygones.

Forget it.

Posted by: oracle2world | September 27, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

You have to be kidding. You think he thought this little girl was of age? She was 13. He drugged her. You think that's okay?

The fact that a woman of 40 plus years has moved on from this abuse is immaterial. He was convicted and skipped out on his sentence. It's a disgrace he wasn't extradited decades ago.

He'd have served time already if he hadn't been famous. And Ann would be numero uno on the petition saying "don't let him live in my neighborhood."

Posted by: pezzhome1 | September 27, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Outrageous??? Are you out of your mind? How about if your daughter was plied with drinks at the age of 13 then raped and sodomized. That Roman Polanski is a gifted film maker doesn't change anything. Michael Vicks went to jail for fighting dogs and he is a gifted ball player. What are criminal for in this country. Ms Applebaum has completely lost her sense. We have to punish people like Mr. Romanski and we have to punish him severely for having done this. Otherwise, every person of means could try to buy off their victim after the crime--this is so elementary to the upholding of criminal law that Ms Applebaum should actually apologize for writing this article.

Next thing you know we'll be justifying removing someone's kidney while they are sleep and later paying them a sum of money to have the charges dropped. Unbelievable!!!

Posted by: longjohns | September 27, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Good lord! What is wrong with you Applebaum?

The man RAPED a 13 year girl, and he plead guilty.

What new trial?

Just sentence him to life in prison. The government health care he will receive in prison will probably mercifully work out to his advantage, he won't live much longer.

Posted by: billskolnik | September 27, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

APPLEBAUM CHAPTER OF SEXUAL CHILD PREDATORS

With this article Ms. Applebaum should have the local chapter of supporters of Child Sexual Predators named in her honor.

Imagine the horror--Justice comes to Polanski........

Posted by: JaxMax | September 27, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

If his name wasn't Roman Polanski, and just some other pedophile, how outrageous would his arrest be then?

Posted by: rcupps | September 27, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

And the Polanski rapists blog on.

Speaking of rape, or rather, murder, how is it that the Justice Department, rather than arrest and turn over Archibold Valerian Trifa, told him to leave the country and go to another, if any would take him?

That would be Archbishop NAZI murderer Trifa, I'm referring to. And one christer country did take the detritus.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

You people forget that he had settled for an undisclosed amount. That means, the case is over.

What more do you want? He settled and the district attorney was entrapping him.

THere's nothing else here. Keep moving.

Posted by: coqui44 | September 27, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Bag of all scum, Archbishop Valerian Trifa.
Doesn't make the Swiss look good, but still...

OH, and then there is Vatican Bank....

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Coqui

You people forget that he had settled for an undisclosed amount. That means, the case is over.

What more do you want? He settled and the district attorney was entrapping him.

THere's nothing else here. Keep moving.
-------------------------
Indeed, she did, the victim. I doubt she'll want to return it, any time soon.

However, I'm getting to like the idea of first, an investigation into judicial misconduct for Polanski's first trial, then a new trial.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

If memory serves me right, he failed to appear for his sentencing back in the 70's, so he will go before the judge, once returned, and then to jail. He can initiate all his appeals from a cell block in Folsom.

Posted by: johnplover1 | September 27, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Look, the charge may be statutory rape, but the actual crime was rape of a child. He drugged and raped a 13 year old. That's not "statutory"--it wasn't with her consent.

That being said, the reason we have courts is to make these decisions, rather than letting Polanski independently decide that he doesn't require time in jail, or let Anne Applebaum decide that it's really no big deal, or let the victim decide that, after carrying it around for thirty years, it's probably more painful than it's worth to dig it back up. So let the courts decide. If Applebaum's arguments are good, then Polanski can be a free man and actually show up for his Oscar next time.

But, dude. He DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 year old child.

Posted by: krasni | September 27, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"You people forget that he had settled for an undisclosed amount. That means, the case is over.

What more do you want? He settled and the district attorney was entrapping him.

THere's nothing else here. Keep moving."
_______________________________

It's just money with you isn't it? Sad sad world. What you forget is that paying someone with little means after the fact is how the wealthy and powerful have always done. Maybe if someone offered to raped your wife against her will--and only later suggest a payment to quiet her down will you get the point.

Posted by: longjohns | September 27, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Lots of ignorance here. Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape rather than go on trial for the rape charge he deserved. He admitted guilt but did not serve his sentance. Man enough to rape a 13 year old but not man enough to go to prison.
Among the more idiotic comments are:
"Meanwhile the taxpayers get to pay for a prosecution nobody except some ambitious DA wants," Well, the guy has already been sentanced. He simply needs to do his time.
But even worse are the comments that blame the victim.
"It's obvious from those commentating you also don't know the facts of the case. This wasn't some violent rape of a stranger. This was a young actress/model who willingly went to a house, drank champagne and got in a hot tub naked with Polanski. He didn't have a gun to her head. Should he have had sex with her? Of course not. It was a crappy decision."
Mmmkay. She was asking for it, wasn't she? Wow. You are an idiot.

Posted by: pathelms | September 27, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

longjohn

It's just money with you isn't it? Sad sad world. What you forget is that paying someone with little means after the fact is how the wealthy and powerful have always done. Maybe if someone offered to raped your wife against her will--and only later suggest a payment to quiet her down will you get the point.
-----------------------
Well, I can't speak for your addressee, but 1. my daughter will not be sexually active when she is thirteen, 2. will not be sleeping around, 3. will not be using drugs, 4. will not be keeping company with men three times her age until the wee hours of the morning.

Now, undoubtedly you disagree with my views on childrearing, and that is your prerogative.

By the way, the statue of limitations on murder does not exist. What are you doing, where are you blogging about the phony inquest following the Kopechne murder? Ted Kennedy's exoneration?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

I think krasni has it right. This entire thing boils down to this-- He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Do you really need to know anything else?

Posted by: pathelms | September 27, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable. What has happened to us?

He is a child-sex predator who drugged a 13-year-old girl with quaaludes and champagne; lured her to pose for naked photographs; and, ignoring her protests, had sex with her and anally raped her.

And Anne wants to let him off. Madness.

Polanski needs to do some time for this and he needs to be on the Sexual Offenders lists.

Posted by: Chaz2 | September 27, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

pathelms;

Do you really need to know anything else?
-----------------
Err...yeah. Why are Polanski's attorneys being stonewalled with their request for an investigation into judicial misconduct? Said request having been ongoing for many years.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Michael Jackson needed to do time, should have been on the Sexual Offenders List, but wrong religion, wrong complexion, so no problem, Mikey. RIP

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

It is true that he once committed a sex crime. But the ones that refuse to forgive are of a lower moral quality. They are willing to hound old man Polanski till the ends of the Earth.

Posted by: melvin_polatnick | September 27, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that in addition to the statutory rape charge -- on which he pled guilty -- Polanski is ALSO guilty of fleeing the law and obstruction of justice by taking off. Those are ADDITIONAL crimes.

As for Anne's Holocaust defense -- What a horrible insult to the millions of law-abiding, justice-loving people who also had relatives who died in the Holocaust (and other atrocities) to suggest that Polanski is above the law because of his mother's death!

Posted by: Kalnel | September 27, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Ah, yes, Polatnick, but then he's not a christer like Whistling Pig Face who blogs here, not of the religion of Love. No, a victim of it, but not the same.

If he had been Michael raper Jackson, the whistling christers would be welcoming him home with bands, parades, etc.

RIP, Mikey. No problem. Rape on in heaven, where all your ilk go.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

You MUST be joking! You are exactly what is wrong with this country no moral and ethical values.

Posted by: annoniemen | September 27, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Amazing....I finally disagreed with Anne Applebaum. That's a first, as she is invariably deserving of our respect and admiration. So we can forgive her for being rather seriously mistaken this time.

But mistaken she is. Polanski plied the young girl with booze and Quaaludes - a particularly nasty drug that's soporific and disorienting in the extreme. He then raped her.

The judge, who knuckled under to Polanski's fame, should also spend a few days in a California penitentiary for so mishandling the case - and especially for even considering a deal which would spring Polanski after just 42 days observation.

The (now) woman who was raped should have her head examined for leading her children to believe that, if they happen to get raped, it's best to just let the whole thing blow over. Yow!

How she feels about the crime now is, anyway, irrelevant. Polanski's lawyer can bring up the assorted mitigating circumstances at trial - once Polanski's been charged with the crime he actually committed - based on the original testimony. That he bought the girl's cooperation later will only work against him. All this is how it's supposed to work - and it often does. And we must forever do battle to make it more equitable.

It's all such a shame. Polanski is certainly one of the best of our generation. Great movies...crappy morals....extravagant sense of entitlement.

Posted by: BrianTRaven | September 27, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I was hoping against hope the post would not have an article defending, excusing and lionizing this rapist.

But, sadly, here it is.

The post truly has lost all credibility.

Posted by: MYSTICMOUSE44 | September 27, 2009 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I appreciate the other posters here who have called out this obvious fawning over a celebrity for what it is. An unrepentant criminal who has managed to evade the law and has failed to pay his debt to society for raping a child.

Posted by: kphil1 | September 27, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

He plead guilty to non-forcible intercourse with a minor. Sounds like he was lucky to get that plea deal. Let the punishment (and mitigating circumstances if any) fit the crime.

Posted by: NYCman | September 27, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

As long as you're rich and famous and can flee to another country for a long enough period of time, then you too can become the victim, instead of the 13 year girl you drugged and raped.

I'm not saying he should die in prison, but he should stand in a court of law and account for his crimes. If a judge sees extenuating circumstances that lead to his release, then that's for the judge to decide, not Mr. Polanski.

And he certainly has not paid any price for what he did, as the op-ed writer claims. He has lived the life of a celebrity in a country that has shielded him by lack of an extradition treaty. This does not fit his crime.

Posted by: lostjesuit | September 27, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Mam, you really need some counseling. Glad you feel that if someone rapes a 13 year old its all okay so long as the rapist flees the country for 30 years. If you feel so strongly you should let Polanski stay with your 13 year old daughter (if you have one). Just make sure to leave the heater on in the hot tub and not lock the liquor cabinet. He plead GUILTY (and if the newspaper article days are correct the "misconduct" by the judge didn't occur until AFTER he ADMITTED to RAPING a 13 year old LITTLE GIRL. You must be doing this just to get attention.

Posted by: freshsobo | September 27, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Are you forgetting that he raped a 13 year old girl? If this had happened to you or your child and the authorities said "forget it, he's a famous director and public opinion is on his side, so let's drop it", how would you feel?

Posted by: Quenn | September 27, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

no clemency! short-eyes should fry.

Posted by: senatorblbo | September 27, 2009 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Short-eyes should fry.

Posted by: senatorblbo | September 27, 2009 9:47 PM | Report abuse


Why doesn't this author use the same rationale to excuse/explain away the charges against Demjanjuk?

Posted by: Xavisev | September 27, 2009 9:52 PM | Report abuse


Oh now I understand...it's Yom Kippur so the author must be in a forgiving mood.

Posted by: Xavisev | September 27, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised there's only one quick comment here alluding to the fact that Applebaum's husband is Polish, and that Applebaum too lived in Warsaw. I wonder if Polanski's a family friend. We should all have a big-name columnist to have our backs in the media.

That said, I wish people would develop a more informed and deeper view of this subject. Pedophiles don't just "happen". Most of the time they themselves were victimized as kids. Some compassion is in order. Instead, we heap all of our own projected evils onto these handy scapegoats and scream to have them drawn and quartered. Then we feel so good about ourselves.

These people need to be watched, and others (parents and kids) need to know about them, and the kids warned to stear clear. But they are not monsters. They are human beings. There but for the grace of fate (God, chance, whatever you will) go YOU. If YOU had been messed with as a kid, YOU would be struggling to find a place in your head to put it all. YOU would be struggling with all the fallout of such an experience. YOU would be dealing with urges to re-enact. YOU. Yes, I'm talking about YOU.

Now how do you feel about the "monsters"? Life is messy when you don't have any 100% cut-and-dried scapegoats, ain't it?

Posted by: B2O2 | September 27, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh now I understand...it's Yom Kippur so the author must be in a forgiving mood.

Posted by: Xavisev
----------------------------
Err...no. Not unless she's a Christian/Catholic. They forgive people for crimes they commit against others. They also forgive themselves for the same.

That way, they get to do them again and again. Like Mikey Jackson. RIP

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Shorter version....Polanski is a "good" LEFTIST and everyone know that we don't have to follow the laws. That is for you conservatives and the rest of America.

There is really two Americas, the one inhabited by Leftists who are to get a pass for all manner of criminal and unethical behavior because they hold the "proper" political views and the other America in which everyone is guilty until exonerated as innocent by the Leftist.

Posted by: LogicalSC | September 27, 2009 10:02 PM | Report abuse

This seemed a little odd to me when I heard it too. If this judge stakes out a hospital in the inner city for a month he will find dozens of underage girls giving birth. If he is interested in this type of case it seems like he could pursue a more recent case.

Posted by: alstl | September 27, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

To those who somehow want to give this guy a pass because Catholic priests got a pass from the Vatican, or draw some sort of equivalency: PROSECUTE ALL OF THEM! Polanski and the priests share in the same disgraceful advantage-taking of youngsters. Pedophilia. For these acts we have prisons.

Posted by: CraiginJersey | September 27, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

There but for the grace of God go YOU, not ME. The monsters should be institutionalized for life.

Posted by: CraiginJersey | September 27, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Whoa! LogicalSC says that "Polanski is a 'good' LEFTIST and everyone know that we don't have to follow the laws. That is for you conservatives and the rest of America." That's a big stretch after eight lawless years of George W. Bush who paid absolutely nothing for his dozens and dozens and dozens of crimes. If the "SC" refers to South Carolina, that might explain why you're completely nuts.

Posted by: rbmurals | September 27, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION LYNCH MOB:

Before you bring your rope to the field, suggest you click on the WAPO front page and read the two articles on the case:

And I quote:

"The arrest outraged the government of France, which has declined to extradite Polanski since he fled to his native land in 1978, after a Los Angeles judge signaled he would scotch a plea agreement in the sex case."

Now, Mobsters, do you see why Polanski's attorneys have been requesting an investigation for decades?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, may I call you Anne? Thank you Anne.

First off Anne, I'd like to thank you for mentioning Auschwitz in your article. It allows me to invoke a corollary to Godwin's Law, with any future references to Nazi's falling back to your shoulders.

Now for your money quote.

"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all."

So Anne, should we not have bothered to go after O.J. Simpson? How about Phil Spector? Alex Kozinski of Tyco? Kenneth Lay of Enron? Benito Mussolini? Hideki Tojo? Adolph Hitler (you knew I'd get around to him, didn't you Anne?)?

And back to your Holocaust tie-in. Bill Wyman in Salon (http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/) slices like a hammer: "I think it's true to say that there are many people who survived the Holocaust who don't drug and rape children..."

Email me Anne, I'm not like the others.

Posted by: dhorton1 | September 27, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

The only outrageous part of this arrest is how long it took to get him. As for Applebaum's advocacy, what else would you expect but the usual arrogance, she thinks he's some kind of genious, part of the superrace and above human law, and the minor should be grateful for her lucky experience.

Posted by: likovid | September 27, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

dhorton1

"I think it's true to say that there are many people who survived the Holocaust who don't drug and rape children..."
---------------------
Quite so. And then there are many who raped, murdered children, adults, in the Holocaust and went on to live out their lives in luxury.

And then there are the Holocaust priests, Vatican Bank, the Swiss banks, which still have blood money from victims, etc.
-----------------
In the meantime, suggest you learn the facts of the case. You can keep your lynch rope nearby as you read the articles on WAPO's front page.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 10:25 PM | Report abuse

"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all", so said Ms. Applebaum.

Perhaps it is true. But then let's examine the implications of that column in general and that statement in particular.

1. If you are poor and cannot afford to flee, then surely you ought to be prosecuted for statutory rape. Not only that, no columnist will ever write anything about you.

2. If you are rich and famous, could afford and did, flee, well after some period of time, you should not be "bothered" any more especially if you are rich and famous enough to "exile" from the country where the offense took place for all that time. Never mind you were not living in poverty even though your career, unrelated to the charge, has not really suffered that much except you can no longer work or be honored in that wonderful movie land.

3. What does that say about protecting underage boys and girls? By the way, have we as a society already established that these underage boys and girls are worth protecting yet?

Will someone please enlitghten me? Personally, I am neutral about the whole thing but I think Polanski deserves that much support from his arrest.

Posted by: steviana | September 27, 2009 10:25 PM | Report abuse

I seriously hope that the Swiss do the right thing and send Polanski back to the US to face justice for the crime that he pleaded "guilty" to. Ann, you're a disgrace to the profession of journalism. How can you defend a man who raped a 13 year old girl? What you wrote here just completely boggles my mind. Polanski deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for this rape.

Posted by: liberalsareblind | September 27, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum is the anti-feminist who supports the POst's smug sexism.

Polanski can be blamed for fleeing? How about the statutory rape of a minor?

The victim "has forgiven" him? Don't all incest vicitims offer the same forgiveness to adults who maliciously abused them?

Please keep this woman away from a typewriter - or at least don't publish her anti-American woman writings!

This is unforgiveable and will be sent to other women to reject this writer and this journal publicly.

Posted by: mgd1 | September 27, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Farnaz1Mansouri1,

France doesn't allow extradition from their country. Period.

Polanski could have shot the Pope in the middle of Times Square at High Noon, with his Director of Photography shooting from five different angles simultaneously, using 70 mm film with Dolby SurroundSound audio, with the event being broadcasted by the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News to all corners of the globe, then flee to France, and the French still would not extradite him.

Posted by: dhorton1 | September 27, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

there are valid reasons polanski fled.
1. he was informed by his lawyer that the judge would not honor the original plea agreement after he was done serving his initial mental observation sentence.
2. he was not a u.s. citizen (i.e. he was an alien) and he would be deported after he had served his sentence.

so being a french citizen, he fled to france after his initial sentence was completed.

i make no judgment's concerning the original charges, so save your breath.
i'm only pointing out the fact that the judge was not going to hold up his end of the plea agreement. that fact provided the impetus for this case to linger on these many years.

Posted by: surlydoc | September 27, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

So, by Appelbaum's logic, the Nazi concentration camp guards should not be prosecuted because it's been an even longer time than since Polanski's crime, and some victims have shown forgiveness.

Posted by: bills3 | September 27, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

"Anne, just what problem do you have with the rule of law?
Posted by: moosejerky"

He and others screaming Rule of Law ignore that there are over 10 million "statutory rapes" in the USA each year.

Rule of Law is crap if it means all of that is ignored, as well as murder conviction rates under 6% in places like Philadephia for lack of resources.
The law must be applied fairly and equally if it is to have any meaning. Because of Polanski's celebrity nature...he was the rare person singled out.

Prosecutors ignore "statutory rape" as much as possible. So do hospitals when some 'ho between 12 and 15 shows up pregnant. And schools. And feminists, when the knocked up 12-15 year old shows up for an abortion.
Each year, 100,000s of these cases are ignored...something all the people worked up in a self-righteous lather about Polanski ignore.
We don't have the legal resources to do what the lynch mob typified here wants. And many believe that grinding a young teen through years in the criminal justice system as an involuntary witness is damaging to the girl and society.

I remember reading two stats.
60% of the black girls between age 12 and 15 in Jacksonville Florida had already had sex. Many with full adults.
And estimates are that in the State of California, 32% of the living male population is estimated to have at least one sexual encounter that would justify being prosecuted for statutory rape.

A law not followed, at best enforced unfairly and capriciously is worse than no law at all.
It would be analogous to only 3% of people exceeding 55 mph being fined - or 7 million people. And then of the 7 million, finding 19 people were not fined but hammered by a judge because they were black in a BMW, a celebrity, or had other convictions..and were sentenced to the alternate 3 months in jail.
....then people smugly saying that the 19 had a choice...even though they were behaving like a substantial part of the population.they DESERVED the 3 months in jail because that is the law.

And that 200 million others behaving the same way is irrelevant. And that 7 million being fined rather than be jailed is irrelevant. And being a celebrity or an uppity black in a BMW being singled out is irrelevant..because 55 is the limit, they were in violation and speeding, and being singled out is not excuse or cause for sympathy. Because...Rule of Law!! Hail the Law!!

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | September 27, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum is kidding, right? Is Polanski any different than the Catholic priests that have been prosecuted? So, is she saying it is okay to skip the country and avoid punishment. And because your victim forgives you then all is okay and you should go free?
Sick article.

Posted by: paris1969 | September 27, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

dhorton1

"France doesn't allow extradition from their country. Period."

Wrong, as in factually in error. It most certainly does allow extradition, most recently in the case of Alaattin Cakici.it did not work with the US government in the Polanski case on moral grounds.

Second, you don't have the facts, and you will want all those available in order for you to have an informed opinion. Suggest you being by reading the two articles on WaPo's front page.

He can always be hung after you've finished reading.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 10:46 PM | Report abuse

The real story would be why Applebaum protects this man and ignores the justice system. Gotta be a prejudice....

We have courts for reasons. This writer's whining is simply more reason to bring Polanski in front of a judge for sentencing, which he skipped out on. The idea that a columnist could affect jurisprudence is offensive, let the judge decide what is proper.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | September 27, 2009 10:48 PM | Report abuse

And Anne, thanks for letting your readers know that your husband is Radoslaw Sikorski.

For those of you who don't know, Radoslaw Sikorski is a Polish Foreign Minister who is lobbying to have Polanski's case dismissed (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1503454.php/Director-Roman-Polanski-arrested-in-Switzerland-Roundup).

Washington Post Commenters: Doing the full disclosure on Washington Post articles that Washington Post writers and editors won't do.

Posted by: dhorton1 | September 27, 2009 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum's husband isn't merely Polish. He is a Polish politician who is actively lobbying for Polanski's freedom. I have the details at my blog here: http://bit.ly/31GmQB.

Applebaum should have disclosed this conflict of interest.

Posted by: Patterico | September 27, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Anne,

First of all--Polanski did not panic during his trial. He plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for dropping the rape and sodomy charges and was formally covicted. He fled before his sentence.

Second, he clearly knew the girl's age (13) because her mother told him, she told him and it was in the paperwork he sent her.

And the fact that you do not disclose that you are married to Radoslaw Sikorski just reveals your base dishonesty.

Very disappointed in the Washinton Post. Not in you though.....that you support a child rapist out of convenience is no real surprise.

Posted by: KHauser | September 27, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

"If he weren't famous..." That is precisely the point - he is not above the law because he's famous.

If it were my 13yr old who was drugged and raped by this miscreant, I would be on trial for manslaughter.

Your logic is bizarre.

Posted by: Tgoncharof | September 27, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Anne, on second thought, you're right.

If a man who is famous, connected and artistically-bent can't drug and rape a 13 year old in LOS ANGELES for Pete's sake, who is going to be able to drug and rape young children anywhere????

It is so good that we have you inside-the-Beltway types to teach us yokels out here in the Heartland the ways of superior morality.

Excuse me while I go vomit.


Posted by: KHauser | September 27, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Waste of judicial and prison resources. The Romans used to exile people for certain crimes. Cheaper than jail. This guy has been exiled for 30 years.

He should pay a fine of a couple of million to the victim and that's it. Since she is the one who suffered and no one else would remember this case if it didn't keep popping up in the press, justice will be served if the victim is adequately compensated.

Posted by: Matthew_DC | September 27, 2009 11:04 PM | Report abuse

The real story would be why Applebaum protects this man and ignores the justice system. Gotta be a prejudice....

We have courts for reasons. This writer's whining is simply more reason to bring Polanski in front of a judge for sentencing, which he skipped out on. The idea that a columnist could affect jurisprudence is offensive, let the judge decide what is proper.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | September 27, 2009 10:48 PM | Report abuse
---------------------------
Dick Face,

As always, the prejudice is only yours. Suggest you get mommie to read you the two articles on the case, appearing on the front page. Mommie will click the mousie for you, dickie.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:05 PM | Report abuse

What the hell does she mean outrageous!?!

Polanski fed a 13 year old girl champagne and Quualude, and then raped and sodomized her.

And then plead guilty and FLED the country to avoid punishment.

Outrageous mt ARSE!
What is outrageous is Applebaum's column.

Posted by: glezzery1 | September 27, 2009 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow just...wow!

Posted by: Vienna8425 | September 27, 2009 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Does Ms. Applebaum care to disclose how much of Roman Polanski's money went into her husband's, Polish politician Radoslaw Sokowrski, bank account and by joint ownership or transfer into her bank account?

Posted by: njkrit | September 27, 2009 11:06 PM | Report abuse

This is so funny. I figured the talk about her being married to a polish politician was a joke, but it's not. You can read that for yourself by her.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301530.html

Anne, are your views biased in anyway?

Posted by: cmastr | September 27, 2009 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Does Ms. Applebaum care to disclose how much of Roman Polanski's money went into her husband's, Polish politician Radoslaw Sokowrski, bank account and by joint ownership or transfer into her bank account?

Posted by: njkrit
---------------------
Why don't you tell us? And while you're about making false accusations, how about telling us the truth? For example, how much did Polanski pay out to the victim?

And why did the judge decide he wouldn't honor the plea agreement worked out by Polanski's attorney and the D.A.?

And why have Polanski's attorneys been unable to get the investigation into judicial misconduct that they've been requesting for years?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

LYNCH MOB:

He worked out a plea agreement, get it? Do you morons honestly believe that means he's guilty of anything?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Polanski arrested by Swuss?
Good! Now if they'll just hand over ALL of them thar fifty thousand or so, tax evaders' names and accounts as well.

Posted by: abelito | September 27, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Farnaz- He pled guilty to a crime. He needs to pay the price. If his lawyers have questions about his plea deal, let them ask those questions in court. Again, he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. You don't need to have "mommie" click on any front page articles to know that drugging and anally raping a 13 year old is wrong.

Posted by: pathelms | September 27, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Farnaz,

Follow linky:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

That's a copy of the victim's Grand Jury testimony. By the by, the victim is Samantha Geimer, not Roman Polanski.

Posted by: dhorton1 | September 27, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Farnaz, he worked out a plea agreement. Let him uphold his end of the deal.

Posted by: pathelms | September 27, 2009 11:18 PM | Report abuse

This is one of the most troubling articles I have read in 30 years of reading the Washington Post. Vouching for the character of a man who sodomized a 13-year-old. Then not disclosing a possible conflict of interest involving him.

This cannot be Katherine Graham's Washington Post.

Just shaking my head. Very sad that this was allowed to appear in print under the Post's banner. I can't take anything written under this person's byline seriously going forward. And I'm starting to wonder if I can continue to trust the editorial judgment of this newspaper.

Posted by: Route1 | September 27, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Just fling open all the prison doors! I'm sure all the convicted rapists have a sob story. Or maybe Roman Polanski is some Ubermensch who's above the law.

Posted by: philmphile | September 27, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Route1,

Kathrine Graham's Washington Post died with her retirement. This is a rag, although I don't think this column is reprentative of WaPo's decline.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Lynch Mob?

For Roman Polanski?

Hell yes. Count me in!

Posted by: KHauser | September 27, 2009 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Farnaz, he worked out a plea agreement. Let him uphold his end of the deal.

Posted by: pathelms
--------------------------
The "judge" let it be known that he wouldn't honor it. Hence, he fled. Read the articles on WaPo's front page. There are others all over the web.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Gee Ann, if it wasn't Mr. Polanski- say it was Mr.Rahman. Would you be so sympathetic?

Posted by: wturecki | September 27, 2009 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Come on Ann! Are you so enlightened that you just can't bring yourself to stand up for other 13 yo girls who may befall the same fate? Just because he's a personal favorite of yours does not make him any less of a rapist. The WAPO is scrapping the bottom of the barrel again.

Posted by: MDDem1 | September 27, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Farnaz,

Follow linky:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

That's a copy of the victim's Grand Jury testimony. By the by, the victim is Samantha Geimer, not Roman Polanski.
Posted by: dhorton1

-----------------------------------------
Now, Dear,

Could you follow the linky you posted? Ask mommie--she'll help.

THEN HAVE HER READ IT TOO YOU.

For starters, who had the Qualudes?

Who is leading whom in testimony?

Thnx for the link. Now read.

Wrong again, friend. Just as you were about France.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Gee Ann, if it wasn't Mr. Polanski- say it was Mr.Rahman. Would you be so sympathetic?

Posted by: wturecki
----------------------
Well, gee, Drecki, why wouldn't she be?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Applebaum,

Sadly, it is beyond my poor powers of expression, and indeed probably beyond the capacity of the English language, to adequately express my loathing and contempt for your opinion on this matter and the mind set it represents.

It would be something you should be ashamed of, but you have obviously long lost your capacity for shame.

Posted by: vanderleun | September 27, 2009 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum:

Why didn't you disclose that your husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, is a Polish politician who is lobbying for Polanski's release?

Also, how much of this column did your husband write?

Posted by: chakaman | September 27, 2009 11:41 PM | Report abuse

"There is evidence that he did not know her age." Excuse me! Ms. Appelbaum, did you ever hear of statutory rape? Did you know, that not knowing someone's age does not mitigate the reasons for the crime. So, are you implying that it would be OK to rape a person, providing that the raped person is of legal age-- which I believe is 18 years old?

I believe under normal circumstances, under current criminal law, Mr. Polanski would be considered guilty. However, since that rape ocurred more than thirty years ago, and all parties agreed to a settlement, the judge should not have renegade on his agreement to dismiss the case. That was dishonorable. Thus, Mr. Polanski should not go to prison.

I also agree that to send a person who is 76 years old to prison, who otherwise seems to be a good citizen, seems cruel, especially, since he has already suffered tremendous pain and loss in his life by being a victim of the Manson Family and by being one Hitler's victims.

Posted by: fridaolay | September 27, 2009 11:43 PM | Report abuse


According to the French press- Madame Appelbaum's husband Radoslaw Sokowrski (Foreign Minister of Poland) is teaming up with French Foreign Minister Mitterrand in order to intervene on behalf of Polanski.

Posted by: Xavisev | September 27, 2009 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Ann,comments on this page are running 99.9 to .1 against you. You are so way off base on this. Giving a 13 year old hallucinogenic drugs and raping her and you think its something to sweep under the rug ? are you insane ?.

Posted by: snapplecat07 | September 27, 2009 11:47 PM | Report abuse

"There is evidence that he did not know her age."

Anne's right about that. The girl looked every bit of 14.

Posted by: KHauser | September 27, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

The only relevent fact in this case is the testimony of the victim, who says that she does not want this prosecution to be pursued. That should be the end of it. Any opinion to the contrary ignores the wishes of the victim and is unacceptable.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | September 27, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse

According to the French press- Madame Appelbaum's husband Radoslaw Sokowrski (Foreign Minister of Poland) is teaming up with French Foreign Minister Mitterrand in order to intervene on behalf of Polanski.

Posted by: Xavisev
---------------------
Good to know. France has been steadfast in its refusal to surrender Polanski due to irregularities in the case. Mitterand has commented at length. So has Poland, surprisingly enough. One columnist's husband could not have made that happen.

Integrity, as in the cases of France and Poland, often comes from surprising places.

Too bad, Mrs. Greimer was on qualudes. If she hadn't been, perhaps neither Polanski nor her daughter would have ingested them.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Anne and Roman are both Jewish and from Poland. Is there bias here?

Posted by: stevebenassi | September 27, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Here is another proof, you can not run forever, but!
Yes, a little "but" 4x:
why Polanski?
why now?
why Switzerland?
why not, for example, BinLaden instead?
Ann, I think you have a good point!

Posted by: abc7 | September 27, 2009 11:55 PM | Report abuse

And just like that (snaps fingers) Anne Applebaum's credibility is gone. Poof. Adios. Nada.

Husband a lobbyist for Polansky indeed.

Posted by: pabarge | September 27, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

"There must be some deeper story here ..."

Well, give Anne Applebaum credit for having a sense of irony. Her right-wing spidey sense must be tingling, as the "deeper story" is the fear many neocons like Applebaum have that their idols (Kissinger, Doug Feith, Cheney, etc.) could face similar fates for the war crimes they're currently being tried for in a few EU nations. Once convicted, like Kissinger (and make no mistake - these men are guilty of war crimes, by their own admissions), if they ever set foot in a European nation that respects the rule of law - it'll be Polanski, but with broader consequences.

But the other posters are wasting their breath on Anne Applebaum - remember, folks: being a right-wing Republican means never having to say you're sorry. Besides, people with no moral compass, a total disregard for the law, and a sadistic passion for causing harm can't think of anything they should be sorry for.

Posted by: mateosf | September 27, 2009 11:59 PM | Report abuse

>Farnaz

Now, Dear,

Could you follow the linky you posted? Ask mommie--she'll help.

THEN HAVE HER READ IT TOO YOU.

For starters, who had the Qualudes?

Who is leading whom in testimony?

Thnx for the link. Now read.

Wrong again, friend. Just as you were about France.<

I read it. I come to the same conclusion as before. He had sex with a 13 year old girl. Realized he had broken the law, couldn't take the chance of doing jail time for it, and fled the country. All the Swiss did was apprehend a fugutive. He might do time if he appears before a judge, or the government might figure out a way to let the scumbag walk. Amazes me that some folks defend him.

Posted by: cmastr | September 28, 2009 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Your entire article is pretty disgusting since the guy plead guilty to this abhorrent crime. You, as a woman, should be ashamed of yourself for writing such an article. Even if the woman forgave him, it had to do much psychological harm to her over the years. Plus it was a CRIME. There are NO statutes of limitations prosecuting someone for raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old child. Shame on you!!

Posted by: Tarheelz1 | September 28, 2009 12:02 AM | Report abuse

I read it. I come to the same conclusion as before. He had sex with a 13 year old girl. Realized he had broken the law, couldn't take the chance of doing jail time for it, and fled the country. All the Swiss did was apprehend a fugutive. He might do time if he appears before a judge, or the government might figure out a way to let the scumbag walk. Amazes me that some folks defend him.

Posted by: cmastr | September 28, 2009 12:00 AM | Report abuse
--------------------------
Then, again, the qualudes belonged to the girl's mother. He didn't know what they were, and didn't force her to take them.

The DA repeatedly asked leading questions.

A plea agreement was reached but breached by the judge.

The French would not allow extradition due to this and other irregularities in the case.

Peruse the web. Email friends abroad. We are not winning friends and influencing people. Demonstrations on behalf of Polanski are being planned in Europe and right here, in the good old US.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Unbelievable.
Law? Justice? Nah. Not in Judge Applebaum's courtroom.
Unvelievable. Did I mention, unbelievable?

Posted by: streff | September 28, 2009 12:04 AM | Report abuse

What does the Holocaust have to do with committing a felony of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl? Appelbaum would be singing a different song if her daughter was the victim. Disgusting!

Posted by: Hwyman | September 28, 2009 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Anne and Roman are both Jewish and from Poland. Is there bias here?

Posted by: stevebenassi | September 27, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse
------------------------
Only on your part SteveBenazi.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, You are NOT doing Mr. Polanski any favors with this article. Next time you to try to be an advocate for someone else, try to use some logic. Saying that Mr. Polanski did not know that the victim was underage, illicits more anger than sympathy for Mr.Polanski. Next time use more common sense. Rape is never OK, regardless, of a person's age. Think of a better defense for Mr. Polanski, if you wish to help him.

Posted by: fridaolay | September 28, 2009 12:09 AM | Report abuse

>Then, again, the qualudes belonged to the girl's mother. He didn't know what they were, and didn't force her to take them.

The DA repeatedly asked leading questions.

A plea agreement was reached but breached by the judge.

The French would not allow extradition due to this and other irregularities in the case.

Peruse the web. Email friends abroad. We are not winning friends and influencing people. Demonstrations on behalf of Polanski are being planned in Europe and right here, in the good old US.<

I've perused the web quite a bit, have read this story before, and it's always the same. Did Polanski have sex with a young girl? Yes. Was this young girl 13? Yes. Did Polanski have sex with a 13 year old girl? Yes. Were drugs involved? Yes. Does that excuse Polanski having sex with a 13 year old girl? No.

Posted by: cmastr | September 28, 2009 12:10 AM | Report abuse

fridaolay:

I have to agree. See my posts, if you would. There are compelling reasons to believe that Polanski did not have a fair trial, that there was judicial misconduct.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Anne
If you had a young child seduced by an older guy what would you say?
Groovy, he's a Holocaust survivor,an artist. Stop crying!

Posted by: beecheery | September 28, 2009 12:15 AM | Report abuse

cmastr:

Does that excuse Polanski having sex with a 13 year old girl? No.
------------------------
It doesn't excuse him, you are correct. But that is not the issue before us. The issue is judicial misconduct, why no investigation has yet been made, etc.

To avoid that investigation, they will probably work out yet another deal. Frankly, I'd like to see the judge exposed, all the facts out.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Farnaz...who CARES where the quaaludes came from. It doesn't alter the fact that the guy raped and sodomized a child. Are you a pedophile, too? I'm beginning to wonder.

Posted by: Tarheelz1 | September 28, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Ann, this is a ridiculous post especially coming from a woman. You are just a hypocrite.

Polanski is a coward. Not only did he commit the crime, he ran away and has been hiding in France for last 30 years. Polanski should be brought here and face the consequences of his crime.

Posted by: kisna | September 28, 2009 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Farnaz...who CARES where the quaaludes came from. It doesn't alter the fact that the guy raped and sodomized a child. Are you a pedophile, too? I'm beginning to wonder.

Posted by: Tarheelz1
========================
Unlike Mrs. Greimer, and no doubt your depraved self, I do not allow my daughter to be in the company of men I don't know who are three times her age. I would not care if they said they would cast her opposite God in the next great Apocalyptic Hollywood production.

I do not, unlike her, and I assume you, keep Qualudes in my home.

My daughter is not running around having sex. Period.
------------
That said, I'm not defending him. I'm asking about the trial, judicial misconduct, etc.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Polanski is a coward. Not only did he commit the crime, he ran away and has been hiding in France for last 30 years. Polanski should be brought here and face the consequences of his crime.

Posted by: kisna |
-------------------
Not at all. He's been highly visible in France and in other parts of Europe since 1978.

The French refused to allow extradition due to irregularities in his trial.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 12:22 AM | Report abuse

>That said, I'm not defending him. I'm asking about the trial, judicial misconduct, etc.<

Lawyer talk for "Yep, he did it, guilty as can be, he had sex with the young girl, but we can get him out of it."

Posted by: cmastr | September 28, 2009 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Farnaz...it is YOU who keeps referring to quaaludes in your numerous posts. It is YOU who keeps defending an admitted pedophile. Conclusion: You must be a quaalude-using child rapist.

Posted by: Tarheelz1 | September 28, 2009 12:28 AM | Report abuse

WaPo Columnist Has Undisclosed Conflict of Interest on Roman Polanski Matter
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: StewartIII | September 28, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Anne, your article is dishonest tripe, and your employment here is a disgrace to the Washington Post:

In Polanski’s native Poland, President Lech Kaczynski and Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said they would appeal to US authorities to drop proceedings against Polanski.

The PAP news agency said Sikorski was consideri[ng] a direct appeal to US President Barack Obama to end ‘once and for all’ the proceedings against the filmmaker.

Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum:

Anne Applebaum is a columnist for the Washington Post and Slate. . . . Her husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, is a Polish politician and writer.

Source: Patterico

You should be fired for this outrageous ethical breach.

Posted by: randomguy2 | September 28, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

HUH! So what if Polanski is a Jew and Sharon Tate was his wife. Statutory rape is still a crime. If the girl had not been drugged and raped he "MIGHT" have a case but he fled the country, he must stand before the court.
BTW, Anne Applebaum was also 13 when the rape took place. I wonder if she would be so understanding if some columnist was so caviler to the fact she was drugged and raped?

Posted by: knjincvc | September 28, 2009 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Hey Anne

Be sure and sign your 13 year old daughter up for anal sodomy with a 44 year old who gives her alcohol and quaaludes.

Then write about outrage all you want.

Posted by: EnoughISEnough | September 28, 2009 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I'd forgotten how much Democrats like small girls. Acorn reminded me, and the defenders of child rape here as well.

Posted by: robtay12003 | September 28, 2009 12:34 AM | Report abuse

When a 45-year old "forgives" the person who raped her when she was 13, it does not count. Think it about it: the logic of statutory rape is that the youngster does not have the faculties to give true consent. Her older self does have those faculties. One cannot impart one's mature faculties in the present to one's immature self in the past.

Second, "forgiveness" assumes guilt. I can only forgive those who wrong me. But "forgiveness" is not a legal category in criminal law. For in criminal law it is the state that is prosecuting, not the victim. If, for example, all the survivors of the Holocaust forgave the Nazis, does that now mean that the living perpetrators should not be prosecuted and punished? Sometimes victims are not in the best position to determine what is in the interest of the common good, precisely because they are victims. They have to deal with issues--including anger, forgiveness, grief, etc.--that should be of no interest to a state prosecuting crimes. Forgiveness may be good for the soul. But it is rarely good for the community, since it treats grave offenses against the common good as if they were no different than minor indiscretions.

Raping a 13-year-old is evil, and does not become less evil because your wife was murdered by Charles Manson and you survived the Holocaust.

Nobody wishes for Mr. Polanski anything more than what his just punishment should be. And it should be at least as much as these guys who get caught on NBC's "To Catch a Predator." These guys get multi-year prison sentences for just showing up at a minor's house after email exchanges with him or her. Mr. Polanski actually did the deed, and didn't have Chris Hansen to intercede. Rather, he was stoned in Jack Nicholson's house. And these poor suckers who get caught by Hansen (and clearly deserve what they get) probably won't ever vacation on the French Riviera with Hollywood and real royalty and don't have Ann Applebaum and her Polish husband working feverishly on their behalf.

Posted by: fbeckwith | September 28, 2009 12:36 AM | Report abuse

He pled guilty to the sodomization (anal rape) of a 13 year old girl - regardless of the circumstances surrounding the trial, those are the facts, even if she forgives him or not. He fled after conviction and prior to sentencing - and there is no statute of limitations for conviction.

Those of you who are arguing based upon the "inconsistencies" of his original trial are arguing that petty details and minutiae somehow trump the uncontested facts.

Posted by: weimerrj | September 28, 2009 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum ENDORSED OBAMA in 2008.

Give her some credit mateosf, she's at worst a mild-free market believer. She's hardly the horrible right winger you seem to believe she is.

Granted, I still totally disagree with her on a lot of points. But she's totally right about this Polanski thing. Polanski is a man who had the courage to speak out against George Bush a number of times and we should give him some credit for that. It's sad that so many so called progressives have latched onto american anti-sex puritanical beliefs - having sexual desires at 13 is totally natural and we should drop this evangelical christian belief that kids don't want to have sex (Hello Palin!).

Posted by: brucecarson2008 | September 28, 2009 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Democrats have been reduced to smelly, morally-bankrupt, anything-goes deviants who love to brag about their "open-mindedness." Nothing is off limits to them, including our children. I hate them with every fibre of my being.

Posted by: robtay12003 | September 28, 2009 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Polanski did not know the girl was under aged?
Paaleeze!
Thirty years ago there were laws governing the number of hours a minor could work in the USA.
When was the last time Polanski hired someone for a film and didn't inquire about a young girls age?
Did he hire a person of age to play a part fit for a 13 year old?
If Polanski could not physically see the girl was a minor then he might have a case for diminished capacity but Applebaum should not be carrying water for this rapist.

Posted by: knjincvc | September 28, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

This is a dreadful opinion. I don't know where to begin.

"The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children."

This was not just a crime against the victim. Penal crimes never are. It's not the victim that locks up a perp; it's all of us.

"There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial."

Too bad. The time to argue that was 31 years ago, when courts would have been more receptive to these arguments anyway.

"There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age."

That means zilch under the law, especially if she was drugged. Any reasonable person who has seen pictures of this girl at 13 could not possibly think that she was of age.

"...and has never been convicted of anything else."

So what?

"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."

Oh boo hoo. He has not paid his debt to society. And I don't even like Nancy Grace. I'm sorry that he lost family in the Holocaust and I'm sorry that the Manson nuts killed the mother of his would-be children. I really am. (In a just would, all the perpetrators of these crimes would have been executed long ago.) But that doesn't give someone license to drug a 13-year old and have sex with her.

Posted by: HookInMouth | September 28, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum seems not to fully understand how plea bargains work. Polanski pleaded guilty to statutory rape in order to avoid prosecution for forcible rape, sodomy and oral copulation. The victim's testimony describes an incident in which she was plied with alcohol and drugs and, when those apparently didn't work, Polanski resorted to force to get what he wanted.

The lack of consent often being hard to prove, especially where intoxicated victims are involved, and with the desire to avoid public humiliation of the victim, it is probably not surprising that the prosecutor was willing to drop other charges in favor of a guilty plea on the statutory rape of a 13-year-old. That doesn't mean that he was innocent of the other crimes or that he should be allowed to escape punishment for the one that he admitted.

The statutory rape of a 17-year-old girl by an 18-year-old boy is certainly an absurd thing to treat as a crime. The statutory rape of a 13-year-old by a man in his 40s who uses drugs to lower her inhibitions is another thing and is a crime in every state that I'm aware of. Since that is what he was convicted of, that (and his flight to evade punishment) should be the basis of his sentence, but let's not pretend that we're not aware that there is evidence that he did something much more serious.

At root, the reason Ms. Applebaum feels that Polanski's arrest is outrageous is probably the same one that motivates most of his other defenders. Polanski was an important artist, while the victim was just some naive young girl of questionable morals. Such treatment of a young girl as a disposable commodity is what is outrageous and contemptible.

Posted by: dcp123 | September 28, 2009 12:50 AM | Report abuse

From a news article in today's Washington Post:

"Meanwhile, Poland and France intend to make a joint appeal to Switzerland and the United States to have Polanski released from his detention, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish news agency PAP. Sikorski said he and French counterpart Bernard Kouchner also plan to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer Polanski clemency."

FACT: Radek Sikorsky is Anne Applebaum's husband.

The Washington Post's ombudsman should look into Ms. Applebaum's failure to state a conflict of interest in the Polanski case.

Posted by: spbphil | September 28, 2009 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Farnaz...it is YOU who keeps referring to quaaludes in your numerous posts. It is YOU who keeps defending an admitted pedophile. Conclusion: You must be a quaalude-using child rapist.

Posted by: Tarheelz1
-------------------
The qualudes, etc., have been mentioned frequently on this thread.

The facts:

Fance, not Poland, has since 1978, refused to allow extradition of Polanski due to "irregularities in his trial."

His attorney reached a plea agreement with the D.A.

The judge let it be known that he would not honor it.

Polanski sought asylum in France. Was given it.

His attorneys have been requesting an investigation for judicial misconduct for decades.
------------------
I think that it may be a very good thing that this has happened. The doors will swing open, the investigation into the first trial will have to be held, we will learn much more about what actually occurred.

Meanwhile, we get to watch ourselves again looking like idiots as people all over Europe hold demonstrations on Polanski's behalf.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:02 AM | Report abuse

WTF? What is this article about? The man had sex with a 13 year old. Ignorance of age, if in fact he was ignorant, is not a defense to statutory rape.

Anne is a fool. She says don't arrest this man now because he is old and has suffered. How has he suffered? By living a wealthly lifestyle abroad? He is old because he has been hiding all these years. He could have face up to things a long time ago.

This article is yet more crap from Annie Apples.

Posted by: comeonpeople | September 28, 2009 1:05 AM | Report abuse

So this is what the WaPo op-ed section has come to.. failed Bushies and trolls. One hopes that the Post's declining readership will decline all the way to 0, and the Post will do the world a favor and fold.

Posted by: john65001 | September 28, 2009 1:06 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Anne's husband . If I am paid I will work for his release like he is doing .

Posted by: borntoraisehogs | September 28, 2009 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps for the first time in my life, I agree with the government of France.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm surprised no one has brought up the bizarre and misguided actions of the judge in this case. People seem to think that Polanski fled the country without serving time. But the fact is that the judge coerced both prosecutor and defense attorneys to accept his particular plea bargain, a de facto jail term by way of extended psychiatric exam.

Polanski surrendered himself and served that jail time, getting off for good behavior in 42 days. The judge then realized he was under renewed criticism for this arrangement, which he planned out himself, and then decided to send Polanski back to prison again. That's when Polanski said enough was enough.

None of this excuses sex with a minor, but the judicial misconduct in the case--the original media-loving Judge Ito, if you will--is not unimportant. In fact, BOTH the defense and prosecuting attorneys in the original case have said on the record that the judge acted improperly and probably illegally.

Just a side note.

Posted by: photomat | September 28, 2009 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Please forgive Mr. Roman Polanski for raping a 13 year old. Did you not know that he is Jewish? A Holocaust survivor no less. He needs to be treated with the special considerations given to the chosen people. He should be allowed to rape a 13 year old, the same way the Zionists in Israel burn 13 year old Palestinian children with white phosphurus!

Can you believe the Chutzpah of the American Justice system? trying to prosecute a Jewish person who just happens to have raped a 13 year old girl?

Jews of the world unite and save your chosen son from the canards of anti-rapism!


Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Peaceful2009:

Long time, no see! I guess they've finally let you out of the asylum. Bribe a guard or what?

At any rate, you can go back to the priesthood now and take up raping your own kind as you have been wont to do, lo these two thousand years.

WE, on the other hand, are armed now. RIP, dear, the sooner the better. Why prolong the misery.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum,

what if Polanski was a catholic man who had raped a 13 year old Jewish girl and then fled the U.S.? would you have come to jis rescue?

Racism and bigotry has no boundries does it? it transends all people and all religions!!

Ms. Applebaum, do you also use Holocaust to cut in line at Starbucks??

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:33 AM | Report abuse

photomat:

Not a side note at all. I've been hunting for this on the web. Received two emails that don't quite put it your way but come close. One from a lawyer friend says it's a thing done. He cannot be held here.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Peaceful2009,

Creepoid, Catholic men (so to speak) have been raping, killing, torturing Jewish girls for thousands of years. Where have you been, Father? Too busy giving it up the rear of children, I suppose.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Poor Mark Rich

Poor Jonathan Pollard

Poor Bernie Madoff

Poor Roman Polanski


all victims of "antisemitism" of course. How can a chosen person ever be convicted of a crime by a Goyem, oy vey...

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

I've have been a child sex crimes prosecutor for 13 years. I've come to expect a certain lack of legal sophistication in the press when it comes to criminal law, but yours is shocking. There was no "misconduct" during the trial because there was no trial. HE PLEAD GUILTY. He was also AWARE of her age and admitted so. You sound like one of those town hall health care shouters. Full of platitudes and righteous indignance, but completely lacking in facts, insight and perspective.

Posted by: cowen33 | September 28, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum purports to give the facts, but she's sadly mistaken. Polanski didn't flee during the trial, he fled after he'd pled guilty. Either way, he's a fugitive from justice, but let's not mince words: he's also a convicted sex criminal, an admitted sex criminal. The fact that he paid off the victim doesn't make him any less guilty. It's bad enough that people like Polanski think they're entitled to flaut the law. When a columnist for the Washington Post reaches the same conclusion, that's despicable.

Posted by: Rob_ | September 28, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Poor Father Mahoney

Poor Hannity

Poor Limbaugh

Poor O'Reilly

Poor Charles Keating

Poor butt-f.u.c.k.i.n.g. priests. Anti-Catholicism, I suppose

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Rest assured Ms. Applebaum that AIPAC will get Mr. Polanski off the hook! You know, some senators would better get active or risk not getting elected!!!!

Go Roman Polanski, go rapers of innocent 13 year olds, go Applebaum, go Israel!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:41 AM | Report abuse

cowen33:

There was misconduct. Scroll up. He had a plea agreement. Learn the facts of the case as best you can.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:42 AM | Report abuse

Anne, rest assured that Peaceful2009 and his butt-f.u.c.k.i.n.g. Vatican will go on b.u.t.t.f.u.c.k.i.n.g. Catholic boys. The ponce pope will see to that.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm shocked and absolutely horrified by what Anne Applebaum writes here. If you remember Geimer testified that Polanski performed sexual acts on her after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes. He plead guilty of having sexual intercourse with a drugged little girl. Honestly, please understand this girl was 13 years old. Short of torture or murder, this represents the absolute worst our collective human existence has to offer. Anne's mind is clouded by the celebrity of this figure and is dismissing this crime because she likes Polanski's work and feels sorry for him. I ask Anne how she would feel if these same circumstances existed for her own daughter or regarding another man (maybe a GOP senator) would she really write the same misguided post. This is horrifying.

Posted by: RationalMind

-----------------

Rational, but you do not understand!! as Ms. Applebaum states, Mr. Polanski is a Holocaust survivor so we should forgive him!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:44 AM | Report abuse

It isn't just rape, it was pedophilia. He raped a child. He pleaded guilty to doing so. Now Anne Applebaum wants leniency. That's disgusting.

Posted by: hertsred | September 28, 2009 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Anne, understand, the butt.f.u.c.k.e.r. Peaceful2009 and the butt.f.u.c.k.e.r. Vatican rape little boys and girls in the name of the butt.f.u.c.k.e.r. Father, the butt.f.u.c.k.e.r. Son, and the butt.f.u.c.k.e.r HOLy Ghost.

Not to mention in the name of the butt.f.u.c.k.e.r. Goblins, Angels, Cousins, Aunts, Uncles, et al.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:47 AM | Report abuse

IN the criminal justice system neither the victim nor the perpetrator get to decide the punishment.

Yet that is exactly what Mr. Polanski did. His punishment was to feted by the art world while his crime has gone unpunished for these many years.

Bring him back, let him serve his time. He is a loathsome sex offender.

Posted by: krankyman | September 28, 2009 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Jesus, I'm a huge of Polanski's films, and I agree that it's a bit ridiculous to throw a 76 y.o. in prison, but you've got to be kidding me with this: "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."

Anne Applebaum: Yuck! WTF is wrong w/ you?!

Posted by: slowpoke132 | September 28, 2009 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Go Vatican! Go Ponce Pope! Go Pedophile Priests! Go, Go, Go, holy butt.f.u.c.k.e.rs

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:49 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe that Ms. Applebaum is condoning rape of children, she is only saying that if the perpetrator is Jewish and a victim of Holocaust, the case should be swept under the rug, lest we open old wounds.

Brilliant Ms. Applebaum, La Chaim!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:50 AM | Report abuse

So, if someone drugged and raped your kid, it would be ok as long as he was famous and an "artist"? Want find out?

Posted by: billy8 | September 28, 2009 1:53 AM | Report abuse

I suspect Ms. Appelbaum would not condone the pedophile child-raping priests, nor the Ponce Pope's memo to clergy to keep it quiet.
I refer to the present Ponce Pope Benedict, aka Bennie Prada.

I suspect Ms. Appelbaum would like the bloodsucking Vatican Bank which keeps the blood money of Jews, Serbian Orthodox, and Roma tortured to death by butt.f.u.c.k.i.n.g.
nazi priests.

I could be wrong. However, the foregoing are my suspicions. I'm not catholic, don't priestly raping of children, torturing innocent people to death and then keeping the loot.

I'm not catholic so I don't understand why Bennie Prada, Ponce Pope, cannot release the archives from the Ponce Vaticans good ole Holocaust days.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 1:55 AM | Report abuse

"There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age."

Really? That works if she's 17 and he met her in a bar. That happened to a friend of mine. Luckily he found out before it was too late. But 13? They still look like little girls. Not women. Girls. Anyone who wants to have sex with a child is a criminal, Holocaust or not. How many things can the Holocaust excuse? Child rape, ok. Murder? Would you be cool with that too? Maybe if the parents of the deceased offered forgiveness.

Posted by: billy8 | September 28, 2009 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum is to be commended for actually saying this in public! This sounds more like a conversation among only the members of the tribe, you know! But to actually write this down is the height of honesty!!

So being a "victim of Holocaust" can be subverted to get you off raping a 13 year old girl? Brilliant!! How about if you steal billions of dollars worth of people's savings?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:58 AM | Report abuse

"But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment."

Wow. Some people are good at making excuses, but this is just brilliant. You should be a lawyer. "He ran away because he was afraid that drugging and raping kids might get him in trouble." Nice.

Posted by: billy8 | September 28, 2009 2:00 AM | Report abuse

So, if someone drugged and raped your kid, it would be ok as long as he was famous and an "artist"? Want find out?

Posted by: billy8 |

-------------

No, it would be ok if the criminal is Jewish though!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:00 AM | Report abuse

billy8:

Give it a rest. She didn't say the Holocaust murder by catholics of his father, torture of his mother condoned anything.

She didn't say that his actions were condoned by the murder of his wife who was 8 months pregnant at the time, who begged for the life of her unborn child and was then stabbed in the belly.

Suggest you read the facts of the case. Admittedly, Appelbaum did not provide them. They're all over the web.

FACTS:

A plea agreement was reached whereby he pled guilty to one charge

The judge breached the agreement

Polanski sought asylum in France in 1978. Was given it.

His lawyers have been seeking an investigation into judicial misconduct ever since.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:01 AM | Report abuse

There are probably many people who don't understand the plea bargaining system we have....

I hope it's obvious what the deal was....

The judge agreed to "whatever they recommend" when sending Polanski to the Intake Center for evaluation....often done by Judges who may figure that a long sentence will be recommended but occasionally it doesn't come back that way...then, when the recommendation was different...the judge consults a DA (not even in the case in this case per reported official records and video) about how or why or whatever he can give Polanski a big time sentence other than the agreed one.... rotten at the core I guess...for the DA and the judge...

If Polanski had a plea bargain, however wrong it may have been...its the deal

In the absence of a plea bargain, I have no problem at all with Switzerland arresting and sending him back...whatever the victim thinks... remember...DRUGGING and having sex with a 13 year old is reprehensible....

and I'm an Obama Democrat...!!!! This is totally reprehensible...

But, I also think, plea bargains should be upheld...

and for all of those who think plea bargains are wrong.. take a look a riverside county in calif...they don't plea bargain there...but they also don't try any civil cases there. All the judges there are doing criminal cases...mostly because the DA has a political agenda which includes never offering a criminal defendant a plea bargain. Essentially it's overcharge and don't bargain... So, if you were hurt and sue someone...no trial. If you want to have a contested probate...no way....sorry folks...we don't have any civil justice system here in riverside... decide what you think about that...personally, I think it's ludicrous...

Just a wake up for anyone who is against plea bargains...

And in the end...Polanski can go to jail for the rest of his life and it's fine with me...Unless there is a deal...

Then he gets the deal...

Posted by: CalifObserver | September 28, 2009 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Tribal mentality at its best. The Saudis must be proud.

Let's break all boundaries of decency, humanity and justice, so we get our fellow powerful and rich Jew oft he hook!!!

Nothing here to hide!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Of course, the startegy by Applebaum may be to stir the pot and then claim "antisemitism"

What is your stance on anti-rapism?
How about anti-pedophilia?

Ah the canards of anti-criminality

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Interesting.

"He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma."

Anne, assuming I'm ever convicted of rape; can I just get the "notoriety and professional stigma" punishment; and skip that whole jail time thing?

This seems like a pretty good deal... I never realized this was an option.

Oh, and do you want to go out sometime?

What? Nobody else was thinking it?

Posted by: gekkobear1 | September 28, 2009 2:12 AM | Report abuse

All the zionist coming out of the woodwork as Polanski experts!!

We need some Jewish posters to come forward and condemn Applebaum's abuse of Holocaust!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:13 AM | Report abuse

A Modest Proposal

I'm awestruck by Ms. Applebaum's brilliant and persuasive logic.

Perhaps before we send Phillip Garrido to jail we need to see if he can first direct a good movie or two. After all his kidnapping was oommitted 15 years ago.

Posted by: sam_er_md | September 28, 2009 2:15 AM | Report abuse

CalifObserver:

D.A.s frequently make plea arrangements when they know they will not win the case. I've read the testimony of Greimer (scroll up for the link), and, frankly, I would have tried to arrange a plea if I had been prosecuting.

Scroll up: Polanski met the terms of his plea arrangement, confessed to what he had to. That is how pleas work. Guilty or innocent, if you wish to plea, you must confess.

The judge breached the plea arrangement. This is one of the irregularities in the case that led France to give Polanski asylum and refuse to allow extradition.
It is one reason why Mitterand has been so vocal since Polanski's arrest.

It is the failure of the courts, the refusal of investigations into judicial misconduct and not the murder by catholics of his father, torturing of his mother, not the butchering of his wife and unborn child, that have led so many to be so disgusted at his treatment by this country.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:15 AM | Report abuse

@Farnaz1Mansouri1
@Peaceful2009

This is not a personal attack, but an assessment that I'm sure that many readers of the Post would agree with:

The comments that you and some others have provided on this article are disgusting. I hope the most egregious ones are deleted --- and your accounts at the Post are banned.

The only merit the words you published have for society is as a demonstration to others that coarse and ignorant people are everywhere.

Good luck in the future.

Posted by: randomguy2 | September 28, 2009 2:15 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

Sorry, but Jew bashing days are over. Someone forgot to tell Peaceful, so he does it endlessly.

He will find, as will you, that Jew bashing comes with a price. Ponce Popers and the like figure in responses.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:19 AM | Report abuse

A Modest Proposal

I'm awestruck by Ms. Applebaum's brilliant and persuasive logic.

Perhaps before we send Phillip Garrido to jail we need to see if he can first direct a good movie or two. After all his kidnapping was oommitted 15 years ago.

Posted by: sam_er_md -----

----------------------

Sam, I am not sure you understand what Ms. Applebaum says. She says that Polanksi is a Holocaust survivor (Jewish) and we are being too hard on him. The fame and money are in play no doubt! but Applebaum doesn't regularly defend any rich famous criminal. She is going to bat for a fellow rich, famous Jew, albeit a raping pedophile!!! (admittedly-read plea bargain!)

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:19 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

Now, if you don't like my replies to Peaceful, how about one of your own? No doubt, you will find a way to gently bring him to the light. I will wait to see what you have to say, before I say anything at all:
---------------------------------------
Sam, I am not sure you understand what Ms. Applebaum says. She says that Polanksi is a Holocaust survivor (Jewish) and we are being too hard on him. The fame and money are in play no doubt! but Applebaum doesn't regularly defend any rich famous criminal. She is going to bat for a fellow rich, famous Jew, albeit a raping pedophile!!! (admittedly-read plea bargain!)

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Farnaz1Mansouri1

I'm not associating myself with any of your comments..thanks for your reply to mine.

I am totally familiar with plea bargain arrangements..I have been around a lot of them....they are made for lots of reasons...difficulty of proof, availability or unavailability of witnesses, credibility issues, need to protect confidentiality, etc....I;m not sure why you think they are made...

So lets leave it at that...I don't want or need your support...and you don't have mine....okay?

Posted by: CalifObserver | September 28, 2009 2:23 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

Still waiting for you to instruct Peaceful....

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:23 AM | Report abuse

randomguy, please do state what part of my posts are disgusting!

I am merely explaining Applebaum's logic!

Of course, any voice against Jewish elitisim must be silenced

How about voices against Muslim terrorism and Christian something-ism

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:23 AM | Report abuse

CalifObserver:

I neither offered my support nor asked for yours. Have no idea what, if anything, you are referring to.

Have a good night.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:26 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

Well...?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:27 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

You see, this is the problem. Folks like you come out when Jews like me fight cretins like Peaceful2009, Whistling, and other racist lunatics that post here.

It is we, the victims, who really offend you, but then, you know you cannot attack us without also criticizing those who provoke us.

Since you are ambivalent yourself, you will never post against the racists, will wait for us. But we Js have long passed the point of giving explanations to klansmen. We've developed a more effective approach.

I would have thought you knew that. In light of the fact that you cannot protest racism, kindly keep your refined, though ethically questionable, tastes to yourself.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Please forgive Mr. Polanski for reasons listed by Ms. Applebaum!

Let's focus on Polanski and Applebaums argument in his favor. Applebaum is defending an admitted raper of children!

Please read Ms. Applebaums article over and over again for inspiration!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:41 AM | Report abuse

Apparently Miss Applebaum is unaware of all the facts...

...there is no need for a re-trial since Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to the charges and then fled the country before he could be sentenced...

...perhaps the fact that Applebaum's husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying to have Mr. Polanski's charges and plea dropped may have clouded her knowledge, or at least conflicted with her interest...

...or perhaps the idea that she believes Polanski may not have known the girl's real age, and been unable to guess that a thirteen year old girl may have been underage got in the way of any rational thinking on Applebaum's part...

...or perhaps the only thing outrageous is the fact that Polanski has gone unpunished this long for such a hideous crime.

Posted by: garrettyork | September 28, 2009 2:41 AM | Report abuse

garrettyork:

Wrong down the line. He pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea agreement to one charge. He served his sentence. The judge let it be known that he intended to breach the agreement. He sought asylum in France, which gave it to him, has refused to allow extradition since 1978, due to "irregularities in the case." His lawyers have been asking for investigations into judicial misconduct ever since.

Now, hopefully, they will get them.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Ms. Applebaum-

This isn't the first time someone rich and famous has tried to evade justice. [Marc Rich, anyone?]

All of the arguments in your column are best presented in a Court of Law. And that requires that the defendant himself submit to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Posted by: WashPostSucks | September 28, 2009 2:53 AM | Report abuse

And in the end...Polanski can go to jail for the rest of his life and it's fine with me...Unless there is a deal...

Then he gets the deal...

Posted by: CalifObserve

-------------------

Interesting point for discussion. But how often do you encounter people giving an admitted raper of a 13 year old girl "the benefit of the doubt"?

Maybe Mr Polanski can get off the hook based on technicalities, etc, but why would a journalist come out in his strong defense?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 2:54 AM | Report abuse

He pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea agreement to one charge. He served his sentence. The judge let it be known that he intended to breach the agreement. He sought asylum in France, which gave it to him, has refused to allow extradition since 1978, due to "irregularities in the case." His lawyers have been asking for investigations into judicial misconduct ever since.

Now, hopefully, they will get them.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:55 AM | Report abuse

It is true that the rich and famous get away with child molestation, e.g., Michael Jackson; murder, e.g., Ted Kennedy, O.J. Simpson; destroying the US economy, e.g., Charles Keating, Enron, bank after bank, etc.

However, Polanski pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea agreement to one charge. He served his sentence. The judge let it be known that he intended to breach the agreement. He sought asylum in France, which gave it to him, has refused to allow extradition since 1978, due to "irregularities in the case." His lawyers have been asking for investigations into judicial misconduct ever since.

Now, hopefully, they will get them.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:59 AM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum you failed to mention your conflict of interest. Your husband, Radoslaw Sikorski is the Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed. This disclosure should have been made.

You offer lame excuses for man who drugged and raped a 13 year. He thought she was older? So he thought he was drugging and raping an adult not a child? That makes it alright? What he went through in the past is irrelevant. He plead guilty and is a wanted fugitive. There isn't a statue of limitations for that.

Posted by: Mattsky | September 28, 2009 3:00 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, but his experience with the Holocaust somehow mitigates a 43-year-old man's decision to flee rather than standing to face the consequences of drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl? I agree that at this point it may be pointless to invoke "justice" in celebrating his arrest at this point. And yes there are other circumstances that decidedly factor into a balanced analysis of the case (e.g. judicial misconduct). But to make a Holocaust reference in this context is absurd on its face.

Posted by: AidanL

-------------


Could not have said it any better!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 3:00 AM | Report abuse

All you vulgarians writing about the "rule of law" do not approach the level of sophistication of an Anne Applebaum.

Roman Polanski is an artist. He should be able to drug and anally rape a 13 year old girl.

Anne gets it.

Why can't you?

Posted by: Kryon777 | September 28, 2009 3:01 AM | Report abuse

God, this is stupid. Hopefully, the justice that did not occur will now.

Polanski pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea agreement to one charge. He served his sentence. The judge let it be known that he intended to breach the agreement. He sought asylum in France, which gave it to him, has refused to allow extradition since 1978, due to "irregularities in the case." His lawyers have been asking for investigations into judicial misconduct ever since.

Now, hopefully, they will get them. And I very much look forward to reading every last line of the findings. Every one.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Btw., he did not drug her. Read the transcripts. He found Qualudes in her mother's medicine cabinet, didn't even know what they were. He took them and so did she.

Good night, ladies.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 3:03 AM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Applebaum, here are some more facts: Polanski was taking nude photos of a 13 year girl. Then he drugged her, and raped her orally, vaginally and anally. She resisted, even after being drugged. This is not "statutory rape", this is *real* rape. Polanski then fled the law, and has been hiding from US justice in Europe for 30 years. If Polanski were any normal American, if his parents weren't "killed in the Holocaust", then any one of his crimes would have seen him locked up for 20 years. Yet Applebaum seems to imply it's racist or anti-semitic for Polanski to spend even one day in jail for his long list of crimes. How twisted and disgusting. What an expedient cheapening of the Holocaust. This is unworthy of the Washington Post.

Posted by: member5 | September 28, 2009 3:19 AM | Report abuse

thank you dhorton1 for posting this link to victim's testimony

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

raise your hand if you support admitted rapers of children because of their religious affiliation?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 3:19 AM | Report abuse

Re: the argument that Polamski is 76 and too old to prosecute. I think John Demanyuk (sic?) is also maybe too old to prosecute as well?

I think this is relevant in this discussion: Ms. Applebaum please state your religious affiliation.

Posted by: hz9604 | September 28, 2009 3:20 AM | Report abuse

Farnaz1Mansouri1,

Please go see a shrink. Leave it to a Jew (a Persian-named Jew, at that. You put us Persians to shame...) to defend a guy who drugged and raped a 13-year old girl ONLY because of his Jewish ancestry. I've read your posts here and you have NO argument. All that you've done is call people nasty names and rant about the history of the Swiss Government. Wow.

If this case was consensual, I wouldn't care less, but he pleaded guilty to the charges of rape and ran. The judge did not accept the plea bargaining. It's up to the judge to accept the terms of a plea deal, not the prosecutor / defense attorney.

But more to the point, what does the Holocaust and Switzerland's history have to do with anything? The fact that his mother died in a concentration camp does not make his crime any less. I do think that there are far more dangerous criminals in this world to concern ourselves with, but he DID plea guilty.

Please, get rid of that nasty chip on your shoulder. Don't be so defensive about your background, and stop acting like everyone is against Jews. You're irrationally lashing out at everyone and accusing everyone of being anti-Semite, but you couldn't be any more wrong.

This has nothing to do with Roman Polanski's background. This has to do with what he was charged with and what he pleaded to. Now please, go get some serious help and stop trolling these message forums.

Posted by: ClandestineBlaze | September 28, 2009 3:20 AM | Report abuse

We get it. Auschwitz is an excuse for War Crimes and Statuary Rape.

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | September 28, 2009 3:24 AM | Report abuse

ClandestineBlaze:

First, go back on your meds. Once stablized, read the following:

Polanski pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea agreement to one charge. He served his sentence. The judge let it be known that he intended to breach the agreement. He sought asylum in France, which gave it to him, has refused to allow extradition since 1978, due to "irregularities in the case." His lawyers have been asking for investigations into judicial misconduct ever since.

Now, hopefully, they will get them.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Re: the argument that Polamski is 76 and too old to prosecute. I think John Demanyuk (sic?) is also maybe too old to prosecute as well?

I think this is relevant in this discussion: Ms. Applebaum please state your religious affiliation.

Posted by: hz9604 | September 28, 2009 3:20 AM | Report abuse
-------------------------
Ah, but it was his age, blah, blah, and blah, he was innocent, and blah, and also blah, that kept him living out his long and prosperous life here among us. And he was not alone, among his ilk.

That said, there are facts here, which it seems are convenient for some to ignore.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 3:34 AM | Report abuse

I am writing from Geneva, where the Swiss are divided in their reaction to Mr Polanski's arrest. Many agree entirely with Ms Applebaum, and the arts community protests that this is a crime against culture. Roman Polanski owns a home in Gstaad and travels in and out of Switzerland regularly - but when he was to be presented an award at the Zurich Film Festival last weekend, the US government had specific information on a time and place where their international arrest warrent could be served. The Swiss justice minister, noting that the nation has been cracking down on sex crimes against minors in recent years - partly because of public demand expressed in national referenda - said that the government could see no rational argument for refusing to take Polanski into custody on the basis of the warrent presented by US officials. The government also notes that he has avenues for fighting extradition, and in the end the decision will be made on the basis of law. Optimists hope that these circumstances will allow for the equitable resolution of this case and the restoration of Polanski's freedom of movement in a not-too-distant future.

Posted by: theodoregill | September 28, 2009 3:43 AM | Report abuse

In reading the testimony of the girl on "the smoking gun", it is clear that there is strong evidence that Mr. Polanski raped a 13 year old girl by the standards of this country. We really don't have a logical mechanism to factor in such things as the murder of his wife and mother or his own captivity as a child as mitigating circumstances without actually bringing the man to trial for his crime. It doesn't matter how long ago this crime was committed, he must stand trial and answer for his actions.

Posted by: spado | September 28, 2009 3:57 AM | Report abuse

theodoregill

Polanski pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea agreement to one charge. He served his sentence. The judge let it be known that he intended to breach the agreement. He sought asylum in France, which gave it to him, has refused to allow extradition since 1978, due to "irregularities in the case." His lawyers have been asking for investigations into judicial misconduct ever since.

Sorry to say, your country is not looking real good these days, worse, if possible, than my own. As you, no doubt, know, the Swiss will not win any popularity awards in Europe for this latest venture.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 3:58 AM | Report abuse

I just hope that the writer would have looked into the photos of the little girl this guy abused...
He committed the crime which he has admitted to. He has run away from a sentence....so why is it again that he should be forgiven?? All across the world people are brought to justice whose victims have forgiven them, however they still need to stand trial for the laws they have breached, especially if they make a run for it. The writer says that Polanksy is 76 which makes him 46 when he committed his crime. Think about the Horror that little girl went through.... This column is outrageous and sick.

Posted by: huntyrella | September 28, 2009 3:58 AM | Report abuse

Optimists hope that these circumstances will allow for the equitable resolution of this case and the restoration of Polanski's freedom of movement in a not-too-distant future.

Posted by: theodoregill

-----------------

What are these "optimists" optimistic about? Optimistic that a pedophile rape criminal can escape justice? These are civilized Swiss? Do they represent a particular religious group? Are they aware of Mr Polanski's admissions in his plea bargain?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 3:59 AM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Applebaum and other unabashed supporters of "Roman Polanski",

please review this 13 year old girl rape victim testimony below:


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

(thank you dhorton1)

Then, please tell us that regardless of Mr. Polanski's religion and Holocaust relation, you think he does not need to stand before Justice.

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 4:03 AM | Report abuse

Quote:

"You see, this is the problem. Folks like you come out when Jews like me fight cretins like Peaceful2009, Whistling, and other racist lunatics that post here.

It is we, the victims, who really offend you, but then, you know you cannot attack us without also criticizing those who provoke us.

Since you are ambivalent yourself, you will never post against the racists, will wait for us. But we Js have long passed the point of giving explanations to klansmen. We've developed a more effective approach.

I would have thought you knew that. In light of the fact that you cannot protest racism, kindly keep your refined, though ethically questionable, tastes to yourself.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 2:35 AM"

----------

This is a terribly misguided comment, and a reprehensible personal attack on my character.

The language you have used in your comments on this article is foul and inappropriate, as is that of many other posters.

The racist idiocy of the commentators you are swearing and arguing with here is obvious to everyone. While you may dignify them with laborious and pointless protests, I will simply RESTATE my disgust with them as you have personally attacked me in public, and impugned my motives.

Stop swearing and acting ridiculous on the Post's online site.

I did not draw a moral equivalency between some racist trash and yourself, but I did call you both out on disgusting, foul, and offensive language that has no place in public. Some of your own comments reek of bigotry, you may want to show them to your boss and get his read if you don't believe me.

See your earlier comments regarding religion and illicit sex when you are sober, if this is not clear to you. If it's still not clear, please refrain from posting online until you have undergone psychological counseling.

Posted by: randomguy2 | September 28, 2009 4:04 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

Huffing and puffing away at me simply makes my point. You had your chance with Peaceful2009 and with Whistling. You still have a chance. Instead, you blame the victim. As I pointed out, that is due to your own ambivalence. I suspect cowardice also has a part in this. Peaceful, him/herself invited you to comment.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 4:08 AM | Report abuse

On Polanski: It should be noted that he was convicted only of one charge, hence, the plea bargain.

That charge was for having sex with a minor.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 4:10 AM | Report abuse

Applebaum write:

"He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto"

Do you actually believe in this drivel? A powerful Hollywood type had an "understandable fear of irrational punishment"?????

Suggesting that 43 year old, successful Hollywood power man in 1977 was afraid of "persecution" in the hands of American justice system would be comical if it weren't so criminal. You madam have no shame!!!

And all this propaganda with no regard for a 13 year old little girl who was given alcohol and drugs!!. The travesty of justice is the "plea bargain" to begin with. Someone should look into that!!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 4:16 AM | Report abuse

Correction:

I didn't mean to imply your boss was male, they could be of either sex. Ironic, that I was noting bigoted language about Catholics and other subjects when making the reference.

I concede that I would be foolish to engage you further as you are clearly not a rational or reasonable person.

Most readers wouldn't get past the x-rated language and neanderthal-level racism and bigotry employed by yourself, and the posters you mention to find any small nugget of honest and intelligent debate.

They appear to be racists, and you appear as an uncouth and unhinged loudmouth who employs gutter language and bigotry (while claiming victimhood) to inflate your own ego.

Whether readers consider my analysis of these comments foolish, that is their prerogative. I only responded to you because while perhaps your goal is noble, your methods are reprehensible -- walk away.

Good day, sir.

Posted by: randomguy2 | September 28, 2009 4:24 AM | Report abuse

I read the latest CNN take on this headline and was shocked to read a quote from Angelica Houston slamming the girl. She was in the house at the time that Polanski was serving the girl alcohol. Hey, it was the 70's. Whoo hoo. Polanski was a notorious womanizer who preferred young, young girls and apparently no one in his circle batted an eye. Angelica Houston saw the girl moments after she was anally raped by Polanski in HER house. Disgusting.

Posted by: spado | September 28, 2009 4:32 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

First, I am not a "sir." Second, I do not have a boss. Third, you are a pompous ass.

Goodnight.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 4:39 AM | Report abuse

While I agree 100% with what you've said you have to remember where you are posting this piece. This is the United States. We're not interested in justice. We're interested in punishment. We don't know the difference. We think they are the same thing. I know I was able to stop locking my doors when we threw that dangerous criminal Martha Stewart in jail. I had no worries I'd wake up to fresh baked cookies.

We're also a country that doesn't forgive. Commit a crime, any crime, and we'll not only hound you the rest of the days of your life, but whether you are found guilty and serve time or found innocent makes no difference to us. We'll still see you as a criminal. Once charged with anything you can no longer pay your debt to society whether convicted or not.

We incarcerate a higher percentage of our population then any country in the world. That's right we're number one in putting people in jail. We've put them in jail to the point where we need more and bigger jails to house all of our criminals. When the courts say we have too many in jail and need to let the non-violent ones out we scream public safety and thumb our noses at the courts.

Nope, you live in a country that is all about punishment and eternal damnation. So, while you make sense the people you wrote this for will see you as some commie pinko liberal freak who should be kept away from their children.

Posted by: boblund1 | September 28, 2009 4:42 AM | Report abuse

spado,

Maybe Angelica Houston had an "understandable fear" of rational behavior?!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 4:43 AM | Report abuse

Nope, you live in a country that is all about punishment and eternal damnation. So, while you make sense the people you wrote this for will see you as some commie pinko liberal freak who should be kept away from their children.

Posted by: boblund1

----------------

I would disagree with your characterization of Applebaum's stance as "liberal". I believe that her stance is elitist and perhaps racist by invoking "Holocaust" as an excuse for criminal behavior!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 4:47 AM | Report abuse

To: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 7:20 PM |

Dear Mr Mansour (are you Arabic ?) You are very ignorant and do not know anything about history of Europe and Switzerland. Probably you do not even know where it is located in Europe and how old is our democracy (we do not know even death penalty !!!) that has been flourishing for centuries and already existed before the civilized Anglosaxons exterminated native Indians of Amercia, or Australian Aborigens etc. You do not know anything about history of Europe and about the situation of Switzerland at the time of WW II. You do not even know how many Jews the Swiss people helped to flee from Italy. Austria, France and Germany. You are another victmis of ignorance and propaganda. An Italian Poet once wrote: "A nice silence has never been written",. Best reagards Mr. Mansour !.... Do you know the meaning of Barbarians ?

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 28, 2009 4:50 AM | Report abuse

To: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 7:20 PM |

Dear Mr Mansour (are you Arabic ?) You are very ignorant and do not know anything about history of Europe and Switzerland. Probably you do not even know where it is located in Europe and how old is our democracy (we do not know even death penalty !!!) that has been flourishing for centuries and already existed before the civilized Anglosaxons exterminated native Indians of Amercia, or Australian Aborigens etc. You do not know anything about history of Europe and about the situation of Switzerland at the time of WW II. You do not even know how many Jews the Swiss people helped to flee from Italy. Austria, France and Germany. You are another victmis of ignorance and propaganda. An Italian Poet once wrote: "A nice silence has never been written",. Best reagards Mr. Mansour !.... Do you know the meaning of Barbarians ?

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 28, 2009 4:51 AM | Report abuse

It is interesting to note that the government of Poland, in the person of its foreign minister (who just happens to be Applebaum's husband) has interceded on Polanski's behalf.

Posted by: nicekid | September 28, 2009 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Mansour,
when you want I send you some books (for free) to read so you can fill the huge knowledge gap you have about history and can know how the German Nazi regime and the Italian Fachiste Regime that surrounded Switzerland (that is a very small country as you should know !) acted. Or I invite you (for free) to Switzerland to show you how are our hospitals (everybody has free access to first class treatment in perfect hospitals with up-to-date infrastructures independetly of his welth, color of the skin, race, reliogion etc.) ), our schools till university are free (people must not pay or pay a very little amount) ) to everybody and we have a high level of education, we respect environment....... and if you come here you can meet many of my friends, that are Jews, and settled here before and during WW II and love Switzerland. I do not know where you hav picked up the word barbarins and if you know the real meaning of it.

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 28, 2009 5:07 AM | Report abuse

avvgiuseppepedroli,

Oh, I know a great, great deal about the Swiss nation, much more than I care to know. I am a Holocaust scholar, and Switzerland figures heavily in two of my books. Ideal in both with its actual disgraceful activities during the Shoah and its national myth of the period.
These books, btw., were published by an international academic press of some repute and have been well received in forty-two countries, among which your own figures well.

Then there is the matter of the money you looted from dead Jews, fought the survivors and heirs over until a few years ago, when you settled after New York State declared it would no longer do business with you. New Jersey soon made the same threat, and we know how the Swiss value geldt.

But you got away with tens of millions in blood money. Your crimes will linger until the end of recorded history. There was one decent man among you. Him we honor.

And, no, I'm not "Arabic" (sic).

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 5:11 AM | Report abuse

What can be gained by putting the man on trial at this point? Pedophiles are supposedly repeat offenders, but Polanski has never been charged with doing anything like this again after more than 30 years. Not only does the woman who is the victim not want him prosecuted, but she does not want put herself and her family through the trauma of a trial at which she would have to testify against him. I have no interest in defending Polanski for this. But I fail to see that anyone gains anything by prosecuting him now.

Posted by: twm1 | September 28, 2009 5:19 AM | Report abuse

If you were Arab was just a question because Mansour means Great in Arabic. I do know the books you read (and when and who wrote them,)... and if you are able to distinguish about the beahavoiur of one or two banks and the behaviour of a Government. As I have written to you..... do you know where Switzerland is located (do not check in Wikipedia now pls !) and how was the situation here and around Switzerland during WW II ? Do you know how acted Hitler and Mussonilini ? I suggest you to come here and talk with the Swiss Jewish Community... ok ? Probably we had some people that acted like Madoff (bankers) here as well........ but Swiss people helped a lot Jewish people to enter the country and never perpetrated massdistruction like German, Anglosaxons (with native Indidians... have you settled the issue ?), Italians, Spanish, Japanese, etc. and never is ok Mr. Mansour ? I invite you here. Do you want ?

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 28, 2009 5:26 AM | Report abuse

Another thing Mr. Mansour, English is not my mother language and I write very quickly while I am working. Sorry for the mistakes.... I only speak French, Italian, German and Spanish... and some British English a you can see. Best regards from Switzerland.

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 28, 2009 5:30 AM | Report abuse

avvgiuseppepedroli,

Your English is fine. If you want to begin reading the truth, you could do worse than to start with the Eizenstat Report:

http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1998/980602_eizenstat_nazigld.html

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 5:42 AM | Report abuse

First Law of Sexual Misconduct :

Underagepussy = Doompussy

Posted by: flyersout | September 28, 2009 5:49 AM | Report abuse

Quote:

"randomguy2,

First, I am not a "sir." Second, I do not have a boss. Third, you are a pompous ass.

Goodnight.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 4:39 AM"

1. Irrelevant
2. Not surprising
3. Ad hominem

While you may not be capable of much else, I see that a little public shaming has at least had an slight effect on the tone of your relentless commentary and foul language.

I'm sure you are very scholarly, as a google search on 'Farnaz1Mansouri1' turns up a wealth of intelligent commentary scrawled all over the web.

Posted by: randomguy2 | September 28, 2009 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Eizenstat (strange famly name) Report was not accepted by Swiss government also American put an incredible pressure on my country like always they do when they want to obtain something quickly ..... specially money !) and also Swiss Jewish Comunity did not agree. It was written, like American usually act, when the American Jewish decided to ask for money to the Swiss banks and wanted to tackle the growing Swiss bank sector (probably they wanted to get a part of the business). Do not forget the timinng of the claims ???? There are other - unbiased - reports that reach differents conclusions ... ask the Swiss Jewish Comunity and do not forget the situation around Swtzerland at WW II time (my mother and my mother know it better than you or Mr. Eizenstat). Moreover in Eizenstat Report is not written that Swiss people carried out massdistrucion because nobody can write something like that. Another thing: tlll now I am waiting your answer about the massdistrucction of native Americans and how you settled the issue.

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 28, 2009 5:57 AM | Report abuse

In the interest of professional journalism, does Ms. Applebaum have any declarations to make regarding her conflict of interest(s) in this matter?

Posted by: hz9604 | September 28, 2009 6:10 AM | Report abuse

The reaction seems to run the full gauntlet of stupidity here. From those who want to point out that Applebaum's husband is Polish (like that has anything to do with the case) to those who want to tear down the character of the girl-victim in order to justify their position. And the multitude of posts by people just making up their own facts in order to justify their position. I can see why the victim wouldn't want to go through a trial with both sides of the political sprectrum taking opposite side as a cause celebre. C'mon people there are real problems out there in the world and a questionable rape case almost 40 yrs old is not one of them. Mob mentality at its worst.

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | September 28, 2009 6:18 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, it is an outrage that some one raped a young girl, ran from justice, and lived the life of riley in Europe.

So, Anne, if I decided to rape a young girl tomorrow, would you support me getting away with it. How about if it was your daughter? How would you feel if you were raped?

How about the rest of you that support the pedophile? How about if your daughter was drugged and raped tomorrow would you support the rapist?

What a F***ed up column. Anne Applebaum a proud supporter of rapists. Gee, we are so proud of you!

Posted by: thelaw1 | September 28, 2009 6:23 AM | Report abuse

avvgiuseppepedroli:

Here is a link to hundreds of sources, some authored by Swiss nationals.

http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/nazigold.html

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 6:30 AM | Report abuse

randomguy2,

What, precisely, is your problem? If you wish to challenge racists, please do so. If not, stay out of the fray. What would you have me do? Praise you for your inability to tackle bigots? For evading that confrontation by engaging me? That, sir, is not within the realm of my ability.

I suggest you consider what I've said to you as I shall not post to you again.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 28, 2009 6:35 AM | Report abuse

I thought our criminal justice system was the state prosecuting the criminals. I never thought that our prisons were Auschwitz. So what if the woman wanted to get on with her life and found peace. our criminal justice system speaks for the state, not the victim, I should know my sister-in-law was murdered by someone who should not have been out of jail. Oh, he would have killed someone else when he got out correctly, but he killed my relative. Does DC care? NO! They won't even prosecute him because he killed two others in Maryland and was convicted. And as Glenn Kirchner said, "You can't get blood out of a stone".

Well Polanski has some blood to squeeze out. He can serve out the rest of his days in prison.

How outraged would you feel if your daughter was drugged and raped and a bunch of columnists and your neighbors told you, don't worry about, there were mitigating circumstances.

How do any of you know that Polanski did not drug and rape anyone else?

Anyone that supports this scum is a fool or ignorant.

Posted by: thelaw1 | September 28, 2009 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Mrs Applebaum has only sons that is why she does not understand why 13 years old girl should be protected from rape.... or does she???

I am very much surprised by that, Mrs Appelbaum is not able to see the difference between bad and good and tries to find excuses like Holocoust.

Polanski's mother died in Holocust, his father though survived. The fact that someone is Jewish and lived during horrific time does not make him a person who can rape a child without being prosecuted...

No matter who is he by profession he should be prosecuted and should serve his time in jail like any other person who rapes minor.

Now, I think he is in his late seventies.
So, the justice will not be served ... he will die in jail before serving full term.

What outrageous is in the fact, that he was arrested???

At last we can say... nothing else.

Shame of you MRS Appelbaum, you do not understand the basic rules of civilized society.

Posted by: Janczar | September 28, 2009 6:44 AM | Report abuse

With this many comments, it's probably been said, but it doesn't matter a bit whether Polanski didn't know the girl's age. He raped her. He got her intoxicated, and even then she said 'no', and yet he raped her.

Posted by: hitpoints | September 28, 2009 6:45 AM | Report abuse

There are many things troubling about this. I tend to agree with Applebaum, but I wonder if she would have the same compassion for a former Nazi guard at one of the camps.

My thoughts are what about the girl's parents? She was 13 and testified that she had had sexual intercourse before Polanski raped her. She was a 13 year old girl who was at a Hollywood party where there had to have been drugs, legal and illegal, flowing like water. Where were this girl's parents and why were they never brought up on charges?

Posted by: democratus | September 28, 2009 6:48 AM | Report abuse

I ama shamed of Switzerland for doing this. The victim forgives him. With all the war criminals in the US, including elected officials, why should we even bother. And as for Switzerland doingthis WHY WHY WHY

Posted by: DLN1 | September 28, 2009 6:53 AM | Report abuse

Furthermore, I could understand someone writing an article debating "Should Polanski have been arrested after all these years", or "Why Now?" or some similar topic of debate.

But for the life of me I cannot understand a woman who isn't his relative being **outraged** by the arrest of a child rapist. It's an outrage? Really?

Posted by: hitpoints | September 28, 2009 6:54 AM | Report abuse

WOW! You know, I can see that if a girl was an unusually mature 16 or 17 year old, there might be some reason for slack, as creepy as it is for a man of his age to pursue such. However, there is no way to confuse a 13 year old for anything but a child. Panicked? Hardly. His flight was an entirely rational decision, knowing what child rapists can expect in prison. What possible relevance can his parents' experience in the camps have in this case? And he has been exiled from the US and UK all these years - boo hoo! Anne, you're not at the top of your game today.

Posted by: pt200386 | September 28, 2009 6:56 AM | Report abuse

He was convicted.
He ran.
If he is so innoncent, why did he not do something legally to clear his name? Why for 30 years did he avoid any country from which he might be extradited?
The guy is a scumbag and needs to face the music!

Posted by: jonblackman57 | September 28, 2009 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Anne: Gosh. Polanski should be paying you for helping his legal team. You obviously are on his "side". You got one important fact very wrong. He didn't flee in panic DURING the trial. It was AFTER the trial AFTER he had already been convicted. But the judge didn't decide on the punishment yet. And you omit the facts that he duped her to go to Jack Nicholson's house for a "photo-shoot", then he plied her with champagne and quaaludes, then had sex with her, STILL against her will. That's not just statutory rape; it's more like REAL rape......of a 13-yr old. And you must KNOW that he knew she was 13. You write that he didn't know her real age. Wow, brilliant defense on YOUR part........NOT. Anne, you're backing him up for some weird reason........what could it be? Oh, I know, because your husband works for the Polish govt and they're officially backing him up. Right?~!?~! Why don't you tell your uninformed readers that? You're a joke of a columnist.......a BAD joke. You're one of the dozens of reasons I stopped buying WaPo 6 years ago.

Posted by: sbourg55 | September 28, 2009 7:05 AM | Report abuse

The prosecutor in the original trial has gone on record saying Polanski was targeted by the judge because he was famous, that the judge used the entire process to further his own fascination with being associated with stars, and that it was a miscarriage of justice.

If you watch the HBO documentary it'll give you a better idea of what really happened.

The victim in this case doesn't want him prosecuted. The original prosecutor doesn't want him prosecuted. It's blatantly obvious that the judge should have been removed from the case and most likely disbarred.

Posted by: Hillman1 | September 28, 2009 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Hello, Ms. Applebaum? Should you not have told readers that your husband is Polish foreign minister and is/has actively working on/worked on getting freedom for a convicted pedophile?

Don't you think that colors your reporting/writing just a bit?

You are a disgrace to journalism.

Posted by: bethIllinois | September 28, 2009 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Anne,
You're wrong! Plain and simple!

Posted by: steveroake | September 28, 2009 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, like too many others, doesn't understand the purpose of the law. Her arguments on behalf of Polanski would be fine for the sentencing phase, but have absolutely no bearing on the pursuit of a conviction. Victims do not prosecute; the State prosecutes. When a person commits a crime, they break with society's law. This is fundamental to understanding our legal system. It is a waste of time, energy and words to engage in these absurd rationalization games.

Posted by: Marrigan | September 28, 2009 7:26 AM | Report abuse

This vile pedophile and pervert sodomized a thirteen year old girl....and he should not be arrested, because he makes silly absurd movies and is some sort of celebrity...one of the beautiful people and artist?

Posted by: 123Njord | September 28, 2009 7:28 AM | Report abuse

HE DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS 13???

Defending this scumbag is a disgrace to you, your paper, and to every victim of child sexual abuse.

So, because he's a famous director, he gets a pass?

Do you have any children, Ms. Applebaum? What would you say if this 'genius' director had sex with a child of yours???

As for his age, would he be similarly inclined to let let off an elderly guard for killing people at Auschwitz? I doubt it.

Posted by: joeyalphabet62 | September 28, 2009 7:34 AM | Report abuse

What an obscene waste of resources. Why not go after the Catholic cardinals who tolerated pedophilia? Why not go after corrupt war contractors/profiteers? Why not go after torturers? But to pursue a 30+year old case like this, when the victim prefers that it be dropped? Obscene scene-stealing by some prosecutor.

Posted by: farhorizons | September 28, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

A leftist defending another leftist's pedophilia. Gotta love it.

Posted by: tjhall1 | September 28, 2009 7:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm with Anne on this one. Its unsightly and immature to be clamouring for revenge at this stage when the even victim doesn't want it.

Posted by: harkadahl | September 28, 2009 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Dear Anne,

I was unaware that being famous and "artistic" meant that one should not do any time for crimes; that being afraid of prison meant it was okay to run from a conviction; that the true horror of this situation is that the rapist lived in Europe, being fetted by the famous, unable to return to Hollywood.

Thank you for clarifying that rapists should get away with it if you find them sympathetic enough.

Posted by: AndyPierce | September 28, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

PS...He did other things to the thirteen year old girl in question, besides sodomizing her repeatedly...after he got her intoxicated and the child couldn't offer any resistance or protests to his perverted sexual attack. His attack on the child was premeditated and brings up the question of whether has he attacked other children since then, because it is well documented that pedophilia is not curable. As for Ms Applebaum's weak and offensive defense of this vile creature, I hate to say this but...I think that because they are of the same religious persuasion, Mr Polanski and Ms Applebaum, there could be some sort of sympathy being expressed, we all have seen it many times before.

Posted by: 123Njord | September 28, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

What a DUMB analysis Applebaum!

There is NO evidence that he did not know the girl's age. Furthermore, it is "statutory rape" meaning not inquiring into the girl's age is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the only new trial would be to determine if Polanski illegally evaded authorities, not if he molested the child. Therefore, how does that affect the woman and her family. She will not need to testify and if she wants privacy, then she need no longer give interviews, or you could write a column on how your bretheren reporters are hounding a victim of rape.

He wouldn't be in this fix if he were not famous???
He wouldn't have been out of jail and in Europe successfully performing his trade if he were not famous, not the other way around.

As I said, a DUMB analysis by you Applebaum.

Posted by: familynet | September 28, 2009 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Anne, you forgot to mention that laws are meant to be broken.

Posted by: jryan758 | September 28, 2009 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Anne........sweetie thanks for the progressive point-of-view. But a crime was committed and if we are to be a nation of "laws" then those who break the laws need to be held accountable..........PERIOD!

......Or change the law......

Posted by: allenridge | September 28, 2009 7:55 AM | Report abuse

A leftist defending another leftist's pedophilia. Gotta love it.

Posted by: tjhall1 | September 28, 2009 7:44 AM
==================================

Yep ! That's exactly what it is.......so Anne let's stop pretending.....

Posted by: allenridge | September 28, 2009 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Mark Twain observed: "It is better to remain silent and appear a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

Applebaum has advanced the most unprincipled and factually deceitful opinion that I have seen since Pat Buchanan's attempt to absolve the Nazi War Criminal's crimes and their prosecution on the basis of the mere passage of time. He has been aptly characterized as an anti-Semite for those opinions.

So, is there an analogous inference to be drawn from Applebaum’s suggestion that Polanski be similarly absolved, forty years after he admitted raping a thirteen year old girl?

As to Applebaum’s claim that there were infirmities in the judicial proceedings one can only say that that is a decision for a court to make, unless she considers herself to be a judge for all seasons.

The truth is, that Polanski pleaded guilty to drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl, and jumped bail pending sentence.

One wonders if Ms. Applebaum would excuse and/or nolle prosequi the Nazi's crimes because of any traumas they may have experienced during their lifetimes, their subsequent “good deeds” or the passage of time.

...or if the victim had been her daughter?

The founders of this country attempted to establish a rule of law rather than a rule of man. Which principle Ms. Applebaum seems to have altogether missed.

Posted by: samscram1 | September 28, 2009 7:58 AM | Report abuse

The law sets an example for others. Because of the notoriety of Polanski, the LA prosecutors can't back down on this one. Ever.

There is no requirement that a judge honor a plea agreement between the prosecutor and victim. And if the judge had already sentenced sex crime perps to years in jail, letting Polanski off with a few days served just doesn't set an appropriate example.

Polanski admitted to statutory rape, and all facts of the case show it was a real rape. No girl under the influence (whatever age) can give consent.

So yes, arresting Polanski, extraditing him, and having him serve time (maybe until he dies in jail) DOES serve as a lesson to society and is meaningful.

Would you feel comfortable with Alexander and Tadeusz around that guy?

Posted by: oracle2world | September 28, 2009 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Right, he didn't know her real age. She could probably pass for a 15 year old...

Posted by: rpvt | September 28, 2009 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum, wow...simply wow.
It never ceases to amaze me how perspectives can change when the criminal is rich and famous. I guarantee your opinion wouldn't be the same if this clown had been poor and BLACK.

Posted by: clickums | September 28, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Some facts:

1. Polanski admitted guilt. He thought the girl was older, but they did have consensual sex. Polanski was prepared to take his punishment.
2. In exchange for the admission, Polanski accepted a sentence of 42 days in jail as punishment (time already served in jail awaiting trial). This was agreed to by the District Attorney and the defense team.
3. The judge, on the record, said he "wanted to send a message" and gave Polanski a tougher sentence, ignoring the plea bargain set up by the attorneys. Whether the judge reneged on the deal under political pressure is not clear.
4. Polanski felt the US judicial system had betrayed him and left the US for France. In doing so he became a legal fugitive, for which there is no statute of limitations.

The real villain in this story is not Polanski, but the judge. A lot of people hated Polanski for making Rosemary's Baby the year before. It was condemned and given a C-rating by the Catholic Church in the US (Condemned, and Catholics committed a mortal sin if they went to see the film.)

Polanski's wife was 8 months pregnant when she was killed by the Manson family 8 years earlier. A lot of people put 2 and 2 together and came up with 7. In the 70s the drug culture was in full swing, much higher than it is today. Since Sharon was rich and beautiful and famous, and lived in Hollywood then she must have been taking drugs at a wild party and deserved what she got. Polanski, stunned by her death, could not even respond to the reporters who asked him about the accusations of drugs. Tate never touched drugs in her life, and certainly never would take anything during her pregnancy. Childhood friends of Sharon Tate came to her defense but the media went for the sensationalism. Sharon was 22 at her death.

The reason the background is important is that this case was never just about Polanski and the statutory rape charge. It was always about the "culture war". Religious leaders skimming 10% of the wages earned by their flock, screaming against the main stream media and Hollywood values. The World War 2 generation was in charge then, and the fight with the young had just begun in 1968.

Polanski accepted the plea deal, but ran into a culture warrior judge. A self appointed moralist who set it upon himself to change America.

I give Anne Applebaum credit for taking the stand she did. The US should announce today that it is no longer pursuing Polanski and close the case. None of the original parties want to pursue this any longer

Posted by: LeftGuy | September 28, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

If he wasn't famous, he'd have never been able to flee in the first place. It's not just that he panicked and left, he's had 30 years to come back and clear his name based on all the reasons you mentioned, yet has chosen not to do so. What's outrageous is all the people horrified that a rich and famous person is not above the law.

Posted by: posttoastie1 | September 28, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

According to the news article accompanying Applebaums's opinion piece, Ms Geimer (the victim) says it was "the media that ruined my life" more than Polanski's very bad action. If the US pursues the matter against Polanski, there will be a long period of legal maneuvering over extradition, if that succeeds then there will probably be legal appeals over misconduct by the prosecutor and judge, then possibly even a new trial. The media circus that accompanied the case originally will presumably revive again, and Ms Geimer will again be forced to endure perhaps years of additional media scrutiny. Is it any wonder she doesn't want to go through this? She obviously want to be left alone to continue her life. Who wins and who loses if the Polanski case is revived? It looks like Ms Geimer is the big loser (by her own account) more than anyone else, including Polanski. It is not as though Polanski is now a dangerous pedophile who will attack other children if he isn't put in jail. So, as other posters have pointed out, the only gainers would appear to be people who will have their need for revenge satisfied.

Posted by: twm1 | September 28, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

barbyrahmirfluor

Actually, you raise an excellent point. I do insist that the criminals hiding behind their collars rather than their celebrity be brought to justice and I include the Nazi Ratzinger in that desire. Ratzinger was in fact dismissed from criminal cases by the Bush Administration as "not in the foreign policy interests of the United States".

Apologists for the now infallible Ratzinger dismiss his Nazi past as "doing what he had to to survive." If that is not the very definition of the "moral relativism" he claims to despise, I don't know what is. Too bad so many other had to die to stop what he was unwilling to.

Posted by: eebsnallof | September 28, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

It turns out Applebaum is married to the Polish ambassador to the U.S. She almost certainly knows Polanski through that connection. Her husband is involved in obtaining some sort of amnesty for Polanski's crimes, yet not a whisper from her about this conflict of interest. Just another example of the MSM withholding salient information from the public. Think they'll ever learn? Me neither.

Posted by: Banjo1 | September 28, 2009 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Mr Mansour,

you should read all the sources and not only what you like or find good for you. I have told: study history and ask the Swiss Jewish Comunity... ok ? Do you want adress and phone number ?And tell me where is written or where there is only a piece of evidence that Swiss people committed massdistruction of Jews or any other ethnic and or religious group. You distort the facts and are simply biased.

And I am still waiting that you answer me the question about native American ! Why a such well educated and unbiased person like you does not answer ? Can you suggest me some literature on that matter ?

Posted by: avvgiuseppepedroli | September 28, 2009 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Polanski's "fame" (infamy?) or what happened to his parents 30+ years prior to this act shouldn't buy him a pass. He deliberately drugged and anally raped a girl he KNEW to be 13 years old. No amount of 'celebrity' or artistic acheivement erases an act so evil.
As far as the victim living with the "memory" of what happened, the fact that that memory was occluded by half a quaalude and a quart of champagne may make it easier for her, but does nothing to diminish the depravity of Polanski.

Posted by: OttoDog | September 28, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, I have to agree with most of the comments here. Not knowing her age is NEVER an excuse in the case of statutory rape. It does not matter what she tells you, what her parents tell you, or what you think her age may be. She is either of legal age or not. Period. There is also no expiration on crimes, to my knowledge. While I agree it's somewhat pointless to pursue it after all these years, I'm sure the sentencing will take all that into account. Lastly, justice should be blind. It does not matter your race, celebrity status, age, sex, past experiences (good or bad), etc.

Posted by: ebleas | September 28, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Finally, contrary to what another poster suggested, there is absolutely NO evidence that Polanski has ever repeated anything like what he did to Geimer again.

Posted by: twm1 | September 28, 2009 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Hey Anne,

Don't you think you should have disclosed that your husband is the Polish Foreign Minister, and that Poland is trying to intercede on behalf of Polanski?

Unbiased journalist, eh? Not at all.

Posted by: WaPoSucksBig | September 28, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"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, according to the PAP news agency. ~ from today's Washington Post.

____________________________

It turns out that Applebaum, like a good Stepford wife, is simply trying to keep her hubby happy.

(Aoolebaum is married to Sikorski.)

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | September 28, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

So, Anne Appelbaum, you're 'outraged' that a convicted child rapist who jumped bail before sentencing is finally apprehended?
The facts of the case are immutable. Polanski pled guilty in hopes of a slap on the wrist. If there are so many supposed "mitigating circumstances" regarding sentencing, let a judge hear them.
But, in the grand scheme of things, Polanski's no different than the death camp guards who fled prosecution for their crimes. Do you get so "outraged" whenever one of them was finally brought before the bar?

Posted by: OttoDog | September 28, 2009 8:43 AM | Report abuse

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.
===============

WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS, APPLEBAUM? Is inability to return to LA for Oscars sufficient punishment only for pedophilia? Or you would apply it it to murders and robberies?

Posted by: pihto999 | September 28, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Nice try.

The only thing outrageous with this case is that it took governments over three decades to bring a convicted felon to justice.

One can feel for Mr. Polanski's personal story and appreciate his talent but this column is one of the most aggregious cases of moral relatism I have ever read.

We often complain about our system of justice and how it can be applied erroneously. Unfortunately it is the only one we have and there can be mistakes as in the case of so many blacks convicted of crimes they did not commit. Mr. Polanski commited this crime and while in the midst of a process to determine his ultimate innocence or guilt he fled. To equate a judge with his fear of Nazism is outrageous as a justification is outrageous.

Mr. Polanski committed statutory rape. Like many with money and privildge he acted as if he were immune to the laws of his adopted
country. Now thirty years later he is, finally, being held to account. The only thing more outrageous than this column is the length of time it took to begin extracting any justice.

If I were the victim of his crime I would also want to put it behind me and try to avoid the pain that will come with revisiting this case. But, if that were the standard of whether or not we should or should not uphold the law, we would forgive and forget a lot of reprehensible and punishable crime.

Posted by: bobfbell | September 28, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

I knew people would try to defend or explain why he shouldn't be arrested. Justice!

Posted by: rlj1 | September 28, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

I find most of the comments regarding this opinion outrageously reactive and uninformed. Polansky pled "guilty" and fled when convinced his notoriety was a liability. The presiding judge had political ambitions in mind more than justice. Who benefits from the present actions? Not the victim! Our voracious appetite for vengence is alive and well and living in the USA.

Posted by: rgs21 | September 28, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

this column is one of the most aggregious cases of moral relativism I have ever read.

You are wrong Bobfbell. It is a case of "immoral relativism". We need to get away from the idea that people like Anne in colums like these are arguing from any sort of moral starting point to begin with.

Posted by: KHauser | September 28, 2009 8:55 AM | Report abuse

What is outrageous is that any woman would condone anally raping an unconscious 13-year-old girl. Not to mention that her unconscousness was the result of being drugged with qualudes and alcohol. The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for publishing such tripe. Roman Polanski needs to face the music, then, and only then, can requests for mercy be heard. I could go along with a grant of a commutation of sentence after he served 6 months to a year, given his age and the forgiveness of the victim, but first things first. As for Mr. Polanski's parents being Holocaust victims, that does not give him the right to victimize little girls now does it?

I wonder if Charles Manson needs a new cellmate......

Posted by: Sowff | September 28, 2009 8:55 AM | Report abuse

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that this, like most discussions on the Internet, has lurched into racist, wingnut frenzy. For my part the most offensive part of her whole argument is to invoke the Holocaust as a defense. How can anyone, other than "WhatHeSaid," find evidence here of Zionist machinations?

Posted by: Cossackathon | September 28, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand why Polanski's crime is considered statutory rape. According to the transcript, the girl didn't want to have sex with him, but didn't speak up because she was afraid of him. He plied her with alcohol and drugs and then sodomized her. To me, that's rape, plain and simple. Calling it "statutory" makes it sound like the girl was perfectly willing, just underage. He should pay for his crime. I don't feel sorry for him.

Posted by: krhoades1 | September 28, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

While he pled guilty to statutory rape, his crime was pure rape, and according to the victim there was no consent.

The real question here is why did France protect a convicted rapist for so many years?

We cannot allow the passage of time to render meaningless the violence of rape, or the disregard for laws. People need to know that if they flee, they will be pursued.

Posted by: kemp13 | September 28, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

This is another example of the total stupidity of the US criminal "justice" system. Most judges including federal judges are political hacks. As a result our legal system is presided over by the least qualified.
We all know that Polanski has been punished severely for whatever "crime" he committed. From the US criminal system he got a murdered wife and unborn child and more than 30 years of life as a fugitive.
He will never face trial in the US and all his arrest does is show the world how stupid Americans are to try to try him. Another embarrassment for Americans in the international community.

Posted by: jimeglrd8 | September 28, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Geez, I guess if MY husband were the foreign minister of the country petitioning for Polanski's release, I'd probably support it too.

So where's that in your story, Anne?

You are a shill, and you're a dishonest one to boot. Why not disclose your very personal interest in the story and THEN allow your readers to make an informed decision about your credibility?

Hint: You don't have any...

Posted by: Americanitis | September 28, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Total baloney.... We can't catch bin Laden, but thank god the dangerous Roman Polanski has been caught via a Swiss dragnet, even though there is no victim after all these decades. Why drag the woman and her family through court and headlines over something she probably has only a dim memory of? I agree that Polanski has "paid" for his crime. Enough already. There are more important things wrong in this world we should be trying to fix.

Posted by: EdSantaFe | September 28, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Anne: Statutory rape is a serious crime in most if not all of our 50 states. I'm sorry to hear that Polanski's parents spent time in Auschwitz and Mathausen, among the worst of the Nazi camps. But this special pleading on your part, though it accords with Yom Kippur, doesn't overrule the crime committed. Had this been you're 13-year-old child Polanski was bedding, I suspect you'd have other, more punitive suggestions here.

Posted by: MickNamVet | September 28, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

What is this -- feminists for anal rape of drugged 13 year olds because a rapist made a movie?

Or should we point out that Ms. Applebaum has a conflict of interest?

Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed:

In Polanski’s native Poland, President Lech Kaczynski and Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said they would appeal to US authorities to drop proceedings against Polanski.

The PAP news agency said Sikorski was consideri[ng] a direct appeal to US President Barack Obama to end ‘once and for all’ the proceedings against the filmmaker.

Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum:

Anne Applebaum is a columnist for the Washington Post and Slate. . . . Her husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, is a Polish politician and writer

What is this -- feminists for anal rape of drugged 13 year olds because a rapist made a movie?

Or should we point out that Ms. Applebaum has a conflict of interest?

Posted by: Cornell1984 | September 28, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

One of Polanski's friends said on TV that Polanski made a "little mistake"! Drugging and raping a minor is NOT a "little mistake"! He has been able to pursue his career, make millions, live the good life - so how has he paid for his crime?

Posted by: Utahreb | September 28, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Ann - why not include this in your story:

"Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, who is petitioning the US Government for clemency on behalf of Roman Polanski, is my husband. Please keep that in mind as you read my column and try to determine if there's any personal stake or bias in my position."

Because, like most conservatives, you are dishonest and are a moral relativist when it comes to matters of wealth and class.

Posted by: Americanitis | September 28, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

How many 13 year old girls has he raped in the past 30 years. Why would any of his rape victims speak up, he'll just get away with it. This article is so irresponsible. You would not have written anything like this if it was your 13 year old little girl that was raped!

Posted by: wowreally1 | September 28, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Ann- what if it was your 13 year old daughter?

Posted by: wturecki | September 28, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum:

Please clear your head for a nmoment. A 44 year-old man had sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl many years ago, was arrested, pleaded guilty, and fled the U.S. before he could be made to pay for his crime. His victim has said she forgives him. That, and his guilty plea, indicates that there is no doubt of his guilt. Also, while 'hiding out' in France and other places, he has had (literally) a parade of under age girls as his girlfriends. He seems to be particularly fond of '14' as the appropriate age. You say that he has already paid enough for his crime, and you mention his recent Oscar which he was 'unable' to pick up personally. However, had he gone to jail, where he belonged, he would not have been able to direct the movies that have won him the Oscar and other awards. A serial pedophile is what he is, and I have no sympathy for him. He, like other pedophiles, shoud be sent to jail, registerd as a pedophile, and left to deal with the consequences of that like others of his ilk. To me, it is outrageous that you would consider his (very proper and legal) arrest as outrageous. If this isn't an example of a double standard, I don't what is.

Posted by: cgray7daone | September 28, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Didn't he covertly lure her to Jack N's house, and drug her? Also, doesn't the statute of limitations run after 5 or so on a crime like this?

Regardless, don't we have more serious and immediate crimes? I'm not going soft on the guy, but this looks like a vendetta or someone seeking publicity.

Posted by: tjconnor | September 28, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Anne's rationalization of Polanski's alleged crime (admitted to but not proven in court) is B@#$%^&T.

Thanks for rationalizing and condoning sex with minors.

I can see now that every man or woman who gets charged with having sex with a minor will use her newly defined legal strategy, the Applebaum/Polanski Defense.

Posted by: stephenrhymer | September 28, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Unbelievable. Anne Applebaum is married to the Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who is lobbying for Polanski's case to be dismissed.
Unbelievable. This is nothing more than a PR piece masquerading as news and opinion.
The child was drugged and raped. Extradite Polanski so justice may be serviced.

Posted by: johndoe21 | September 28, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

So Anne Applebaum believes that Polanski shouldn't be punished for rape and jumping bail? It seems that Polanski's defenders justify his crimes because of "judicial misconduct," i.e., the judge wasn't going to accept a sentence of 45 days spent in a ritzy shrink facility for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl (btw, assuming a minor was older than the age of consent is not an allowable defense).

If there is any misconduct here, it was prosecutorial misconduct. Reducing the charges against a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl from rape, and a dozen other related charges that a Joe Sixpak would have been charged with, to one charge of statutory rape with the sentence being the 45 days Polanski spent in a shrink facility is a disgusting example of celebrity justice. Bravo Zulus to the judge.

Anne Applebaum, a Yom Kippur religious frenzy might be the cause of you losing your mind but, whatever the excuse, you are no longer on my list of favorite columnists.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | September 28, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Moral panic over sex offending is alive and well in the pages of WaPO. First, Polanski's conduct doesn't satisfy the criteria for pedophilia. It's a term of art in the DSM, involving "recurrent, intense, sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors" with prepubescent children 13 years or younger. There's no evidence Polanski suffers from pedophilia understood as a category of the mental disorder paraphilia. Look it up (and look up "moral panic" while you're at it). Second, Applebaum didn't refer to Polanski's experiences with concentration camps and the Manson murders as an excuse for his *sexual* conduct or anything else, but as a possible explanation for why he jumped bail. Third, when we allow the emotion of disgust to determine how we will treat offenders of any sort, the outcome is almost always a denial of the offender's rights, such as the trampling of due process that occurred in this case. Framing people who commit sex offenses as "monsters" is part of the problem of sex offending in the US, and usually contributes to scapegoating some people to coverup our anxieties about the contradictions that plague our society, including the disturbing degree to which we have sexualized children while desparately wanting them to exemplify innocence. And for not condemning Polanski as a monster, Applebaum (and myself no doubt) is excoriated as some sort of monster herself. How sad.

Now let's all go out and find a good war we can start to assure us that we are free from social anomie!

Posted by: douard1 | September 28, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Anne...what a vile and offensive article. And to top off that you did not disclose your obvious conflice of interest. Trust me, you would feel differently if your 13 year old daughter was the victim.

Posted by: wadeb123 | September 28, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

So, the "Do the crime, do the time" crowd meets the "If he lives in France, he must be cool crowd." Now, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!

Posted by: RadicalGlove | September 28, 2009 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Shame on you Anne. If he were just a common man not an elite celebrity he would have been sitting in jail right now. I love you people who believe in double standards for criminals. I suppose you would allow those currently held for this crime (it is a crime and it is illegal) should be freed. What a crock!

Posted by: staterighter | September 28, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Who should go on trial?

America does not want to put CIA torturers on trial because this would embarrass the CIA and America. Further, the CIA agents claim that they were acting on orders and should be excused for any breaches of the law. Is this called the Nouvelle American Defence?

America is good at devising Double Standards. If hypocrisy and indecency rules then justice is despised. As Churchill said: when the rule of law is absent tyranny rules.

I guess the real reason is that many Americans do not care about their abuses of human rights because they support them.

They do not care about injustices directed at Moslems or people accused of terrorism because they don't like them and because many Americans are vengeful and vicious.

Polanski! I can't understand why your sentiments displace the judicial process. Your arguments are drivel.

Would you say that Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber, deserved to remain free rather than go to prison on his return to the UK even though his crime was vicious and serious? Or, you care about Polanski but you don't care about Biggs so Biggs can go to trial but Polanski should not have to answer for his crimes.

Posted by: robertjames1 | September 28, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Shame on you Anne. If he were just a common man not an elite celebrity he would have been sitting in jail right now. I love you people who believe in double standards for criminals. I suppose you would allow those currently held for this crime (it is a crime and it is illegal) should be freed. What a crock!

Posted by: staterighter | September 28, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

This really argues for lawyers checking credentials in advance of sexual coupling of their clients. Had Polanski's attorney done due diligence, he would have discovered the girl's tender age and the hanky-panky would have had to be called off. Would that U.S. authorities were so anxious to do their jobs that Dick Cheney were indicted on war crimes charges that are fresher and more worthy of jackboot-on-neck vigor.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | September 28, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

He drugged and anally raped a child.

If he wasn't Polanski we wouldn't be discussing whether or not he should be prosecuted.

Posted by: mr_bill_10 | September 28, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Anne:

You are apologizing for a child rapist, while simultaneously cheapening the memory of the Holocaust.

You are a disgusting moral degenerate.

Posted by: Gigantic | September 28, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

He frightened, drugged and raped a very young girl, both vaginal and anal (imagine the pain) - and now he couldn't go get his Oscar. Poor baby. And (gasp) he had to pay legal fees, too. What a terrible punishment!

Anne - do you feel contempt for young girls? Do you think they are unimportant, compared to grown men who are auteurs?

Posted by: asoders22 | September 28, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

God, there is so much wrong with this post, its hard to know where to begin.

First, um, you are really going to go with the "he didn't know she was 13!" defense? Just how many 13 year olds can pass even remotely close to 18. i mean if she was 16 or older maybe, but um... 13?! are you kidding us?! Okay, then show us a picture of her, standing up next to adults. Let us see that the evidence that he could have reasonably been confused on this subject.

Not to mention other distortions, such as ignoring that he was accused of non-consensual rape, too. That he in fact was convicted, having pled guilty. That your husband has been advocating for him in his official capacity creating a conflict of interest a mile wide.

But i think this is the most offensive line:

> Of all nations, why was it Switzerland -- the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators -- that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski?

Right, you know, because having been wrong in the past they must never do anything right? They protected a dictator's money, so they can't turn over a pedo. um, okay.

And this is a pretty feeble line, too:

> 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.

Oh my! and to be kept out of hollywood is like being in prison! i find it odd, btw, that he "paid in terms of stigma" but then could still recieve an oscar and some kind of lifetime achievement award in switzerland. That's one pretty mild stigma there.

And of course the most tragic thing is he can't cast in hollywood. which means he is deprived of the casting couch. my gosh, its worse than the holocaust, which, btw, he survived.

Yeah, actually now i think about it, I think the fact you tried to use the holocaust survivor label to get him out of this is the most offensive. Here's a harsh truth. some of the people killed by the nazis were wonderful people. Anne Frank comes to mind. And some were not so wonderful. And that was just what was wrong with it: the nazis didn't care who you were, so long as you were a jew, gypsy and various other kinds of "undesirables" and "useless eaters" (in the eyes of the nazis). It was random murder, and thus the victims were randomly good or bad. Polansky was eventually one of the bad ones. And to throw up "holocaust survivor" as part of his defense, is to say that the man can never in his whole life be accountable for his own conduct. which gee, would make him a real danger to society.

But don't worry. this is going to LA. I am sure he will go free anyway. As Steven Colbert said right after the jackson verdict, apparently everything is legal in california.

Posted by: awalker1972 | September 28, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Epic conflict-of-interest disclosure FAIL. Jiminy Tapdancing Christmas, can the Post's Opinion page get any more hackish? Applebaum writes an opinion piece advocating dropping charges against Roman Polanski and fails to mention that her husband is a Polish Foreign Minister who is lobbying for the release of Roman Polanski.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, that little tidbit was something readers should know about, you pathetic amateurish hacks? For your sake, I hope the test prep business stays strong...

Posted by: EdTheRed | September 28, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Anne,

You're just wrong this time around. His age, his background, his accomplishments at the time (and since), none of them make his crime any less significant. Whether he's done anything with a MINOR since is irrevelant. The bill is past due. Interest has accrued. Time for him to pay up.

Posted by: Skowronek | September 28, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

tjconnor

Btw, in most states the statute of limitations is suspended when the case is filed. You don't get to escape justice by fleeing the country. you only postpone it.

Posted by: awalker1972 | September 28, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I hope upon hope that ethnic identification isn't distorting Anne's view of this man. Let the trial proceed and let a jury hear the facts and make the determination of if he has paid for his actions or if he has not. That is how things work in a well functioning society governed by the rule of law.

Posted by: lancediverson | September 28, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Cry me a river!

Posted by: tim7 | September 28, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

France and Poland are demanding Polanski's release. How dare Ms. Applebaum not state that she is married to Radoslaw Sikorski, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland within the context of this offensive article!
This man is a criminal - must everything be politicized? Did Anne and Rad decide over coffee this morning that this would be a good thing? I won't be wasting my time reading any more of Ms. Rosenbaum's "opinions".

Posted by: shar4 | September 28, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Hes 83 now. His creative life is behind him. So he is probably very lucky with the way how things turned out for him, even if he goes to prison after this timely arrest.

Posted by: akula | September 28, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Because a victim forgives you of a crime, it does not mean that you should not be punished for it.

Posted by: Fontana1 | September 28, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Unmentioned so far, 3 big winners in this:

1. HBO has a major documentary on the Roman Polanski that is to air today. As long-planned. This is about a perfect case of timeing as there ever was for any media project.

2. THe Eurojustice system, which does not fetishize teen sex as the major crime it has become by years of hysteria in the US. Sure to be a big topic is how authorities in the US ignore rampant sex, pregnancies. and abortions in age 12-15 age bracket - particularly in the underclass. How prosecutors, feminists, school administrators unite in the USA in believing the legal sytem is not capable of looking into and going after who is having sex with these underage (legally if not hormonally/or body development) females. (In one US city, Jacksonville FL, 60% of black females age 12-15 have had sexual intercourse.

3. This may be a boom for Leftists out to nab the likes of Kissinger, Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Eliot Abrams, General Petreaus, cuban exile terrorists, General Sanchez, even Bill Clinton for his Serbia bombings and Rendition programme. Not to mention Cheney, various CIA people ID'd in the media.
The US position was that it would only honor warrants for extradition while agreeing to it by negotiating with the country whose prosecutors/investigating magistrate prepared warrants. Polanski is a high-profile example of the US abandoning that, and legal extradition proceedings with the nation who they are interested in has citizenship in..and laying traps in 3rd countries. The chances of US citizens being caught in the ploy of the "Polanski nabbing" - just went up.

And unsaid, but something everyone should be asking is:

Who in US Gov't was working with the Swiss? And what exactly did the US give to the Swiss to buck France and Poland? Could it be assurances that we were done looking into Swiss secret bank account numbers of wealthy Ruling Elites in America who evaded income taxes?

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | September 28, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

All you people who are defending the child rapist, should feel the same way if your daughter is drugged and raped. I am sure that liberals would have no problem and would beg prosecuters not to prosecute if their daughter was raped. Yup!

Posted by: thelaw1 | September 28, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I am sure that all of you liberals defending a child rapist would have no problem if your daughter was raped, right?

In fact, I am sure that if you would like to have your daughter raped, why don't you just send her over to Jessup MD, for a conjugal visit there are many rapists there that would help you out.

And all the idiots trying to tie the war in Iraq in with this, WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

Posted by: thelaw1 | September 28, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Odds are, this wasn't Polanski's first statutory rape of an underage girl. Just the first time he was caught at it.

He seemed to know what he was doing, and never thought he would have any trouble this time.

Polanski embarassed the criminal justice system in LA, in your face, so LA prosecutors will NEVER let this one go until Polansi is pushing up daisies.

If the girl were 17, already sleeping around, Polanski would have gotten off. But 13? Forget it.

Posted by: oracle2world | September 28, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Gee Anne, I guess that means Polanski can babysit your 13 year-old daughter. What a stupid column. This girl was raped and he plead guilty to it; fled the country ahd hid in France for 30 years. Had he stayed to face his punishment, he would've out years ago.

Posted by: CubsFan | September 28, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The fact that the victim is sick of this dominating her life and just wants to move on doesn't lessen Polanski's guilt. Justice is not a private matter. Deterrence and prevention make up much of the reason for enforcing society's laws. If Polanski gets away with this, it makes the next girl whom the next predator takes a fancy to more likely to suffer. And yes, calling every violent forcible rape that happens to an underage girl a mere statutory rape is very misleading. If you read the deatils of how Polanski drugged his victim with Qualudes and champagne and what followed, it's stomach churning. It was a cold blooded assault.

And what about fleeing from justice? Should we reward criminals who run? How is that fair to those who are truly remorseful, who step up and accept their punishments? They should be treated worse than rich liars like Polanski? If Polanski hadn't fled, this all would have been over (for him) 30 years ago. He would have been sentenced to something unfortunately minor, and soon would have been free. He's the one who chose to drag it out.

Posted by: UniqueID | September 28, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Although I am usually strict conservative on punishment for sexual misconduct against minors - in this case forgiveness is in order as Mr. Polanski was likely quite traumatized at the time by the brutal murder of his pregnant wife Sharon Tate -none of which most all of us will ever have to deal with or could even fathom happening - and besides the girl is 45 yrs old now and forgives him. But maybe he and his attorney should let a jury decide

Posted by: dallasal10 | September 28, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Anne: do you believe you are conflicted on this? Tell the reader about your husband and how he has supported Polanski for years. A little truth in news reporting. See 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: jedrury | September 28, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum,

Did you have any plans to mention that your husband is a Polish government official who is trying to have Polanski's case dismissed?

Posted by: paultx | September 28, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I do not understand why so many folks are missing the point. It is not about the victim forgiving and trying to forget, it is about a man who drugged and raped a minor and who, after pleading guilty to statutory rape, fled the country. There is no statute of limitations on a person who has been convicted of a Felony but has fled justice. It matters little if it is 10 years or 100 years. It matters little if he missed his father's funeral or that he could not go to Disneyland. If he were NOT a famous person, he would have long ago been sent back to the US, served possibly 3-5 years in Prison (likely less) and would have been able to get on with his life so he could drug and rape more 13 year olds (even though today they look 18+). Come on home Mr. Polanski, have your hearing and get your probated sentence.

Posted by: Esling | September 28, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

So the rich and famous get to pay for their crimes with lawyer fees and notoriety, while the rest of have to do hard time. Good to know the Post still cares about the little guy!

Posted by: laker_one | September 28, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I am always amazed when a woman does not stand up for a child- just because the years have passed does not excuse the raping of a child EVER When did this issue become "a grey area" to you Anne? Sick

I hope you don't have a daughter - now she'll know who NOT to go to if she is attacked - mom sides with the "artist"

Posted by: dcjayhawk2 | September 28, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

What's outrageous is Ms Applebaum's failure to disclose that the Polish FM who is pleading for Roman to get off is her own husband.

Is this really the WaPo?

Posted by: harkin1 | September 28, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

It's not that he confessed to statuatory rape of a 13-year old, which is horrible enough, but that it wasn't even "just" statuatory. He gave her champagne and quaaludes, and she tried to resist. So, a guy who rapes a drugged and drunk 13-year old girl. Nice.

I would only be ok with not going through with another trial because the victim has said she doesn't want to go through it.

Posted by: Mazarin | September 28, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

While you have not disclosed your connection to Poland, dear readers, others have. It should be part of the introduction. In the good old days, it might even have been deemed a conflict of interest and your editor might have requested you write about something else. This rich, influential, gifted man raped a child. Maybe they do these sorts of things in France or Poland, but this is not France, so call us prudes, but it is wrong. Women are not disposable styrofoam cups. And he fled rather than serve the time. Is the lesson that the longer you evade justice the more likely that you never have to submit to it? This was his choice and it has consequences. At least for most people.

Posted by: SarahBB | September 28, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Normally, I have a great respect for Anne Applebaum but in this case she is deeply wide of the mark and her arguments are, frankly, sickening. The argument that Polanski was unaware of his victim's age is irrelevent as this defence has no legal standing. Nor is it credible. A 13 year does not look like a 21 year old. The fact that the victim has now forgiven Polanski is also irrelevent. To accept this as migigation infers that child abusers could cite their victim's forgiveness as a defence. This is dangerous territory. Also we are not talking about the victim now. We are talking about a crime committed against a child then. The claim that the victim was sexually active and sex was consentual is also irrelevent as a child cannot consent under any circumstances. Finally the argument that Polanski fled because of some kind of fear of irrational punishment because he experienced the Holocaust is insulting to the US legal system and the dead of the Holocaust. It also implies that we should hold Holocaust survivors up as some kind of paragon of virtue and allow any transgression because of past suffering. This is a a self-evident nonsense. Polankski fled the US because he didn't want to go to prison as a sex criminal and his behaviour (avoiding countries where he might be arrested and sent back) suggests deliberate calulation. I suspect that Polanski's supporters are motivated by misplaced guilt (references to the Holocaust) and a belief that artists must making a few (not very good films) excuses criminality. The man is not a latter day Oscar Wilde despite the fevered imaginations of the literati. He is a rapist who should go to prison. There is nothing more to be said.

Posted by: kbaker2 | September 28, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

This is the worst article I've read lately outside of Glenn Beck's blog. The man fled the country after his trial and before sentencing because he feared too harsh a punishment. Sorry bud, that's why we have the appeals process. This BS about him being treated unfairly due to his celebrity is laughable; usually celebrities are treated with greater leniency. Applebaum, this article is an embarrassment.

Posted by: cafinch | September 28, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Wow Anne - this article is disgusting even by your standards. Do you have any daughters? You OK with them being drugged and sodomized at 13 (or any age for that matter). To make it worse, you use your forum to make all kinds of excuses. Did you husband coach you on what to write? This thing reads like a crib sheet from a defense strategy meeting.

I guess in your mind if you have the resources and pull to stay on the run long enough, you can do anything you want. You and Polanski are both pigs. Can't wait for you next article regarding women's rights.

Posted by: gorams1 | September 28, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Anne believes that Roman Polanski will find the one-armed man who is the real rapist. Oh wait, sorry, that is the other Fugitive.

Posted by: sscritic | September 28, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, rape is a crime against the state, as well as the victim. Mr. Polanski was convicted of rape and he chose to flee. That is the problem now, 32 years later. Mr. Polanski was convicted of a crime against the state, for which he never accepted punishment as his choice at that time. It's out of anyone's hands but the LA District Attorney and the court, regardless of our personal feelings with the passage of time.

Posted by: jkaugust | September 28, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Folks, please get the facts B4 banging the drum for "justice". (and yes, I do have a teenage daughter)

-- Learn about the mom's role in this
-- Learn about the plea bargain the DA did
-- Learn about the judge and his agenda
-- Learn about the deal Polanski pled to

Watch the HBO special tonight with an open mind. Then judge whether you want your tax dollars supporting this.

Posted by: tjconnor | September 28, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

So what some people here seem to be saying is that it is okay to drug, rape and sodomize a 13 year old girl, flee the country, and live a life of fame and luxury as long as you have the money to buy the victim off when she presses a lawsuit?

Posted by: alysheba_3 | September 28, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

So if I commit a horrible crime, but I've had a tough life and manage to create a few quality feature films, I should get a free pass?

Thanks, Anne--- I'll keep that in mind.

Posted by: Regis09 | September 28, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse


Before you start judging Mr. Polanski, who may or may not have known the girl's real age, just review the behavior of the all-too-willing parents who handed their children over to Michael Jackson to play with.

Chew on that for a bit.

Or better, rent "Bruno" for the scenes where Hollywood wanna be parents tell the camera what they're willing to let their children do just to get into a film production. It's disturbing stuff.

I take the position that Polanski may have been set-up to some degree.

The fact he fled the country complicates matters, so his "crime" is almost more about his contempt of court than the actual crime itself.


Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | September 28, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

As the Russian troops approached Auschwitz, “an understandable fear of irrational punishment” caused the Nazis to make a “panicky decision to flee” too.

Who could blame them?

After all “there is evidence of judicial (Russian) misconduct during the trial (war).” And according to some captured since “there is evidence they did not know” exterminations were taking place.

Yeah, it was basically just a big misunderstanding – could happen to anyone.

Most of the guards never returned to Poland, avoided many countries since (especially Israel & Germany), and have never been convicted of anything else.

And as with Mr. Polanski, they’re SOL when it comes to “visiting Hollywood to direct or cast a film.”

Further, a few former prisoners have “said more than once that” they “forgive” their Nazi tormentors, though, in fairness, it must be noted most could not be reached for comment.

Sure these guards committed a crime but they’ve suffered much more “professional stigma” than Mr. Polanski - and they’ve suffered the indignity of being personae non gratae at the Oscar ceremonies twice as long.

Thus, I submit we extend the Applebaum Theory on Pardons to any criminal who has reason to fear that society may mete out a punishment exceeding what they believe to be fair.

Exile to France for the lot of them. And stay there!

Posted by: Bjartur | September 28, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Applebaum's flawed reasoning and logic is idiotic. Polanski has a long history of having sex with underaged girls. To say that he didn't know her age is to ignore the model release that her mother had to sign since she was a minor. That Polanski has had to spend a fortune on lawyers is of his own doing. To argue that the girl "looked" old enough, which was the defense at the time in 1977, doesn't cut the mustard. Would Applebaum feel the same if her daughter was raped at 13, even after 30 years, and the criminal was still on the lose, abusing young girls? I think not.

Posted by: ThePRGuy | September 28, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Judges and prosecutors renig on plea deals all the time. Ordinary crimiminals are not able to flee and live luxurious lives all the while being glorified because of their "art".

This pig drugged and raped a child, he should, at the very least, be forced to appear in court and finish the process.

I can't believe how you are defending him, Ms. Applebaum, it is disgraceful. If you have a interest conflict that is doubly a reason to keep your mouth shut.

Shame on you.

Posted by: soupcity | September 28, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I never comment on articles,but this outrageous column is too much to let pass. For all the reasons stated by many comments, this column is an embarrassment to the Wash Post. To act as if suffering during the holocaust mitigates later crimes is morally obtuse, and just plain stupid. This woman has so discredited herself, she should be fired. What a joke!

Posted by: jimwashingtonpost | September 28, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The girl, now 45, has said more than once.... that she can live with the memory,

Of course she can "live" with the memory. Really what choice does the woman have? She chooses to live with the memory because the other options are what? Suicide, self medication with drugs and alcohol, ooh what great choices.

Mr. Polanski is responsible for that memory and he should be held accountable. All adults should be held accountable for what they do to children and Mr. Polanski does not deserve a free pass simply because he also has unhappy childhood memories, or because he's avoided punishment or because he's rich and famous.

The law must apply equally to all or it is false and hollow.

Posted by: battleshiphips | September 28, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Anne. This arrest serves no one, certainly not the girl involved who has long asked for the case to be dropped. As you can see from the comments here, grabbing Polanski just feeds the emotions of those who have lives filled with anger, rage, pity, blame and other such stuff. Of course rule of law is important, but I only saw one comment here by a person actually familiar with the original set-up by the girl and her mother. Trickery and extortion was their plan all along. Otherwise clean-as-a-whistle Polanski is now turned into a cause, a demon, by those with an agenda. I think Switzerland did this as payback for U.S. pressure on their banks to stop hiding the fortunes of America's super wealthy tax cheats.

Posted by: swift02 | September 28, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

It'd be nice if people who feel justified in making comments would take the trouble to familiarize themselves with the facts of the case. Applebaum's argument is essentially this: he was the victim of entrapment, and he only fled the country because the judge was going to ignore the plea bargain made by the prosecutor and his lawyer. The prosecutor was content to have a token sentence including psychiatric counseling, but the judge was going to abuse his power and commit Polanski to prison for 30 years.

People making comments along the lines of "he doesn't have anything to fear if he is innocent" are simply obtuse.

The question now is not whether he was guilty or not, but whether mitigating circumstances justified a reduced sentence, and whether clemency is appropriate or not. Certainly the idea that he should undergo "psychiatric counseling" now, 30 years later at the age of 76, seems absurd.

And yes, the fact that he fled justice argues in favor of some kind of prison sentence. But could we at least admit that this is not a simple situation?

And no, Appelbaum's marriage to a Pole is not relevant at all.

Posted by: rick_desper | September 28, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all."

On the contrary.. if he weren't famous, no one would be defending him.

Posted by: Ynot1 | September 28, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I guess Pani Sikorsky cannot see that having fled justice for thirty years after being caught in flagrante delicto with a minor female is sufficient grounds for the action taken by the Swiss. She is always concerned about female Muslims abused, why not about an American female abused?

Posted by: ravitchn | September 28, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I guess Pani Sikorsky cannot see that having fled justice for thirty years after being caught in flagrante delicto with a minor female is sufficient grounds for the action taken by the Swiss. She is always concerned about female Muslims abused, why not about an American female abused?

Posted by: ravitchn | September 28, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Wow. This article and some of the comments here are extremely upsetting. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year old girl. A child that age (and one who has been drugged!) can not give consent - her sexual history is irrelevant. If there was judicial misconduct in the previous case, that's a concern, but the real crime which was committed here should not be ignored. And I'm horrified at the idea that because Polanski suffered in his life - because his parents were Holocaust victims, because his wife was murdered - that somehow excuses his own criminal misbehavior. I'm very sorry that he experienced these tragedies, but that's hardly an excuse for RAPE.
As for the victim's desire not to prosecute, I understand where she's coming from. A lot of rape victims don't want to prosecute because it's difficult and painful (and as the above transcript shows, she was subjected to some pretty awful questions in the first trial). But this was a crime, and it's important to send the message that just because you're a celebrity, just because the original trial may not have been handled well, doesn't mean you get off of a crime. I want Polanski prosecuted for the sake of all the other little girls - and adult women - who have been raped, by celebrities and non-celebrities alike - to see that our country takes these things seriously. Not being able to accept a freaking Academy Award is not enough punishment for this act.

Posted by: sophia86 | September 28, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Excuse me, Sikorski.

Posted by: ravitchn | September 28, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

A holocaust survivor whose wife was murdered by Manson? Well hell, why don't we just provide him with all the 13 year old girls he wants and let him rape them to his heart's content. It's the least we can do for such a talented guy.

Posted by: grashnak | September 28, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Polanski is a great genius. "Chinatown" is worth many thousands of 13-year-old girls. Leave him alone!

Posted by: mitt1968 | September 28, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Applebaum write:

"He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto"

Do you actually believe in this drivel? A powerful Hollywood type had an "understandable fear of irrational punishment"?????

Suggesting that 43 year old, successful Hollywood power man in 1977 was afraid of "persecution" in the hands of American justice system would be comical if it weren't so criminal. You madam have no shame!!!

And all this propaganda with no regard for a 13 year old little girl who was given alcohol and drugs!!. The travesty of justice is the "plea bargain" to begin with. Someone should look into that!!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Applebaum and other unabashed supporters of "Roman Polanski",

please review this 13 year old girl rape victim testimony below:


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

(thank you dhorton1)

Then, please tell us that regardless of Mr. Polanski's religion and Holocaust relation, you think he does not need to stand before Justice.

I don't believe that Ms. Applebaum is condoning rape of children, she is only saying that if the perpetrator is Jewish and a victim of Holocaust, the case should be swept under the rug, lest we open old wounds.

Brilliant Ms. Applebaum, La Chaim!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight, the Washington Post is publishing a column stating that the arrest of a child rapist, a pedophile, is outrageous.

Way to pick your friends WaPo.

Posted by: jasonmason | September 28, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Outrageous. Yes. But Miss Applebaum has her priorities confused. Polanski committed the CRIME of RAPE.and to make it twice heinous, the RAPE of a CHILD. No amount of legal fees spent would be reparation for this clearly sick perversion. Obviously mindless to the fear and bewilderment of a 13 year old child she is in grave error in suggesting this,and her other egregious reasons we should consider justification for this man's act. As the clergy who raped the boys in the past decades, he deserves the condenmation of his peers and a lawful punishment for his crime. A PEDERFILE here in the States is the person you don't want to move in next door, clearly exhibited when a neighbourhood is informed of his presence. No matter Polansk'is history he is still a flawed human whom no parent would want near their junior high daughter. Money and fame does not change this. Ask any Father with a daughter and see his reaction, Miss Applebaum. A red-eyed bull, sweating and straining at the bit would be no match to the fury and anger you would see in this man's eyes. That's OUTRAGE.

Posted by: elizabeth6 | September 28, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

It's disgusting when bleeding hearts make excuses for despicable criminals. The guy committed a crime against American society. It's irrelevant what the victim now wants since she filed a complaint in the first place. Throw his behind in prison. Stop making excuses for criminals.

Posted by: redrider26p | September 28, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Anne is angling for an acting career for her daughter.

Posted by: edbyronadams | September 28, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Anne,
That's the most specious argument I've ever read, and as an attorney I read a lot of them. I'm not the first to ask, was it parody?

Other commenters ascribe your views to all liberals, so Anne, please stop writing. You're giving us a bad name.

Posted by: MartinCrim | September 28, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Of course, the startegy by Applebaum may be to stir the pot and then claim "antisemitism"

What is your stance on anti-rapism?
How about anti-pedophilia?

Ah the canards of anti-criminality

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

RE: "A plea agreement was reached but breached by the judge."
I need to hear more about this deal beyond these posts. My understanding has always been that plea bargained agreements are like contracts; a judge cannont whimiscally throw it out, because that is the basis for the (plea bargain) deal.

I suspect this is just another unsubstantiated argument to let the convicted rapist of a 13 year-old girl go free, and feel good about it.

Many others cite equally ludicrous reasons to justify the crime -- the mother's participation, the girl’s sexual experience -- on and on. Few of those who side with Mr. Polanski -- or anyone for that matter, considers that this case was very complex with many mitigating factors. That is exactly why the plea bargain was struck in the first place. Statutory rape is the most valid reason to let the court deal with putting to bed a most sordid case. I doubt the judge threw it out. I'll bet Mr. Polanski decided on his own that any punishment was too much for him.

Posted by: jkaugust | September 28, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Please forgive Mr. Polanski. He is a famous and wealthy person who incidentally happens to be the same religion/race as Ms Applebaum!

Of course, because so many innocent Jewish people were brutally killed during the Holocaust, we need to use that crime to justify the behavior of this pedophile? what? is this really what Ms. Applebaum is saying?

Hate to bearer of this news on Yom Kippur, but it is hard to imagine that actual, religious Jews would agree with Applebaum. I think Applebaum is abusing her religion for social/financial advancement. She probably could care less about the religion or the Holocaust!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Anne missed the boat on this one. After being indicted for a capital crime, Polansky took the law into his own hands and fled justice. In effect, he (and not a jury) determined his own "punishment", making him a fugitive from justice. He should be returned to the legal system so that justice can be served.

Posted by: JoeDon | September 28, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

This column is sick! It isn't everyday that you here a defense of a 43 year old man raping a 13 year old girl. If Ms. Applebaum were Mr. Applebaum, Mr. Applebaum would be fired.

Posted by: bjmiles1 | September 28, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

The law is the law.

Why should a movie director get away with banging a 13-year-old? This guy is sick.

Politicians don't have to pay their taxes and movie stars don't have to abide by common decency.

Why is the media defending the guy?

Disgusting... no wonder people don't read the paper anymore....

If Polanski were a Republican from the Bible Belt he'd be prosecuted 100 years from now by the Washington Post.

Posted by: ravioliman6666 | September 28, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Anne,
That's the most specious argument I've ever read, and as an attorney I read a lot of them. I'm not the first to ask, was it parody?

Other commenters ascribe your views to all liberals, so Anne, please stop writing. You're giving us a bad name.

Posted by: MartinCrim

----------------


I think to label Applebaum as liberal is a great insult to liberals (whatever that term means)

I think Applebaum is a re-incarnation of Ayn Rand. Except that her objectivity only applies to a small segment of wealthy and powerful.

I wouldn't be surprised if she is a zealous Zionist/Neo-con and when the day of reckoning arrives, she'll be sipping Champage and Qualuude!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Gotcha!

Posted by: MUPPET | September 28, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

So the victim says "no" but the predator says yes. On top of that the victim is 13 and fed drugs and liquor. This is a shocker at any level, but Ann finds a way to defend it. Rapists and Pedo's love you Ann, You validate everyone of the predators excuses. This is what makes Hollywood sick in the eyes of mainstream America.

Posted by: snapplecat07 | September 28, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

He knew the child's age...he had to get the consent to photograph her. He gave her quaaludes and champagne, raped & sodomized her...the THIRTEEN year-old resisted to no avail...but it's all good Anne? You and this rag you 'write' for disgust me. Why don't you tell us who your husband is Anne; and your conflict of interest writing this garbage?

Posted by: DCJeff1 | September 28, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Anne,
That's the most specious argument I've ever read, and as an attorney I read a lot of them. I'm not the first to ask, was it parody?

Other commenters ascribe your views to all liberals, so Anne, please stop writing. You're giving us a bad name.

Posted by: MartinCrim
-----------------

I didn't know Applebaum could be considered a "liberal" (whatever that means) I thought she was just a Zealous Zionist with closet Neo-Con tendencies!!!

Don't waste your breath folks, she is well-entrenched at Washington Post with a cabal of editors/owners/writers such as Bill Kristol, Krauthammer, Perle, etc. etc.

But the fact that she actually wrote this column means the power is getting into her head and she is getting sloppy!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse


Ooooppsieee....

Applebaum also neglects to mention that Polanski drugged her with a Quaalude and champagne, forcibly had sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her afterward.

Patterico notes that Applebaum left out another pertinent fact in her blog post:

Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed … Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum[.] Applebaum failed to mention this little fact.

So at the same time that she was giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom.


Posted by: freeaccess1 | September 28, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

First off how about a little honesty in your column. This was not merely "statutory rape", this was RAPE. As in non-consensual sex. As in a man forcibly sodomizing a 13 year old girl. How can you be an apologist for this? Because he had a rough past? I'm sure that most child molesters have a rough past. Do we give them all a past? Are you now advocating on behalf of all rapists and molesters, or just the wealthy artistic ones?

Posted by: limbo2 | September 28, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

THE GUY PLEADED GIUILTY and then fled to avoid his sentence. HELLO!!!!

Posted by: dcpsychic | September 28, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I believe Applebaum should have disclosed her husband's position as the Polish Foreign Minister. There seems to be a conflict of interest here as well as flawed logic. What an outrage!

Posted by: d1carter | September 28, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight, the Washington Post is publishing a column stating that the arrest of a child rapist, a pedophile, is outrageous.
Way to pick your friends WaPo.
Posted by: jasonmason | September 28, 2009 11:34 AM |
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, this is a truly outrageous column. Especially to me because a women has expressed these bewildering thoughts. A disgrace to her sex and to all of us who have daughters and remember our own young childhood. If a man had written this what would the Washington Post have done with him I wonder? This newspaper I am finished with. Never in Katherine Graham's day would one have read such egregious words excusing the rape of a child. She should be fired. But she won't be because she has the right to free speech, and look at all the letters her column has produced, that sells papers and after all, bottom line, that's what really matters !

Posted by: elizabeth6 | September 28, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

...and another thing...it's such a darn SHAME that Polanski the VICTIM (in your eyes) can't come back to Hollywood to direct or receive awards...the only award he deserves is a dose of his own medicine in prison! We are so sorry that the law might apply to the elite and offend pseudo-elitist writers!

Posted by: DCJeff1 | September 28, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Pedophilia is an epidemic in this country and Ms. Applebaum wants to let Polanski go because he is a famous director, he says he didn't know her age(despite evidence to the contrary), his wife died tragically and he paid his debt to society by living in luxury in France. Ms. Applebaum cites the victims reluctance to bring this case up again as another reason not to prosecute Polanski. Well there is a reason the victim doesn't want to talk about it again, SHE WAS RAPED and despite her claims of forgiveness for Polanski it is a open wound that will never heal. If this was a poor homeless 76 year old pedophile, I doubt if MS. Applebaum would be calling for his release. Ms. Applebaum points out that Polanski has paid his debt in many other ways such as lawyers fees (a real burden for a rich man), professional stigma (he continues to direct films and receive financial backing), and finally he couldn't accept his Oscar and direct in Hollywood (and Hollywood wonders why America feels out of touch with them). Polanski belongs in jail where he should have been 30 years ago. Rape victims suffer in silence all their lives, Polanski has lived like a king with support form the media, the rich and society's elite. They all should be ashamed

Posted by: JAMNEW | September 28, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

So the victim says "no" but the predator says yes. On top of that the victim is 13 and fed drugs and liquor. This is a shocker at any level, but Ann finds a way to defend it. Rapists and Pedo's love you Ann, You validate everyone of the predators excuses. This is what makes Hollywood sick in the eyes of mainstream America.

Posted by: snapplecat07

------------------

snapple, where is your compassion? didn't you hear Applebaum say that Polanksi is a Holocaust survivor? Are you an "anti-semite"?

We need to treat all criminals with Jewish ancestry with extra-care. This is particularly true if they are also extremely rich and powerful (see also Mark Rich)

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Whatever his backgroud or lack thereof, there's no "forgiveness" in the eyes of the law, nor statute of limitations, for forcible sodomy of a 13 y/o child! For you, Ms Applebaum, to play the background violins in this criminal orchestra is nothing less than disgusting. As has been said recently---"have you no shame?"

Posted by: baltic | September 28, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm wrong again! It should be Pani Sikorska!

I am glad there is some outrage about her defense of Polanski.

Posted by: ravitchn | September 28, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Gee Ann, I hope when some misogynist sticks his unwelcome penis up your butt, you are as forgiving.
If I'd been the father of that girl, this would have been a non-issue - since the "law" failed, I'd have followed the SOB to Europe and killed him, so he would never again do that to some young girl, and so my daughter would never ever have to fear that person again.
So sorry that Roman had a touch childhood (and he DID), so tragic that Sharon Tate was brutally murdered. But that does NOT excuse raping a 13 year old.

Posted by: humbleandfree | September 28, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I think it's wrong to assume that those of us calling for Polanski arrest and return to the US don't understand the facts of the case or are consumed by rage.

Regardless of all of the mitigating factors, Polanski made a choice. That choice was to have sex with a 13 year old child.

Every choice has consequences. Mr. Polanski needs to face his.

Posted by: Nmarie | September 28, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

How can a woman defend a rapist? Why the Jews hunt the nazi 60 years after the fact?
Do this depends on the ethnic background?

Posted by: ned7578 | September 28, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

This may explain why Applebaum is supporting Polanski. Heh. From Hotair.com

"Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed … Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum[.] Applebaum failed to mention this little fact.

So at the same time that she was giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom."

Posted by: spc2 | September 28, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

This is an unbelievable failure of journalistic honesty and probity. Anne Applebaum's husband is involved in the case, which she fails to disclose to her readers, and she pleads the case of an *admitted rapist* who fled the country and refused to accept the punishment that he negotiated for himself in a court of law. Worse, Applebaum deliberately misstates the facts of the case. Polanski *raped and sodomized* a 13 year old girl--that act would have been illegal even if she had been "of age" since it was rape. And he admitted it. And he, in fact, pled guilty to it. It is disgusting that the Washington Post has allowed a convicted Rapist to suborn its coverage of his case. Applebaum should be fired for this breach of ethics.

aimai

Posted by: aimai | September 28, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

You cannot be serious! Your logic is flawed. This guy is no better that Garrido! He drugged her then raped her and you forgive him because of the tragedy in his life. I bet many rapists had tragedy in their life. Should we let them all go?

NO the law is the law and regardless of the victims forgiveness, he should answer to the state! Anne, you need psychotherapy!

Posted by: sandnsmith | September 28, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum has "stirred the pot" alright!

Now she can claim that anybody against Roman Polanski is anti-semite!!

These are moments of revelation and clarity people! Applebaum defends a fellow Jews rape and sodomy of a 13 year old American girl with the same ferocity that she defends Israelis' burning of Palestinian Children with White Phosphurus!!

Remember this column next time you hear about the plight of Palestinians.

For Ms. Applebaum, appears to subscribe to Ayn Rands Objectivism! Me, myself and my tribe can blur all boundaries of humanity and justice.

We can subvert the truth, even in the case of an innocent 13 year old girl who was DRUGGED and RAPED only to support another member of the tribe!!!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Ok, let me declare up front that I'm one of those bleeding-heart liberals that you all love to hate. Nevertheless, I find this article -- and Anne Applebaum's position -- to be appalling.

I have a few comments on her claims:

"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all."

But he is famous and, as such, a visible symbol of celebrity avoiding American jurisprudence.

"There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial."

Yes, but not as it pertained to his guilt or innocence. Polanski pled guilty; the judicial misconduct was a matter of the judge changing his mind about honoring the plea bargain.

"Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years..."

Yes, that's what happens to ciminals. You're making it sound as if Polanski has been dogged for 30+ years by some modern-day Javier for having committed a crime no more significant than stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. Yes, Polanski has lived under the threat of prosecution for 30 years. That's because he committed a serious crime against a minor for which he has yet to do legal penance.

"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."

He hasn't paid for the crime at all. The notoriety and lawyers' fees would be the same if he had stood trial 30 years ago. As far as professional stigma, he seems to have done alright. I notice you don't say "He could not return to Los Angeles to continue his directing career." Instead, you note, he could not return to "receive his current Oscar." Gee, I guess he's been doing a little bit of that directing gig overseas!

The point is that he committed a heinous felony and has evaded the punishment for it. Just because a crime is 30+ years old, that doesn't mean that it should just be written off. Polanski did harm to a vulnerable little girl, and the fact that he had a horrific childhood and suffered tragedy as an adult does not balance the books and excuse him from making amends.

Being a victim doesn't excuse victimizing others. I'm sure Viktor Frankl would have something to say about that.

Posted by: kjohnson3 | September 28, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

And Ms. Applebaum, if it's true, you really should have disclosed your marriage to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Disappointing for the Washington Post - where is an editor or ombudsperson when you need them?

There is something outrageous here, but it isn't Polanski's arrest.

Posted by: Nmarie | September 28, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I bet Miss Applebaum thought it was a great idea to pull some 90 year old man out of his house because he may have been a soldier in the German army 60 some years ago. But yet she feels that raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl should be forgiven because it happened a long time ago. Miss Applebaum you are a hypocrite at best.

Posted by: djrhood | September 28, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

One small point:

Ms. Applebaum is married to Radoslaw Sikorski, who happens to be the current Polish foreign minister and who is currently lobbying Switzerland to release convicted child rapist Roman Polanski.

Shame on the Ms. Applebaum and the Washington Post for not revealing this clear conflict of interest.

Posted by: Pablo01 | September 28, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

No one, so far as I know, defended Michael Jackson's criminal behavior on the grounds that as a black he was traumatized. Why should Polanski get away with things because of the Holocaust?

Posted by: ravitchn | September 28, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Just needs to be repeated, so I'm copying and pasting:

Applebaum also neglects to mention that Polanski drugged her with a Quaalude and champagne, forcibly had sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her afterward.

Patterico notes that Applebaum left out another pertinent fact in her blog post:

Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed … Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum[.] Applebaum failed to mention this little fact.
____________________________

Posted by: chock1 | September 28, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Please excuse Mr. Polanski! He is very talented and happens to be Jewish and a Holocaust survivor. He no doubt is a large contributor to Zionist cause!!

What is a little rape and pedophilia among friends, huh?
The girl probably deserved to be raped anyway, being sexy and all! And her mother consented to her being photographed, so she left the door open for Dear Mr. Polanski to go for it!!

And beside, Polanski paid for it by being stigmatized in the realm of Justice where the likes of Applebaum get their inspiration!

I truely hope that Ms. Applebaum read these comments and maybe realizes what she is actually taking about. specially on a day like today, she can ask her God for forgiveness!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

///No one, so far as I know, defended Michael Jackson's criminal behavior on the grounds that as a black he was traumatized. Why should Polanski get away with things because of the Holocaust?///

Michael Jackson was never found guilty of a crime. That has NOTHING to do with THIS case. The man is guilty and FLED the country.

Posted by: chock1 | September 28, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, a man rapes a kid and then flees the country. And we're supposed to forget and forgive because the enlightened Europeans say so?
Dirty, Old Men of the World unite! We have found a journalist who finally understands us!

Posted by: shoveit | September 28, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

To those like myself who take issue with the " Liberal" label. Liberalism has nothing to do with this blatant denial of plain decency, truth, knowing the difference between right and wrong and the desire and the duty to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. Indeed, to use one of her words, it would be "bizarre" to equate any political belief with these lapses in a human being. Shame on Miss Applebaum for she exposes none of these attributes in her column today.

Posted by: elizabeth6 | September 28, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

unless, Applebaum gets paid by Washington Post based on the number of "comments" on her article, ....in that case it all makes sense!!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

To be fair, on previous issues involving Poland Anne did mention that she is married to Foreign Minister Sikorski. I think here she doesn't regard this as a Polish issue even though Poland may.

It is hard to be anything but harsh towards a woman who, having written a book on the Soviet Gulag and another one on the Polish-Soviet borderlands where most of the Holocaust took place, defends a scoundrel on no grounds whatsoever. I don't think she is defending him because he is Polish and Jewish but absent any real reason many will draw this conclusion.

Posted by: ravitchn | September 28, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of how entrenched Judaism is in the Washington Post, we really need an editorial or article to counter this article, lest it appear that Washington Post is siding with Applebong!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

For those who keep going on about the plea bargain and the judge, perhaps a lawyer could comment, but I have always understood that a plea bargain involves the prosecutor and the defense. It does not involve the judge.

The defense agrees to plead guilty (usually to a much lesser crime - as in the Polanski case) and the prosecution agrees to RECOMMEND a certain sentence. The judge will USUALLY accept the recommendation but is not obligated to.

Posted by: grashnak | September 28, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

What Priests did to little boys is far worse than what polanski did, they were never deported, or even named in most cases, but since polanski's Jewish, its open season on him.

That's the double standard in America.

Look at the number of anti-semitic comments.

The evidence is right here on these pages.

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception | September 28, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Anne, this guy lured, drugged, and sodomized a 13-year-old girl. I'm glad he was arrested. I hope he goes to jail now. He has spent the last 30 years living a life of luxury. Your attempt at making him into the victim here is pathetic and wrong.

Posted by: ZZim | September 28, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Anne is no liberal, so stop trying to framer her that way. What is important is that her hubby is the Polish foreign minister and lobbying for Polanski's release. A good pundit would mention this, but this is waPo and they think conflict of interest is wonderful.

Posted by: thebuckguy | September 28, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Wow, pursue, try and convict Mr. Polanski for 30 years for "unlawful sexual conduct" (by the way that's the official charge) with, it turns out, a minor girl, an actress who certainly looked like she was 18 and who was presented to Mr. Polanski as over 18 BY THE GIRLS MOTHER, a mother, who by all accounts tried to blackmail Polanski into giving her daughter an acting role. But for Torture, murder, illegal wiretapping and other crimes by the Bush Administration we should "look ahead" and not pursue legal action against our "brave CIA" nor Bush/Cheney/Rice/Loo/Bybee, Addington or the rest of them....Meanwhile we also impeached President Clinton and drove him literally from the White House because of a short affair with an over 21 intern....isn't there something wrong with this picture? I mean really, really wrong?

Posted by: Watcher1 | September 28, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I came here to comment on how twisted and perverted Appelbaum's logic is, but it looks like a few hundred people beat me to it

Posted by: ArlingtonHokie | September 28, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

farhorizons wrote:
Tell me that our Justice Dept. didn't really waste its limited resources on doing the obscene bidding of the LA prosecutor's office by seeking the arrest and extradition of Polanski. Why aren't they pursuing Cardinal Mahoney and Cardinal Law this way? They, after all, abetted widespread pedophilia for years."

===================
I'm afraid the Justice Dept did just that. And since Polanski has been going to Switzerland for 30 years and even owns a chalet there -- the Swiss had to get something. And I suspect it was wealthy Democrat donors on the phone to politicians reminding them that it wasn't just corrupt Republican corporatists hiding money in Switzerland and Israel - it was the Democrats big moneymen in the Jewish financial community and Hollywood.

So expect to see the "secret Swiss bank accounts of American millionaires" controversy to be swept under the rug soon. The Polanski affair is a great way to show how law-abiding the Swiss are, and the masses get distracted from Hollywood big bucks people shirking income taxes along with Republican CEOs and the Financiers..the lowly masses have Polanski they can vent on! What a nice distraction to dredge up a 32 year old case even the victim doesn't want renewed so that LA's moneyed elite doesn't have to pay back taxes and huge evasion fines!

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of pregnant 12 and 13-year olds and the adults who knocked them up in the 'Hood are completely ignored as taxpayers prepare to fully support 100s of thousands of parasite families of young unwed moms for the next 25 years, without any effort made to find the "fathers" because no one wants to tie up all our legal and prison resources making millions of new "polanski trials".

The French frequently laugh at us. How culturally backwards we are, how corrupted we are by the moneyed Elites of both our political Parties.
With the Polanski Affair, I'm afraid they are right...

----------------
Next up? Well, if Healthcare fails, if war is looming with Iran or the dollar collapses with our debts...........what better than to get the howling, moralistic lynch mobs of self-righteous Americans so easily manipulated by the moneyed Elites onto a new Scandal.

How about arresting McKenzie Phillips for the incest she voluntarily did 30 years ago? What could be more fascinating and salacious than that!
Heathcare fails? Who cares!! McKenzies Daddy liked it doggy-style!! More news on Greta&Maddow!

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | September 28, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't think she is defending him because he is Polish and Jewish but absent any real reason many will draw this conclusion.

Posted by: ravitchn
-------

I hope you are right. It just seems a bit crazy doesn't it?
I don't recall Applebong ever coming in defesne of any other rapist/pedophile? do you? Maybe some obscure, poor Muslim rapist?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

btw, to the claim he has suffered enough, jeez, what chutzpah! he choose this "punishment"--therefore you have to assume it is more desirable than all of the alternatives. you know, like having a "boyfriend" in the cal pen system and being treated exactly like that girl was in his criminal case.

and to the claim he was innocent. um, really? so then why did he plead guilty? just curious.

Adn don't say they were out to get him. i am sure they didn't actually give a *&#! about him.

Posted by: awalker1972 | September 28, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I really would hope that a high profile "Jewish" writer would come out against this drivel by Ms. Applebaum!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Wonder if Anne would feel the same if someone bent her over her desk for a vigorous Polanski treatment. I'm sure she would see and understand all the mitigating circumstances that would cause this to happen.

Posted by: gorams1 | September 28, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The charge is one in which it is not the victim v. Polanski, but the State of California v. Polanski, and rape is a serious offense. This is not a civil case, but a criminal case.

Posted by: mbrlr | September 28, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

About Polanski, before immediately feeling bad for him, think about the premediation (drugging) of the act. Then check on what happened, after fleeing the this charge, with a 15 year old Nastassja Kinski. There's history here, maybe even more than in the public eye.

Posted by: southVAHmptn | September 28, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Virginia (the home geographic area of the WP) must have an unusually large number of wacked-out anti-semites.

The WP comment pages attract them.

Thank God you don't see the anti-semitic comments you see here, on most other boards.

The anti-semites remind all of us that racism exists and must be fought.

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception | September 28, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Folks, please get the facts B4 banging the drum for "justice". (and yes, I do have a teenage daughter)

-- Learn about the mom's role in this
-- Learn about the plea bargain the DA did
-- Learn about the judge and his agenda
-- Learn about the deal Polanski pled to

Watch the HBO special tonight with an open mind. Then judge whether you want your tax dollars supporting this.

Posted by: tjconnor

Sorry tjconnor, I have seen the HBO special and I don't care if the mother was an immoral sex trader that sold her 13 year old daughter to a famous Hollywood producer with a known affinity for younf girls. I don't care that the prosecutor was a publicity seeking scumbag that made a stupid deal with a pedophile only to be forced to with draw it. Finally, I don't care about another loser LA judge who may have misled Polanski. Polanski should have never have touched that 13 year old girl. You don't get a pass for breaking the law and violating every morality because you are blessed with talent.

Posted by: JAMNEW | September 28, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Check out this article and all will come clear.
Anne Applebaum has a hidden adgenda, go figure.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/28/arresting-a-child-rapist-outrageous-says-columnist-with-axe-to-grind/

Posted by: VernAckler | September 28, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

the idea that Polanski didn’t know of the victim’s true age doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, since he had to get her mother’s permission for the photo shoot. Applebaum also neglects to mention that Polanski drugged her with a Quaalude and champagne, forcibly had sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her afterward. Polanski negotiated the charge down to statutory rape rather than actual rape, but the actual facts show that this was not a case of an older man with poor eyesight and judgment.
Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed … Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum[.] Applebaum failed to mention this little fact.
So at the same time that she was giving a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom.

Posted by: bayouboy1 | September 28, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Lets not forget that Holder and various Leftists not only had Democrat moneyed donors in Hollywood and NYC Finance sweating bullets about tax evasion - now to be swept under the rug since the Swiss released SOME names as sacrificial lambs and GAVE UP Polanski!!
They also like the idea of eroding extradition agreements between nations so that 3rd party nations can snatch nationals in dispute in extradition wranglings...and bypass negotiations like the USA had with France. Or about US citizens like Kissinger, Schwartzkopf, John Yoo, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Doug Feith, and dozens of CIA people that prosecutors in Spain and Belgium wish to snag in other countries and circumvent dealing with the USA.
The Polanski precedent puts US citizens in the same jeopardy while travelling abroad. Citizens mainly targeted by Euroweenies and US progressive jewish Human Rights Lawyers.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | September 28, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The anti-semites remind all of us that racism exists and must be fought.

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception

-------------------------

Perfect! please also remember to fight
anti-rapism
anti-pedophilia
anti-criminalism
anti-sodomizing-thirteen-year-olds
anti-fleeing-your -sentencism

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Anne, I have a question for you. How would you feel if some 45 year old letch gave your 13 year old daughter qualudes and champagne and then had his way with her in any possibe way imaginable?

Posted by: CHICO13 | September 28, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum left out the part that her husband is a Polish diplomat who is trying to get Polansky off. So from the getgo her ability to fairly asses this is a crock.

The girl was 13. Polansky was 41 - you mean he couldn't tell she was a minor? This wasn't a ghetto kid, this was a grown man, who is brilliant and makes films. He didn't know? C'mon. Anyway, since when does not knowing get someone off for statutory rape? Never. It was his responsibilty to know.

The man drugged and forced this little girl to have sex with him. How would Ms Applebaum feel if it was her child? Would she say, oh its okay because he was so high on drugs and sexed up he couldn't tell how old she was?

The girl was mortified by all the publicity, so they did not want it to go to trial, that is why the prosecutor didn't pursue even more charges.

The lady is now married and does not want to go through this humiliating experience anymore but the man already admitted to the crime - this is not a re-trial he fled the sentencing.

No one, because of money and fame and talent should be given a free ride to rape a child.

Ms. Applebaum your opinion is clouded by your husband's political stance and your own elitist snobbery..

Posted by: maddymappo | September 28, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry tjconnor, I have seen the HBO special and I don't care if the mother was an immoral sex trader that sold her 13 year old daughter to a famous Hollywood producer with a known affinity for younf girls. I don't care that the prosecutor was a publicity seeking scumbag that made a stupid deal with a pedophile only to be forced to with draw it. Finally, I don't care about another loser LA judge who may have misled Polanski. Polanski should have never have touched that 13 year old girl. You don't get a pass for breaking the law and violating every morality because you are blessed with talent.

Posted by: JAMNEW "

-----------------

This is not about what he did, your emotional reaction, or my emotional reaction. It's about what should have happened in a court of law per legal precedent and didn't.

Posted by: tjconnor | September 28, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOT DISCLOSED - The author, Anne Applebaum, is married to Poland's foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski's release.

Posted by: dards1 | September 28, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Please excuse Mr Polanski for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old because he is a talented Holocaust survivor who has had to live in exile in France for the past 30 years!!

This is not an anti-semite talking, this is a summary of what Applebaum is saying in the article.

Of ourse, when the going gets tough, the tough claim "anti-semitism"!!

lol

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, those lawless Leftists. Like Tom DeLay shaking his butt on "Dancing with the Stars." He anally raped the United States of America. But what of that?

Posted by: rbmurals | September 28, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

WaPo columnist Anne Applebaum, normally a sensible voice, lectures WaPo readers on the “facts” of this case, but then neglects to mention a fact about her own conflict of interest in the very same case... Mrs. Applebaum dubiously neglects to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed … Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum. Mrs. Applebaum-Sikorski fails to mention this little fact so at the same time that she is giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of convicted pedophile Polanski, she is purposefully failing to disclose that her husband is a Polish official whom is also lobbying for Polanski’s freedom from his conviction (via guilty plea) for statutory rape.

In addition to that heinous omission of fact, there are other facts not mentioned by Mrs. Applebaum-Sikorski. The very idea that Polanski didn’t know of the victim’s true age doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, since Polanski was required by law to get the childs mother’s permission for the photo shoot because the victim was a minor. Mrs. Applebaum-Sikorski also neglects to mention that Polanski drugged the young girl with a Quaalude and champagne, forcibly had sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her afterward. Polanski negotiated the charge down to statutory rape rather than actual rape, then plead guilty of his own volition. The actual facts of this crime show that this was not a case of an older man with poor eyesight and judgment, Mrs. Applebaum-Sikorski.

Shame on you Mrs. Applebaum-Sikorski. You have self-created a huge and deep dent in your credibility henceforth.

Mrs. Applebaum-Sikorski has made a grave error by submitting this column. The Washingtom Post has made an even graver error publishing it without giving it the scrutiny it deserved before publication.

Shame on you both!

Posted by: DrFronkensteen | September 28, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum lack of disclosure is dishonest

Posted by: dencal26 | September 28, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I guess Applebaum doesn't think ACORNS willingness to aid a Child Sexual Slavery ring is an outrage either? Left wing wackos.

Posted by: dencal26 | September 28, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

If Polanski wasn't Jewish, there wouldn't be this vendetta.

Its just another excuse for the anti-semites to bash Jews.

Where is all the outrage for the victims of tens of thousands of pedophile ministers and priests and their victims?

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception | September 28, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum failed to note that she is married to a Polish official that is trying to get Polanski released.

She also failed to note that the victim cried and begged Polanski to stop.

She failed to note that Polanski asked the victim's mother for permission to photograph her, so he knew she was a minor.

She also failed to note that he forcibly sodomised her. An act that was likely terrifying and painful.

She failed to note that the Judge in this case died years ago and he could have returned to the states to face the charges with a different judge.

Posted by: michelle1407 | September 28, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I guess we should give a pass to the guilty guards and perpetrators of the immense crimes of the concentration camps (which included horrific sexua abuse)l since its been so long ago --as it seems Applebaum has done in excusing Polanski.
She states in her obscene ramblings that: "He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee." No Anne, he can be blamed for fleeing from sentencing after his conviction of raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. To say he might not have known her true age is disgusting. I guess 14 or 15 or 16 would be acceptable?

Posted by: spnorton | September 28, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

He should have bought...oh, sorry, "asked" for a pardon from Bill Clinton. Marc Rich did it--successfully!

Posted by: ordak100 | September 28, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

These boards are getting boring.

Everytime Israel or anybody who's Jewish comes up in the news the Neo-Nazi's and anti-semites of all their disgusting varieties come to these boards like starving wolves.

Its getting pretty old.

The WP should really do something about it.

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception | September 28, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

My 2 cents:
Sorry, Anne.
Leniency in this case encourages establishing a statute of limitations on sexual predation toward juveniles.
Just because the victim grew up, she wasn't grown up at the time the act was committed.
He chose to run; he chose to flaunt the system in order to receive some accolade in the motion picture industry.
While the history of his family in the Holocaust is very tragic and leads to an understanding that he is suspicious of and fearful of government justice, that does not excuse failure to prosecute on the part of the government.
If he feels he was unjustly treated by the courts, he should have negotiated returning to the U.S. in return for going before a court or a judge he trusted to establish mitigation regarding that plea agreement.
Don't tell me, had he not behaved like a coward, something could have been worked out.
Further, after he fled, if I'm not mistaken, he was involved with other underage girls in other countries; cases which were not pursued so vigorously.
So, don't ask me to vote to drop the case out of pity.
That game won't work.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | September 28, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Of course he has paid enough for raping a little girl. A life of priveledge and fame. Stop picking on poor Roman you anti-semites!

Posted by: thecomedian | September 28, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

If Polanski wasn't Jewish, there wouldn't be this vendetta.

Its just another excuse for the anti-semites to bash Jews.

Where is all the outrage for the victims of tens of thousands of pedophile ministers and priests and their victims?

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception |

---------------------------

No no no no no!

It was Ms. applebaum who brought up that Polanski is a "Holocaust" victim, not the "racist" commentors

You cannot use Holocaust as an excuse, and then claim antisemitism when people disagree. you cannot have it both ways! (unless of course you are Polanski's child victim)

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

How can the Washington Post condone publishing this or having Applebaum contributing?
This is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which is the fact that Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed!
This is reprehensible. Just disgusting. The Post really should take action.

Posted by: kalijanosz | September 28, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Post is pulling comments exposing who Applebaum's husband is!!!

Posted by: DCJeff1 | September 28, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

We (us racists!) are all too frequently muzzled with the label of antisemitism whenever we complain about Israeli war crimes or some Wall street criminal. this excuse is getting old.

Jews are successful and powerful members of the society. Stop pretending to be victims for eternity!!

The guy did a crime, now he needs to be fully prosecuted, regardless of how Jewish he is!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

It Polanski wasn't a Jew, the people who post here wouldn't be calling for his head.

Where's the outrage about that?

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception | September 28, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Rule of law is the rule of law. And Justice is blind. But even then, Prudence shall prevail. Because without Mercy we can not endure. A moment of lost Temperance can cause much damage, even long after the events. Consider: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm. Let the legal process run without consideration to the person but be merciful and impose a prudent decision.

Posted by: Chris_BWI1 | September 28, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse


WHY does no one CITE the fact that Applebaum's
despicable support Of Polanski....is

an ABSOLUTE PARALLEL

to the Israeli/zionist certainty that they can take Palestine, cluster bomb and take the water of Lebanon and Syria, and savage GAZA

because of the holocaust. Because they're chosen. And because the rest of their kind will
side with them.

It's a theory that's about to hit the fan.
It really is time to let Applebaum and the claque tha thinks they "own" America (as Peres and Sharon have said"

that they do not.

Posted by: whistling | September 28, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Three words: Conflict of Interest.
The columnist is married to a Polish foreign minister that is lobbying for release of Polanski.
Add to that, the fact that Polanski had to get a release signed by the victim's mother. Tell me that he didn't know she was a minor.
He drugged her, then raped and sodomized her.

A 13 year old. I don't give a rat's hiney what his lame excuses are. He raped a child and needs to face the music. End of story.

Posted by: Medbob | September 28, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow: special treatment for the famous and wealthy? Check.

Flagrant, undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of the author? Check.

Simple misrepresentation of objective facts? Check.

Sympathy for the perpetrator rather than the victim? Check.

Lack of respect for the rule of law? Check.

OK, passes all editorial standards at the Washington Post. Print Applebaum's piece right away!

Posted by: Dollared | September 28, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum is 100% right.

The guy is a cinema genius that's had to live his life as a fugitive after he was taken advantage of by a mother trying to break her daughter into show business by setting him up and blackmailing him.

The same people who want to crucify Polanski were probably first in line to cannonize Michael Jackson and forgive all teh pediphile priests and ministers.

Polanski is like a modern day Dryfuss.

He's an excuse for anti-semites to bare their fangs and spread their poison.

Not that they feel they ever need one.

They're just bad people.


Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception | September 28, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't recall any provision in our law that prevents Holocaust survivors from being prosecuted for child molestation.

This pervert is no different than the perverts that get busted on "To Catch A Predator". Bring him back and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

It was all too predictable that the loonies would start calling this "anti semitism".

Posted by: wj03412000 | September 28, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Anne

I really have lost my respect for you -- and I really admired you. Both the content of your post -- as well as your failure to disclose that your husband is the Polish Ambassador, who is lobbying for RP's release -- are reprehensible.

What has happened to your judgment? Good grief.

Posted by: mgvita8035 | September 28, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Rule of law is the rule of law. And Justice is blind. But even then, Prudence shall prevail. Because without Mercy we can not endure. A moment of lost Temperance can cause much damage, even long after the events. Consider: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm. Let the legal process run without consideration to the person but be merciful and impose a prudent decision. And may God grant the defendant the Fortitude to face the charges.

Posted by: Chris_BWI1 | September 28, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Anne;
Have you no moral nor journalistic integrity? Your husband provides the journalistic conflict, and your sick perverted mindset in regards to facts about the case are lacking any sense of moral clarity. Hopefully, you have no kids to raise with these sick ideals of yours. Sleep tight, ones with perverted minds.

Posted by: AndyB1 | September 28, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Of all the causes to feel strongly about, the case of an admitted child molester seems a poor priority.

Posted by: brenan407 | September 28, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Polanski should never have been arrested, period.

It would never have happened to a non-Jew.

The guy should be on 60 minutes and be exonerated.

It was entrapment, but because he's Jewish, anti-semites are lined up around the block to lynch him.

Its too bad he wasn't some other minority.

The people calling for his head would be defending him.

Its too bad they're too anti-semitic to see that.

Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception | September 28, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age."

What??? He had to get her permission before taking her into his home and drugging her!

She was not 17 or 18. The girl was 13!

I like his movies, but this is a disgusting thing to do. It is also disgusting that the nations that harbor him are sympathetic to him. As if he is a victim of some inustice.

How absurd!

Posted by: jboogie1 | September 28, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

As repulsive as this article is (making excuses for why statutory rape is OK), the most repugnant fact is the Washington Post printed it.

The Washington Post has no standards. At all.

Look up "conflict of interest" and explain why your authors are free to not disclose it.
Oh wait, that would indicate you have "standards". You clearly do not.

Posted by: ironchefofmunchies | September 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all."

Really. What if I had done the same thing? Nobody would care? In reality, I'd spend decades behind bars, register as a sex offender, and be stigmatized fort he rest of my life.

I like his movies, but he should be held to the same standard as me.

Posted by: jboogie1 | September 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Yes, his victim says he doesnt want him to go to jail.

But the author neglects to mention that she DOES want him to answer for his actions.

Posted by: jboogie1 | September 28, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

whisting...

No, the isrealis don't get to committ war crimes because of the holocaust. and they are not doing so, or at least it is the exception not the rule. When the isrealis blow up a bus full of schoolchildren they say "sorry." when the palestinians do it, they say, "nice shot." Around 9-11 or so, i lost my ability to have any truck with people who murder innocent civilians on purpose.

Fact: there were plenty of jews in isreal before they rebelled in 48, indeed before world war II even.

fact: they rebelled after being repeatedly murdered by what we now call palestinians.

Fact: the grand mufti at the time had asked hitler to open a death camp in isreal and regularly propogandized on German radio during the war.

fact: after the slaughter of the holocaust, the jews stopped taking it. good for them. they figured out that sometimes "weathering the storm" just didn't work. Again good for them.

fact: normally when a nation wins land in war, they get to keep the land--and yes, kick off any malcontents.

Fact: the isrealis have in fact given back land that they had a right to keep to achieve peace with Egypt, and have offered to do the same with the palestinians. the palestinians have refused. gee, i wonder why?

fact: the vast majority of palestinians who lost their land in the 6 day war, did so when they left to facilitate the slaughter of the isreals. funny, for some reason they didn't want them back.

Fact: in every war isreal has fought since its rebirth, it has been the explicit intent of its enemies to wipe out all isrealis.

Fact: in every war isreal has fought since its rebirth, their enemies have deliberately targeted civilians while isreal has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties.

Fact: isreal is judged by rules that no other nation in the world is judged by. it is, as Dershowitz correctly stated, objectively anti-semitic.

Final fact: the leaders in the middle east hate the palestinians. They think they are worthless. that is why they encourage them to throw their lives away year after year in pointless struggle with the isreals. because when one palestinian suicide bombs an isreali, their backers in saudi say its a win-win.

Its great that your moral compass is straight enough to recognize that Polansky deserves no tears from us, but your argument that the isrealis are somehow the bad guys as morally inverted as the defenders of Polansky.

Posted by: awalker1972 | September 28, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Reality Beats Perception, nice use of the ant-semite card. You should be proud....

Posted by: CHICO13 | September 28, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Polanski should never have been arrested, period.

It would never have happened to a non-Jew.

The guy should be on 60 minutes and be exonerated.

It was entrapment, but because he's Jewish, anti-semites are lined up around the block to lynch him.

Its too bad he wasn't some other minority.

The people calling for his head would be defending him.

Its too bad they're too anti-semitic to see that.
Posted by: RealityBeatsPerception=======
============================

I believe Reality is "anti-semite" baiting, so ignore him! LOL

If I am Jewish, I come out strongly against this criminal. We have to stand for justice regardless of our race. The fact that a Jewish crimianl is supported just because he is Jewish doesn't bode well for the tribe. I know this sounds "insensitive" but If I am a law-abiding Jew, why would I support Polanski? why?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Show me an era when Jews don't automatically support any brethen regardless of their crimes, and I'll show you an era when we have move passed "anti-semitism"

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Got it? That Polanski and his family were in concentration camps and his wife was murdered are “mitigating circumstances” to his avoiding serving time for drugging and violating an intoxicated child. This was a column Applebaum should have written just to get it off her chest, then deleted. I’ve done the same many times myself.

Blogger Patterico found out that Applebaum’s husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, is a Polish politician who’s lobbying for the dismissal of Polanski’s case, and Applebaum failed to disclose this fact.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Why has the Post NOT disclosed that Ms Applebaum is married to a Polish official working to get the charges against Roman Polanski dropped? Is Ms Applebaum working on behalf of a foreign power?

Posted by: fred0650A | September 28, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

This is why I would never pick up WP. It's full of dirty journalists.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Anne

I really have lost my respect for you -- and I really admired you. Both the content of your post -- as well as your failure to disclose that your husband is the Polish Ambassador, who is lobbying for RP's release -- are reprehensible.

What has happened to your judgment? Good grief.

Posted by: mgvita8035

==============

Her judgement is clouded by the perpetrator's religious affiliation and wealth!!!

Mazel Tov

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Anne writes "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."
=======================================
Anne - he did not 'pay' for his crime - he forfieted all you mention in committing the crime itself. Can you not see the difference? He has not paid for his 'crime'.

Posted by: short1 | September 28, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Anne - I think you are completely out of line and incorrect.

He might have pled guilty to statutory rape but if you read the transcripts there is no doubt that this was FORCIBLE RAPE - oral, vaginally, and anal.

And he got away with it by running instead of paying for his crime with jail time. Which would have been loads less than what he really deserved for the rape of a child

SECOND - YOU DO NOT STATE YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. which makes your blog even more unethical. Isn't your husband, who is the polish foreign minister, actively pressuring US authoritis to drop the case?

And you don't see that as a conflict of interest?

Posted by: Amanda73 | September 28, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, there is a law in Poland that provides for chemical castration of child rapists. What does your hubby think of that, Ann? He is polish PM, after all? Or it does not apply to ethnic friends?

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum - your emotionally unstable column has just been destroyed, point by point...Care to comment? No? That's what we all thought.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/28/common-roman-polanski-defenses-refuted/

Posted by: popopo | September 28, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse


Roman Polanski went nuts after the Manson gang chopped up his fully pregnant wife Sharon Tate in their living room. He clearly wasn't right in the head when this incident w/ the 13 yr old happened.

Arresting him after 30 years is cruel and a failure of the US justice system. Somebody has it out for this man and I hope he's able to put this behind him and return to his family and friends soon.

American system of jurisprudence is a disgrace.

Posted by: Rubiconski | September 28, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

If it makes it easier for you Polanski-sympathizers, try this thought experiment.

Imagine it was GLENN BECK who admitted to having sex with a 13-year-old girl. "I thought she was 18," the 45-year-old FOX News commentator protested.

Is it easier to imagine the perpetrator in jail now?

Posted by: Independent12345 | September 28, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

A jewish writer forgives a jewish sex offender because of the holocaust ? When will this holcaust excuse die down...ever?

Posted by: sarees1 | September 28, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to note you are getting hammered for this foolish, foolish column.

"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."

Oh, poooooooor Polanski! He can't come to Hollywood to get his award! Jetting about Europe is NOT a punishment--jail and/or fines are punishment. This column is incredibly mealy-mouthed--nowhere do you spell out exactly what his crime entailed. Let me step in--he fed quaaludes and champagne to a 13 year old gir, then forced her to have sex, both vaginal and anal, while she said no, repeatedly. Then he told her not to say anything. Imagine a 44 year old man violating your daughter or little sister like that.

He's a monster and you're a fool for defending him. A fool. Shame on the Washington Post for publishing this filth.

Posted by: NYC123 | September 28, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Polanski did not serve any time, BTW. He was in jail for evaluation. The fact that he jumped bail and flee takes out all his plea bargains, IMHO. So he should be now legally again facing rape and sodomy charges of the minor. And rot in jail where his fella inmates would teach him some sexuality lessons.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Independent12345 ,

Good one...

Posted by: VernAckler | September 28, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The only thing outrageous is this sickening column. Roman Polanski drugged and raped (sodomized) a child. You should be ashamed for trying to make excuses for such a disgusting pervert.

Posted by: historian_nan | September 28, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, do some research before you publish your opinions. Your outrage is woefully misplaced.

1. Polanski knew the girl was a minor. He asked her mother's permission to use her in a photo shoot.

2. Polanski plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor as part of a plea agreement. What he was really guilty of was drugging the girl with quaaludes and committing various sex acts on her against her will.


I love Polanski's movies, too, from "Knife in the Water" to "The Pianist." "Chinatown" is one of my all time favorites. But artistic greatness does not exonerate raping a minor--nor fleeing the jurisdiction where your crime was committed so you don't have to face punishment.

If lawyer's fees and personal stigma (and a hefty lawsuit settlement) were sufficient "payment for a crime," then we should all feel sorry for O.J. Simpson as well.

Posted by: multiplepov | September 28, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Please, please, please, stop calling it statutory rape! Read her testimony, she said no repeatedly and begged him to stop. 13 or 30 that is rape, pure and simple.

Posted by: kawilson69 | September 28, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Statutory rape implies legal age. A child cannot be "statutory raped". How Polanski got it down to "statutory" is a very interesting thing per se.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Dear Anne,

I don't care what misfortune befell this paedophile (Mr. Polanski). He is a fugitive from justice. And justice must be served. It's more outrageous that you would defend him. Mr. Polanski has been linked with other underage women, e.g. Ms. Kinski, in the past. It's a pity that others did not complain about him.


Posted by: nikhil22 | September 28, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Anne, I am just guessing here, and looking at your picture, I am assuming that you have no children of your own.

Lucky for this guy it wasn't my daughter he raped. I do believe I would have delivered him to justice, how ever short the distance, not matter how long a time it took. My little girl knows that the world would come down on the creeps head.

Now tell me about how much you love your little girl again.

Posted by: kl305 | September 28, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

That's how it works in US of A... Polish politician lobbies our justice system through his wife. This is just a beginning. Wealthy child rapists have friends in all the right places. So, get ready for a show. Everything will be evoked. Pianist, holocaust, mason band, warsaw ghetto... I can't imaging a black rapist having understanding because he had a bad childhood.
I think WP should fire Ms Appelbaum if it wants to keep any degree of integrity.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

At least we know why you have such a warped view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikorski

You are married to Radosław Sikorski the polish ambassidor. Why don't you then take the same view as the Polish and suggest that he be castrated, chemically or otherwise?

The editor should fire you for this unethical non-disclosure. You represent everything that is wrong with our society today. Shame on you.

Posted by: nikhil22 | September 28, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum's integrity is seriously in question here. How can she write objectively about this when her husband is actively lobbying on Polanski's behalf? If anyone is to take her opinions seriously in the future, she should retract this disgusting whitewash.

Posted by: Lutoslawski | September 28, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

nikhil22,
Do you think the editor did not know?
They are all the same team.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Unreal, here's hoping your 13 year old daughter is NEXT you stupic c*nt!!

Posted by: moonchild64 | September 28, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Boo-hoo, my heart bleeds for him (not) he couldn't come and accept his Oscar? the travesty of it all.

Ms. Applebaum, do you have any teenage daughters?, maybe you'd feel differently.

I don't believe he did not have at the very least an inkling that this girl could have been underage. 13 is really hard to mistake for over 18.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 28, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Anne: If a priest raped a 13-year old altar boy 30 years ago, would you be decrying the outrage of his arrest on a fugitive warrant? Hypocrite!

Posted by: jesseweiher1 | September 28, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Anne, you are simply wrong.

It was child rape. Men are supposed to make sure they aren't dealing with "jailbait" before they have sex with girls they don't know.

If they don't, they get arrested and charged.

Who cares if his victim "forgives" him? Many victims of incest have forgiven their rapist, but it doesn't stop the legal process from going forward.

And -- for cryin' out loud -- what does his having survived the Holocaust to do with this?

Posted by: Krisipuu | September 28, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

BTW -- The judge has every right under the law to throw out a plea agreement. It is just a recommendation on behalf of the DA, not set in stone.

Polanski had options within the justice system that he could have pursued (i.e. appeal), instead he chose to run and commit yet another crime (i.e. fleeing)

When he attempted to "resolve" this a number of years ago, the judge rightly told him that he needed to show up in court to appeal.

He is a fugitive. And should receive punishment for that as well.

Posted by: Amanda73 | September 28, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

First time I have EVER disagreed with Anne Applebaum. Anne, ever heard the old maxim "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" - Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Roman Polanski fled from justice. If there was unethical behavior by the judge, there were and are modes for appeal.

But to flee is both an admission of guilt and a statement that he is above the law. No one is above the law or the system cannot hold. If this were a poor black man in Watts (since we are talking about LA) who molested a 13 year old girl, would you be feeling the same way?

Just because someone is talented or has a tragic background should have absolutely nothing to do with the enforcement of the law. Nothing.

Posted by: jay4811 | September 28, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

If this were a poor black man in Watts (since we are talking about LA) who molested a 13 year old girl, would you be feeling the same way?
_______________________________

She is writing this because she and her husband are jews. This is the only explanation for the double standards here.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Statement by David Clohessy of SNAP(314 566 9790)

We as a society must clearly show, by our actions, that child sex abuse is wrong and that child molesters will be pursued, whether they are rich or poor, prominent or unknown, whether they 'face the music' or flee the country. It's a grave disservice to crime victims and an irresponsible risk to children if we let child sex offenders walk free because they've delayed justice or fled overseas.

Is it possible that there was some prosecutorial misconduct in Polanski's case? Of course. Does that mean he gets to unilaterally 'opt out' of the justice system and walk free? Of course not.

No one seems to even consider the possibility that Polanski may have abused others, even recently. That's yet another reason he should be extradited.

If Polanski is NOT extradited, the message child molesters will get is "If you get smart lawyers, hang tough, and move elsewhere, you'll get away scot-free, especially if you've got some kind of talent." That's a terrible message.

It's sad that California has a budget crisis and that Polanski has suffered pain in his adult life. It's wonderful that his victim has forgiven him. None of this, however, means he's not still a risk to kids. Nor does it somehow give a convicted child molester any kind of 'free pass.'

The church's on-going child sex abuse and cover up scandal should have taught us that when authorities give excessive deference and favoritism to some predators, because of their occupation, more children end up being devastated and more adults stop trusting and cooperating with law enforcement.

Finally, he did not "have sex with a girl." He abused her. He molested her. He's pled guilty to this. And, according to several media reports, he plied her with drugs and booze. "Having sex with" is a phrase that implies consent. And we've all agreed, as a society, for years, that a vulnerable teenager simply can't consent to sex with an adult, especially a powerful and charismatic one.

Posted by: snapclohessy | September 28, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum,you are a sick puppy. I'd say too bad it wasn't your daughter, but I wouldn't wish that upon anyone, even your daughter. If it were you daughter, do you think you'd have the same opinion? I don't care what he survived, or his father. It doesn't give him license to victimize children. Buh-bye.

Posted by: MIMI13 | September 28, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

June 16, 2000. Anne Applebaum in The Spectator:

Such a charming man - Suddeutsche Zeitung would never think to call him a bully. In this sense, the Monica Lewinsky affair also worked in his favor. Half the world was so busy telling Clinton jokes to the other half of the world that no one had time to notice what the president was actually doing, when he was not too busy having (or claiming not to have had) sexual relations with junior members of his staff.


Polanski. Raped. A. Child.

Apparently that is not a crime in your book, your opprobrium of Clinton for a legal although stupid action notwithstanding.

Leave the stage now, Anne, the party is over.

Posted by: Frank43 | September 28, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Wait, how many rapists have had horrible childhoods? How many rapists have gone through revolting experiences and suffered greatly at the cost of others? Have those experiences ever excused them from the crime they committed? No. Yes, their judgment was clouded – how could you say it wasn’t clouded? What kind of person rapes a 13 year old girl without clouded judgment? It’s pathetic and completely worthless to use Roman’s past as an excuse for his raping a 13 year old girl. And for you guys who are blaming the 13 year old, shame on you. The victim-blaming strategy, that’s new! Here’s a lesson in Rape 101: no one deserves to be raped. She was 13 years old. It was not her fault.

Posted by: SarahPaddington | September 28, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma."

So, drug and rape a 13 year old girl, and the penalty should only be lawyers' fees?

I don't suppose you have an adolescent daughter, do you?

Posted by: malclave | September 28, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Anne left out a couple of other important facts: 1 - he pled guilty, 2- he fled justice because of a rumor that the judge was going to impose full sentence. The precedent of non-US citizens committing crimes here and then fleeing to other countries to avoid paying for their crimes cannot be allowed to establish itself. Bring him in and make him serve 30 days or so. Maybe his next film will have a grapic prison rape sequence of which he will not need an outside consultant.

Posted by: robkinstle | September 28, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Not only does Anne Applebaum neglect to disclose her conflict of interest of being married to Radek Sikorski, but she seems to be adopting his ethical standards as well.

Radek Sikorski is well known to the Polish American community as the architect, in his capacity as a government official in Poland, of Poland's policy of harassing ordinary Polish-Americans under the pretext that they are still legally bound by the citizenship of Communist Poland (the infamous "passport trap"). Poland never dared to apply the same legal standard to celebrities like Zbigniew Brzezinski.

However, Anne Applebaum's neglect to mention that she happens to be married to a politician who also happens to be lobbying on behalf of Roman Polanski pales in comparison to Radek Sikorski's neglect to report in his property disclosure to the Polish Senate about three quarters of a million dollars in cash after grossing $870K from the sale of his house in Chevy Chase, MD.

I guess it goes in the family.

Posted by: Dr_007 | September 28, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

What a LAZY "journalist"! In this case, too lazy to read the transcript of the victim's testimony, even though it's easily accessible. A 13-year-old girl, clearly afraid, was plied with alcohol and 1/2 a qualude (not 1/4, not a "sliver," as some have said), then vaginally and anally RAPED by a 43-year-old man. Are you prepared to dismiss that as "stautory rape"? I'm sure you'd have a different attitude if it had happened to your 7th grader.

Posted by: hallrochelle | September 28, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

robkinstle, 30 days?
His plea agreement does not stand anymore. He has to face full rape and sodomy charges again-this is what you get if you flee the sentencing.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I really, really don't understand how anyone can possibly agree with Applebaum's apologist attitude and argument that Polanski's life preceding the rape was an excuse for his behavior.

I mean, how interesting that Charles Manson is involved right - we're talking about a man whose own mother sold him to a childless waitress. His own mother gave him up, sent him to an orphanage where he was abused. I suppose Applebaum's going to start apologizing for his murders next, right?

Posted by: jilliancyork | September 28, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

so then, by Applebaum's logic, all the pedophile priests who abused young boys and girls so many years ago.... all those nazi murderers who killed innocent jews so many years ago... all these who committed crimes now past the "statute of limitation" for heinous crimes should be left to live in peace. Lovely.

The man drugged and raped 13 year old... and then had an affair with a 15 year old (Nastassja Kinski) He is a predator child molester. Make him leave his life of luxury and pay for his crime.

Posted by: saxahoya1 | September 28, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Its quite disturbing and very disappointing to see Applebaum defend Polanski's fleeing US and wanting his pardon. The man was charged with rape on a minor not just sex with her (he actually drugged her and sodomized her), admitted his crime and fled. If there was any judicial misconduct in the case, he would have had chance to plead it and let the judges decide just like in any other case for anyone on trial.
Personal misfortunes are hardly any excuses for a pardon to such a horrible crime as raping a minor. And Annie, missing an Oscar award ceremony is not enough punishment.
He must be brought to justice no matter if the victim herself pardons him.
Its outrageous for Hollywood celebs and some Op Ed columnists to ask for Polanski's pardon and ignore his crime.

Posted by: Lawrencer1 | September 28, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

You'd think differently if that had been your thirteen year daughter. Moron. What if had killed her? Thirty years ago, it's OK? Idiot.

Posted by: g8rrick | September 28, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I feel the Washington Post needs to apologize to its readers for publishing this article. The front page would be a good place to put it.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | September 28, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Only a liberal Democrat could think like that.

Posted by: neilwied | September 28, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Polanski forcibly raped a thirteen year-old girl. I've read her horrific account. The creep's guilt is not in question, as he pleaded guilty before fleeing to Europe.

Polanski deserves no more sympathy than a Nazi concentration camp guard apprehended many years later. Child rape is not excused by the perp's social prominence or artistic talent. If the judge wants to consider possible mitigating factors before sentencing, that's fine -- but they are irrelevant now.

Posted by: emmet1 | September 28, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

This very liberal, very humanitarian, very-Polanski-film-appreciating Jew thinks Polanski the man needs to do time.

The one or two anti-Semites on this board have already exposed themselves, but that changes nothing about Mr. Polanski's guilt. Chauvinists like RealityBeatsPerception and Farnaz1Mansouri1 are little better and certainly don't speak on behalf of Jews (this one, for example, would prefer not to have them "defending" me).

I know rape victims, and nothing in this execrable blog post and the (mercifully few) supportive comments can be reconciled with the reality of what victims of sexual predators have endured (and continue to endure long after the crime itself). I had really hoped that I had read my last defense of rape through focusing on the victim's lifestyle, behavior, past actiivities, appearance, etc, and can only be heartsick that I haven't.

The shame is also France's, that they would prefer to stick their finger in the eye of the "prudish" Anglo-Saxons than bring a child rapist to account. This was not someone fleeing persecution, but someone fleeing sentencing. If wishing to see justice done marks me as a cultureless Philistine lacking in savoir faire, then I will bear the title proudly.

Judges may disallow plea agreements under the law, and if the judge is a bad faith actor, then we have appellate review (and all the other below-the-radar ways that the rich and powerful get special attention in such matters). The theory advanced here that a convict has a role to play in deciding on the merits of his sentence is a novel one under our system of common law.

Finally, to have not disclosed the obvious conflict of interest is, as others have already pointed out, beneath contempt and incompatible with any notion of journalistic ethics.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | September 28, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Posted by: buster5 | September 28, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The standard question Anne is what if this was your child?

Posted by: bigjonmustafa | September 28, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Please read this: Roman Polanski Raped a Child, by Kate Harding on Salon: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/.

The first outrage is the rape, the second is the rapist's ability to avoid punishment, and the third is Anne Applebaum's failure to disclose her husband's role on behalf of the rapist, according to Ms Harding.

Posted by: claddagh1 | September 28, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Radek Sikorski, Anns hubby neglected to report in his property disclosure to the Polish Senate about three quarters of a million dollars in cash after grossing $870K from the sale of his house in Chevy Chase, MD. He is now lobbying US for Polanski release.
This is not just a misunderstanding case. It's a network of people who think they are above the Law.
And WP is in the same boat, it seems.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Anne does not mind him roaming the streets because she has boys. I bet she would feel differently if she had a girl.

Posted by: buster5 | September 28, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Don't all the rubes understand that Roman is SPECIAL?

He isn't like the majority of the public who has to follow laws, he is so beyone that.

I'm sure has, over cocktails with him and other special people in Athens or Paris have talked about those who don't understand this.

The girl at the time was after all, a mere commoner. She should be grateful for this brush with greatness.

Besides, what good is being rich, if you can't use it to fly off somewhere outside the demands of someone's silly justice system?

Posted by: TiminPhoenix | September 28, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Anne,
He drugged and raped a 13 year old who was still conscious enough to tell him "no" each time he asked--what a gentleman--if he could perform sex acts on her. He fled the country to avoid punishment. What exactly does a person have to do before you condemn their behavior, and insist on accountability before the law?
Refusal to punish such monstrous behavior condemns others to suffer the same kinds of abuse--victims you and the Post ought to be defending and protecting.
Your rationalizing would lead to all kinds of unpunished criminal behavior.
Does anyone with a moral compass review your work before it's published? Shame on you and the Post.

Posted by: bhks1 | September 28, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The author here and Polanski both have one thing in common, they are both pedophiles.

Posted by: 2tired | September 28, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Look, rape is a serious crime. Raping a 13 year old child after plying her with drugs and alcohol is a doubly serious crime.

He's been a fugitive from justice for 30 years. What his victim wants now at age 45 is really not relevant. This is between Polanski and the state of California.

We all sympathize with the many horrid circumstances of Polanski's life. But, there is no special dispensation for artists. The law applies to everybody or should apply to no one.

It is up to the court to decide, once Polanski is returned to its jurisdiction, whether there are mitigating circumstances or not in this situation.

Posted by: Chan1947aolcom | September 28, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that Anne really cares one way or another about this issue. Newspaper op eds are ways to get you to read, and our comments are a gauge of impact for her editors, and ultimately for advertisers. If you seriously disagree with her opinions, for goodness sake, don't comment: what she fears most is death by indifference.

Posted by: Bookbinder | September 28, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

If no purpose would be served by sending 72 year Polanski to jail for raping a 13 year old girl, why were Ann and her soulmates so gung-ho about sending John Demanjak (sp ?) to jail, and even death sentence, just because he was "suspected" of being an employee at a German concenetration camp. And please spare the "no moral equivalence" non-sense.

Posted by: justwondering | September 28, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I small the long arm of that great American Eric Holder.

Posted by: intermania | September 28, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

By the way, what really strains credulity is "..there is evidence he didn't know her real age."

I have yet to know a 13 year old girl who could be mistaken for an 18 year old. And 18 is the age of consent in California.

This girl may well have looked 15 or 16. But, very unlikely Polanski thought she was 18.

Posted by: Chan1947aolcom | September 28, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Based on her photo, I think it is reasonable to assume that Ms. Applebaum is jealous that SHE wasn't on the receiving end of Mr. Polanski's attentions.

HE RAPED A 13-YEAR OLD GIRL, APPLEBAUM (I guess that qualifies him to be an ACORN supporter, at the least).

And legend has it that there were numerous women who provided him with their underage daughters, in hopes of getting a role (either for themselves or for their daughter). I know, this has never been proved, but realize that for most sex perverts, the time they got caught was NOT their first time.

So let Polanski, and anyone who supports him, either make peace with his God, or burn in hell.

Posted by: Nick_in_Alexandria | September 28, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Who is this lunatic editorialist, and why is her column in this newspaper? She has obviously lost all sense of right and wrong. Anything written by her should immediately be discounted.

Posted by: Leigh1 | September 28, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Polanski raped a child. Anne Applebaum's defense of the rape of the child is repugnant, and her failure to disclose her relationship with the Polish government, which is seeking Polanski's release, is unethical. The Washington Post obviously has no standards.

Posted by: tsmullin | September 28, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

In light of the conflict that Anne has, was this editorial vetted by her editors? Isn't it an enormous breach of ethics tnot to mention this, especially in this case?

I will say when I first read Anne's piece I found it unbelievable. What I know about this case is about the same as everyone else, through the documentary which was pro-Polanski. Even going by that documentary the fact was he was with a girl he knew to be underage, and admitted it when declaring his guilt. He paniced when the judge was really bellicose and took flight.

It seems to me that he should be brought in and this case should be finalized. I would have no issue with Polanski striking a deal and getting some kind of probation or house arrest, but he should have to face a penalty for his crimes in the US. There is no statute of limitations once he took flight.

Posted by: craig5 | September 28, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

The answer to whether it was correct to arrest Polanski is simple. If you would applaud the arrest of some fat, creepy dude who raped an underage girl 30 years ago, then you must applaud the arrest of Polanksi.

Ann, all too often people like you, the media elites, put "artists" and other celebs above the law. No, they are not above the law, they ARE just like you and me. Polanski is a creep just like the fat, unshaven dude up the steet. Let his ass rot in jail and be branded a sex offender just like anyone else.

Posted by: Joe4 | September 28, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

He didn't know she was 13, she was into it anyway, it was a long time ago, he's an old guy now so get over it.

Does that pretty much sum things up for you Ms. Applebaum?

I wonder if Polanski's dead parents would have been fine with giving all the former NAZI concertration camp officers a free pass the last couple of decades because they're old and it was a long time ago.

He raped a 13 year old. He needs to pay for it. It's as simple as that.

Save your drunken Frat guy defense for someone else.

Posted by: IUT1 | September 28, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that.

Applebaum, you are ridiculous for defending him.

No amount of time passed will ever take away his guilt of HAVING RAPED A LITTLE GIRL.

Disgusting that the Post would even print something defending him.

And you should fire this so-called "reporter" Anne Applebaum.

Posted by: matt15 | September 28, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

WaPo ombudsman: What's the paper's policy about disclosing conflicts of interest? How can the wife of the Polish ambassador who's lobbying against the extradition of Polanski, a Polish citizen, be allowed to write an apologia for this fugitive child rapist?

Polanski got the child drunk, undressed her, gave her half a Qualude, and forcibly raped her vaginally and anally. Your columnist disingenuously refers to this as "statutory rape". Applebaum's dishonesty should be grounds for termination.

Posted by: emmet1 | September 28, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

And, finally, this wasn't just a case of statutory rape, it was coerced. The girl did not seduce Polanski, nor did she consent.

She was frightened and intimidated and submitted, but did not truly consent.
If she were an adult, the situation would be ambiguous enough that a rape charge likely wouldn't stick. (Though men have been convicted for less.) Under these circumstances, and given that she was obviously underage, there is nothing ambiguous about the case at all.

Posted by: Chan1947aolcom | September 28, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Does Ms. Applebaum have a teenage daughter?
And if so, I bet Ms. Applebaum would probably object to having her child drugged and raped and sodomized by a 40 year old man who then escapes to Europe after pleading quilty. Would you approve of a 31 year statute of limitations Ms. Applebaum on such a crime Ms. Applebaum?
I think you have your head screwed on backwards on this issue.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | September 28, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Let's get some perspective here. There was nothing wrong with arresting this admitted criminal. On the other hand, it has been years and the victim wants no part of this. And please remember that "justice" is a flexible concept. It does not mean unrelenting persecution as many of our law enforcement types seem to believe. Hopefully, this can be resolved with some type of minimal punishment and we can move on. BTW, Roman must have terrible lawyers to allow this to happen.

Posted by: Steve851 | September 28, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't he qualify for some kind of artist's exemption? I mean, the man is a great filmaker. Isn't he entitled to rape the occasional child?

If only Norman Mailer were alive; I'm sure he'd be able to make the case for old Roman, just as he did for Jack Henry Abbot.

Posted by: dirksteel | September 28, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Let's get some REAL perspective here. If all these bloggers supporting Polanski had THEIR child drugged, raped and sodomized then escape to Europe you idiots might have an entirely different take on this crime. Go home tonight, and look at your children and then blog this this crime should be forgiven.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | September 28, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski confessed to giving a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raping her, not just vaginally but anally. I agree, Anne, why should any man have to serve time for something as incidental as that? Tell me, do you consider yourself a feminist?

Posted by: Virtue001 | September 28, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

You read it here first; Anne Applebaum supports the drugging or 13 year old girls for the purposes of being sodomized by adult men.

The liberal mind at work; it's truly disgusting.

Posted by: bassassin | September 28, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

the man was 40 years old and he gave drugs to a 13 year old and had sex with her. he has to come back and do his time, just like anyone whould have to do.
there will not be a trial, HE ALREADY PLEAD GUILTY!
and i dont care how much talent he has - or how many movies he did. he is a fleeing felon.
and why did the swiss do this? it's called a treaty obligation. it was all over the net he was going to show up so the US sent the warrant to them.
hos childish of you. "why did they do it" or such garbage. they did it because HE DID IT and then he ran away.
time to pay.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | September 28, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"And why did the judge decide he wouldn't honor the plea agreement worked out by Polanski's attorney and the D.A.?"

Because that is withyin his power to do so and does nothing to change the fact Polanski DRUGGED, RAPED, and SODOMIZED a 13 yr. old. Understand? Its nothing more than a diversion from the facts of the case.

"And why have Polanski's attorneys been unable to get the investigation into judicial misconduct that they've been requesting for years?"

Who cares? He fled the country. He is a fugitive. He tried to plea down a RAPE charge and skate with a light sentence.
Judicial Misconduct!?!?
How about POLANSKI misconduct (crime)!?!?!
More diversion from the truth and the facts!

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: glezzery1 | September 28, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

To Chan1947

I know that statutory rape is not a joking matter (although some people seem to think it is no big deal), but your age brackets brought something to mind.

There was a comedy routine (must have been over 30 years ago, I believe it was Skiles and Henderson) where a reporter is interviewing a basketball coach, and says

"Coach, let's talk about your record for a minute."

"MY RECORD, why did you have to bring up my record? How did I know she was only 13? She looked at least 15."

"No, no, coach, I meant your BASKETBALL record."

"Oh."

Posted by: Nick_in_Alexandria | September 28, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm really trying to follow Ms Applebaum's logic. Apparently it's ok for a an adult man to commit statutory rape with a 13 year old child if he can claim that he didn't really know the childs age, is rich and powerful enough to flee, and he's had other misfortune's in his life that make him fear punishment? As for being pursued because he is famous after all this time? Is that the new rule? If you can get away with it long enough we just let you go? Just a couple of questions for Ms Applebaum! Should we have statuatory rape laws at all, or maybe they shouldn't apply to someone over a certain income level? And second...Do you have any daughters?

Posted by: valwayne | September 28, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Apparently the author has no regard for the rights of other women, regardless of their age. Her comments are asinine.

Posted by: wburn42167 | September 28, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect."

Mitigating circumstances!?!?! Was Polansky living in Nazi Germany?
Fleeing from excessive punishment because...!?!?!?
WOW, just WOWIE ZOWIE!
He fled ALL punishment.
Auschwitz!?!? What does that have to do with anything!??

Posted by: glezzery1 | September 28, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum is a simpleton. Her and her liberal editors are clueless. It isn't worth my time to argue this.

Posted by: rchaa27aa | September 28, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

How come I didn't hear you calling for Free Mary Kay Letourneau when she was sent to prison? After all, her victim, her former grade school student, was in love with her. And they are happily married now. It is not too later for you to launch a campaign to remove her name from the sex offender registrar. Would you do that? Oh wait, she is not a famous, upper class intellectual, I bet you wouldn't bother with her at all.

Posted by: wangAustin | September 28, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

A nice, devastating retort to Applebaum.

Posted by: dtroy22252 | September 28, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight... If your parents are victimized by the Nazis, you grow up in a ghetto, and your wife is murdered, then it's okay to RAPE A CHILD? Are you out of your mind?! I don't care how much he's paid in "lawyers' fees and professional stigma'" he was a 44 year old man who had sex with a 13 year old who was afraid of him. The basis for this article is utterly absurd.

Posted by: JDK74 | September 28, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

To the person posting as Farnaz1Mansouri1: You have no shame. Not only you are defending a rapist, but you are also morally decrepit for using an Arabic or Persian sounding name, when you are, shall we say ..... If you do not want to use your own name, fine. Make up a screen name. but not one intentionally designed to deceive people.

Posted by: justwondering | September 28, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But 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."

Putting him in jail to pay for his crime DOES serve society. Its called LAW Enforcement.
It DOES prove you can run but not hide.
It also shows Polansky is treated EQUALLY by the justice system, that Americans do not like a system that allows elites to live above the law.

Applebaum is full of nonsense and excuses.
Doing nothing about Polansky does not serve society.
Allowing this sort of crime to go unpunished does not serve society.
And Applebaum does not serve society with this crap.

Posted by: glezzery1 | September 28, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. has the largest incarceration rate in the world, by a huge margin. Our prisons are bulging and unable to hold even the most violent criminals, some of whom are being discharged due to lack of prison space. That being the case, why does it make any sense to imprison a 76 year old man, who is hardly dangerous to society ? Who or what is served by his imprisonment ? Has he not been rehabilitated ? No one said what he did was OK. But the punishment being sought by some does not fit the crime, or in this case the practical side. There are far more dangerous people out there than Polanski. Let's use the prison space for them.

Posted by: ronwysk | September 28, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Re: Ms Applebaum's conflict of Interest.

Does WaPo have an editorial staff? Just wondering what they do all day. Enforcing professional standards seems to not be part of their job descriptions.

Posted by: CarlosHawes | September 28, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

all I can take from your piece is that you have had the same relationship with a 13 year old boy that is why you don't have a problem with what he did right ?

Posted by: puttone | September 28, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Lock him up. I don't care who he is or how old. He raped a 13 year old girl and then fled the law. He deserves to be in prison.

Posted by: kroverstreet | September 28, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he can just stay at your house in your neighborhood. He can cozy up to your family. Your neices and nephews, your neighbors children. After all, he did'n even know this young girl was only 13 when he raped her. So there must not be anything to worry about.

You must be a racist.

Posted by: greglaycharternet | September 28, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Does WaPo have an editorial staff? Just wondering what they do all day. Enforcing professional standards seems to not be part of their job descriptions.___________________

This is what they do. WP is a mouthpiece for rich and powerful. Don't you know that?
This is just a prelude.
Things are being worked out behind the curtains.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Would have been nice of you to let on about your Polish husband who just happens to be a Polish Foreign Minister and just happens to be lobbying for Polanski's release. Just saying. Oh and how old is YOUR daughter, Ms. Applebaum?

Posted by: joanne600 | September 28, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm. He subsequently pled guilty and then jumped bail and fled to France where he continued as a film director during 32 years in "exile", which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, yet Ms. Applebaum thinks it should all be forgotten because he's suffered enough. Horse hockey! Would Ms. Applebaum feel the same were it her child, sister or niece? Were she to say, "yes" I'd say "you lie, girl!" Finally, it does not matter what the victim says, Polanski also committed crimes against the state of California and just like any other common criminal, he should be made to pay for those crimes. Period, end of story!

Posted by: swhite6 | September 28, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Polanski plead guilty to statutory rape as part of a plea deal. However, he was accused of raping the girl. In other words, according to this 13 year old girl, Polanski got her drunk and gave her a Qualude and then proceeded to rape and sodomize her while she told him to stop. Since it is hard to prove a rape case, the prosecutors settled for a statutory rape conviction. Regardless of his ultimate conviction, there's at the very least a good chance (if not a near certainty) that the girl did not consent.

I have no idea why Anne Applebaum thinks it is bizarre that the US is demonstrating that drugging and raping a child - and then fleeing the US justice system - is not something that we will overlook. Actually, I know the answer to this. Anne's husband, the foreign minister of Poland, is actively lobbying the US government not to seek extradition.

At the end of the day, Anne's right about one thing though. If Polanski weren't famous no one would be talking about this. That's because he would be in jail where he belongs.

Posted by: hroark314 | September 28, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

His mother and wife were both murdered. He, more than most, should understand pain inflicted on an innocent victims.

Posted by: PaulS2 | September 28, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Anne,I do not know who is more stupid, you for writing this column or your editor for allowing it to be posted

Posted by: onegoodrole | September 28, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Does Applebaum--or the Post itself--not think we readers should know that she is married to a Polish diplomat, and the Polish government is lobbying for Polanski's release? What is going on with the WaPo and its journalists and editors who do not seem to have any sense of ethics?

On the merits of this column, it's a joke. Are sex crimes not serious to Applebaum? Or should only the rich and famous get off for crimes like rape (he pleaded to statutory rape, but the victim says it was forcible and that he gave her qualudes)? The personal circumstances of many violent criminals make them far more sympathetic than Polanski--they are poor, borderline retarded, were beaten or abandoned as children, etc., etc. Everything about this column stinks to the heavens.

Posted by: roger321 | September 28, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Wapo, you should be embarrassed to have this on your site. If you're going to defend Polanski, try harder than this. Happily Applebaum's blog was annihilated by Kate Harding at Salon. Nice job, Kate.

Posted by: kjefferson1 | September 28, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum's post needs to be corrected in at least one glaring error: Mr. Polanski was not charged with statutory rape; he was charged with rape. He is alleged to have drugged the 13-year old child and anally raped her. I wonder if we were talking about a frat-boy if Ms. Applebaum would be so eager to let the perpetrator escape the judicial system.

Posted by: mtbagg01 | September 28, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Anne, have you ever met a 13 year-old girl?

Posted by: pynadbf | September 28, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum's commentary highlights the amazing ability of the left to excuse any behavior on the part of their icons.

As a father of daughters, and a human being, my take on this is as follows:

Roman Polanski negotiated with the mother of a young girl to bring her child to his home for the purposes of having sex with the child. He obviously knew the child was a minor. If he were almost anyone else, this alone would be enough for the left to demand that he be put away for life. (as he should be)

He reduced the girl's ability to resist, or even make a desicion, with drugs and alcohol. If they were both adults and in college, this would be date rape, and the left would have him expelled and marked as a sexual predator forever. (as he should be)

The girl describes in her testimony that in addition to unwanted vaginal penetration, Mr Polanski anally raped her to avoid impregnating her. After she specifically asked him to not perform that act, and that she did not fight him because she was afraid of him. If he were anyone else the doctrine of "no" even during the act of sex, demands cecessation of all activity or it is rape, would apply, and the left would demand prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. (not a plea bargain and flight to avoid punishment).

I could go on, but there is really no point. As long as an individual provides a service or product that the left approves of, they will defend him regardless of logic or justice.

My only disappointment in this circumstance is that Mr Polanski is in solitary in Switzerland, and not in the general population of a California prison where he belongs. That might change his attraction to unwanted sodomy.

Your rational responses are welcome at PSGute@aol.com

Posted by: PSGute | September 28, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Bizarre arrest?

This man gave a 13 year old girl drugs and alcohol, and then raped and sodomized her. He pled guilty to this.

If the 13 year old had been an 18 year old, it would still be rape. It doesn't matter how "nice" he is, how many fantabulous movies he's produced, how often he changes the oil in his car. He is guilty of raping a child.

Should the message we send out to criminals be "If you can flee the country for a few years, we'll just say 'oh, that's okay, we forgive you"? Or should we demand justice when and where we are able to.

Raping a 13 year old girl - when is that ever right? How is it bizarre that we are still looking for justice on this? This man hasn't suffered the past 30 years. He's gone on with his rich and privileged life. It's time for him to pay up for what he did.

Posted by: gpherder | September 28, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Hot Air: Arresting a child rapist “outrageous”, says columnist with axe to grind
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/28/arresting-a-child-rapist-outrageous-says-columnist-with-axe-to-grind/

Posted by: StewartIII | September 28, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Apparently the victim's mother sold her to Polanski for a euphemistic "photo shoot" and Polanski paid the girl off. End of story? Not in a just world. If we expect laws to rule then justice must be served. The alternative is vengeance or payoffs and that sound like Muslimia to me.

ps. Ms. Applebaum has an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Posted by: aloysius1 | September 28, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I understand that Mr. Polanski will be celebrating his return to the United States with a party along some of his closest friends.

I'm quite certain that Ms. Applebaum along with several of her girlfriends and female relatives would love to be invited.

I'm sure Mr. Polanski will show them a good time! No experience will be necessary!


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | September 28, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"Eliminated Pedophelia in this Country" Have you lost your mind. Is it any wonder why so many in our nation believe the left is immoral and why so many are concerned about the future of a nation that has no morals.

Posted by: idahoed | September 28, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

For the love of God. This guy raped a girl that was 13 years old. Just because that he was on the run for 30 plus years and lead a good life, does not mean he should not have to pay for his crimes.

Posted by: Kalik | September 28, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Once Mr. Polanski is released as Ms Applebaum recommends, he can return to the US, where we have a place for people like him. It's called CONGRESS. He should be right at home.

Posted by: CarlosHawes | September 28, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Eliminated Pedophelia in this Country" i believe was sarcasm. lol

Posted by: glezzery1 | September 28, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

In my most humble opinion Ms. Applebaum's arguement is flawed. With the statement that the victim forgives him and since his parents suffered tragically in Auchwitz and Mauthausen and he himself fled the Krakow ghetto, he should be forgiven his past statutory rape of a 13 year old child. If this were the case, then any remaining Nazi officers et al should be forgiven as well under the same arguement. Ridiculous. No matter who he is, Mr. Polanski should have stood up as a man and faced his charges, taken care of them and moved on with his life. Instead, the only person to be blamed for his plight is himself.

Posted by: RhodeIslandRed1 | September 28, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

It so happens Ms. Applebaum is married to Poland's Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, who is actively pursuing Polanski's release. Now, what a coincidence!

Posted by: rfpiktor | September 28, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

How about some self disclosure about your husband when writing this op-ed piece? What bias reporting! Also, would you like to have been that thirteen year old girl?

Posted by: bethmack | September 28, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"The U.S. has the largest incarceration rate in the world, by a huge margin. Our prisons are bulging and unable to hold even the most violent criminals, some of whom are being discharged due to lack of prison space. That being the case, why does it make any sense to imprison a 76 year old man, who is hardly dangerous to society ? Who or what is served by his imprisonment ? Has he not been rehabilitated ? No one said what he did was OK. But the punishment being sought by some does not fit the crime, or in this case the practical side. There are far more dangerous people out there than Polanski. Let's use the prison space for them."

Maybe we should calm down on the enforcing law deal, sunce we have the "highest incarceration rate"?!?!?!

What exactly is an incarceration rate?
Don't you mean jailing criminals rate?
Ohh, its like America the Prison Nation!??!
What leftist nonsense.

Build more prisons.
Enforce the Law, or change it.
And put Polansky in there for his crime against society.
The justice system is not for personal vengeance, its to serve civil society.

Posted by: glezzery1 | September 28, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

What a disgusting post, full of irrelevant ex post rationalizations. The only thing that matters is that he pleaded guilty to statutory rape and then fled the justice system.

Posted by: wacziarg | September 28, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Just a network of pedophiles.
Another apologist for Polanski:
French culture minister Frédéric Mitterrand “wrote an autobiographical “novel” about going on trips to Asia for sex with young boys.”
http://www.amazon.fr/mauvaise-vie-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric-Mitterrand/dp/2266157175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254139579&sr=1-1

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski drugged and raped and sodomized a child, confessed then fled the country.

He is as guilty as any of the escaped Nazis and should never be given a pass on his crime.

Posted by: johnperney | September 28, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey i know about the Holocaust can I get some leniency???

Posted by: obblehit | September 28, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Well this wins the prize; the stupidest most offensive piece of insult in history. If there was any justice this woman would be fired. NOW! Obviously she has never had a child. For a 44 year old man to give drugs to a 13 year old and then rape her is evil. Nothing more, nothing less. No wonder the WaPo is going bankrupt, how can they possibly employ total idiots like this. I say good riddance to this pathetic woman and the WaPo can't go bankrupt soon enough.

Posted by: bcd_2001 | September 28, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Anne, you are morally bankrupt.

Posted by: wjj_johnson | September 28, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable.

So, if the perpetrator is rich and forced to live a lavish lifestyle in Europe and the victim turns out ok then it doesn't matter that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl?

Anne, if a rich famous man drugged and raped your little girl, you would plead for lenience because he's an artist?

Unbelievable. You've lost your right to comment on any other sex abuse case in the future. I hope you really think its ok to drug and rape teenage girls, because thats who you are now. You're the woman that thinks its ok.

Posted by: pmiller3 | September 28, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Fear of irrational punishment" - that's good, Anne.

Someone who had witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust should have been even more sensitive to the innocence of a child, don't you think, Anne?

Posted by: keef2333 | September 28, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Again, what does this have to do with Left-Right? Ann is a neo-Con if anything, and many liberals like myself are outraged by this column. Stop trying to make everything be about your pet issue, folks. A child was raped, surely there can be some bipartisan outrage about it, huh? And there should also be bipartisan anger at the WaPo and Ann for concealing a material conflict of interest.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | September 28, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I actually signed up for the first time to this site in order to send this -- you have GOT to be kidding me! Regardless of your husband's conflict; your position is INSANE. He raped a 13 year old girl - period. End of story. He needs to pay for it.

Posted by: deanoeng | September 28, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

In Anne's sick world wrong is right and right is wrong. You are one sick puppy lady...

Posted by: tildog | September 28, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse


Perhaps we should hear from

ARROGANT ANNIE

what else family members of the holocaust can get away with.
There seem to be SO many of them, perhaps we should know.

But then, she proved today that she owes nothing to her readers, neither truth nor context. She deserves the disgust seen above...

Posted by: whistling | September 28, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Another MSM weigh-in... again, and again, and again... The liberal Democratic media has two forms of 'justice'; One for themselves where almost anything goes, and then one for the rest of us.

When will people learn about the Hollywood elites, MSM, and liberal Democrats... it is all about THEM. The little people do not count.

Posted by: wilsan | September 28, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Not much support for you Mrs Sikorski, and rightly so. Amazing that someone who has written an important book called Gulag, documenting the abuse of human beings by other human beings, should be defending Polanski. Actively defending him.

Posted by: DurkheimwasRight | September 28, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum:

I do NOT accept your one free rape for artist rule.

You are disgusting.

Posted by: ricerpfp1 | September 28, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This is the most moronic thing I've read in a very long time. The beauty of a judicial system in working order is that it does not take into account a reporter's feelings about how something ought to be or ought not to be.

That a lot of time has passed is irrelevant. That the victim has forgiven the criminal is irrelevant. That the victim doesn't want to relive a new trial is irrelevant. That the reporter alleges there was judicial misconduct is irrelevant.

All of this is irrelevant.

All that matters is that a man was convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl and then he broke another law by fleeing. He's no less guilty now than he was in 1977.

My heart does not break that he chose to live in France and can't come home. Awwww.

The price you pay for raping a girl, Polanski, no matter how old you get, no matter what your parents went through (as though that's got anything to do with anything), is to serve the term that a rightfully constituted judicial system handed down.

To do otherwise will accomplish one thing and one thing only: send a message loud and clear that if you can run away from serving your sentence, all will eventually be forgiven. So long as ... what ... you get old?

What a bunch of nonsense.

Posted by: Greg37 | September 28, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Applebaum,

I wanted to write you in support of your right to your own opinion. I'm ambivalent about the Polanski affair, but I tend to side with your arguments. It appears that even though you have worked for AEI and have written editorials that might be considered conservative, you are now the object of a right wing witch hunt. Andrew Breitbart, protege of Glenn Beck in cyberspace, has seen fit to link your editorial so that his lunatics can spam you with hate mail, some of it virulently anti-Semitic. I tend to be a lot more with the liberals when it comes to opinions about Israel, but many of these vile anti-Semitic comments are worthy of Hamas and Al Quaeda and make my stomach sick. To the people who are taunting Ms. Applebaum: It doesn't take a Jew to feel sympathy for a man who lost many family members in the Holocaust. I'm a gentile and I feel the same sympathy for Mr. Polanski. Now it is also true that Mr. Polanski admitted his guilt and that the rule of law should prevail. I'm hoping that the parties can come to some kind of an agreement, an agreement in which Mr. Polanski does not have to spend 50 years in jail. Perhaps he can pay a fine of $100 million to the California government and help that financially-ruined state.

Sincerely and best wishes, Ms. Applebaum,

Barbara

Posted by: fabucat58 | September 28, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Let one thing be CRYSTAL clear, Statutory rape is a legal definition, generally meaning consensual sex between a minor and an adult. This girl, a 13 year old girl, was drugged, given alcohol and then raped vaginally and sodomized. Does that sound consensual? Don't think so, bring his ass back to LA and let him have a retrial.

Posted by: lucaschristine | September 28, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

That's a problem with jews. They invoke Hamas and Al Quaeda every time they are cought. We would not have any problem with Hamas and Al Quaeda if not for sick support of rasist israel, that's one thing. Another is that what Polanski raping a child has to do with Hamas and Al Quaeda ?

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Are there NO crimes from this decade to be prosecuted and punished in all of Los Angeles? I am perplexed. What does this serve? Why not punish Jack Nicholson for hosting the party at which the rape occurred?

I do not wish to make light of the original crime. It was appalling, and if Polanski had come to the US or UK or any country that felt compelled to honor extradition treaties (there's a crime there, our allies ignoring extradition appeals for decades) he would rightly have served time.

But that is NOT what happened, and at this point there is absolutlely no point in dregding any of this up. AA is right. Move on. The victim has. We all should respect her wishes.

Posted by: Clio1 | September 28, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Who knew there were so many people in the mainstream media who are so unabashedly pro-pedophilia?

The sooner Polanski is locked up, the better. I hope the feds tack on federal flight from punishment charges, too.

Posted by: jelperman | September 28, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

As the father of a wonderful daughter, and as someone who still clings to my belief in the rule of law, I ask myself why I cannot muster the same degree of empathy you do, Anne, for Roman Polanski. What kind of thinking, I wonder, lies behind the contention that Polanski has paid for his crime because "He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film"? Would you express a similar empathy, I wonder, if the person in question, was, say, a former guard at gulag in Norlisk accused of the same crime? I have suffered tragedies and humiliations in my life, too, yet I do not ask or demand from society preferential treatment. Good men prefer to be held accountable. You've allowed your feelings toward Poland to cloud your judgment. And now a little nationalism on my part: Those few who harm us and our children are not so powerful that we must abandon the rule of law -- the very thing that makes it worth being an American.

Posted by: Bailey7 | September 28, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Barbara and others, this has nothing to do with anyone's religion, race, ethnicity or politics. Anne Applebaum, whom I normally admire, has written a morally obtuse, truly repellent column and has failed to disclose her conflict of interest. She should apologize.

A famous child rapist who is part of Anne's social stratum deserves no more leniency than the pervert hanging around the playground.

Posted by: emmet1 | September 28, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

And as for Ms Applebaum's "conflict of interest," for G-d's sake, give it a rest already! She is the Post's most independent writer. She is not a stooge for Poland. Enough hysteria!

Posted by: Clio1 | September 28, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum seems to like this sort of thing.

Why is this pro-pedophile, pro-rapist allowed a public forum?

Posted by: ztormtra | September 28, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

mateosf, you said it so eloquently:

"Well, give Anne Applebaum credit for having a sense of irony. Her right-wing spidey sense must be tingling, as the "deeper story" is the fear many neocons like Applebaum have that their idols (Kissinger, Doug Feith, Cheney, etc.) could face similar fates for the war crimes they're currently being tried for in a few EU nations. Once convicted, like Kissinger (and make no mistake - these men are guilty of war crimes, by their own admissions), if they ever set foot in a European nation that respects the rule of law - it'll be Polanski, but with broader consequences."

Neocons like Applebaum fear for the really punitive extraditions that might come if countries started honoring justice regardless of borders. Heaven forbid! The White House Iraq Group paying a penalty for the hoodwinking of America into a war that killed a million people? Perish the thought. Anne's trying her best to at least.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 28, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I am no feminist, but NO MEANS NO.

SHE SAID NO, THAT IS RAPE

Posted by: gorak | September 28, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

From Salon.com:
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Also, as a Jew, I find your use of the Shoah as some kind of excuse for the behavior of a child rapist to be utterly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: joe_fonebone | September 28, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Anne gives new meaning to the word "clueless"

Rape and/or statutory rape is an abhorrent crime whether it happened now, yesterday, or 30+ years ago. I am happy that the victim is in a place in her life where she has dealt with it and can even find it within herself to forgive him....but at what cost? How long did she suffer? How many therapy sessions did she endure? ...how many failed relationships did she go through before she learned to trust and be a part of a healthy loving relationship with another man?

The fact that the perpetrator is popular, accomplished and rich makes no difference, and the fact that he himself has suffered from various personal tragedies, does not give him a free pass to then turn around and commit crimes on the most vulnerable. It is irrelevent.

I wonder if Anne has any daughters, and how she would feel had this tragedy been inflicted on her own?....How eager would she be to dismiss his arrest.

It is a shame that at 76 he now may have to serve a jail setence, but lets not forget ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, and it was HIS CHOICE, HIS ACTIONS that landed him here. He was a seasoned 45 years old when it happened, certainly no green misguided youth. Sorry, no excuse.

Posted by: bortiz0224 | September 28, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

His return would not be for a trial, but for sentencing. All of the things Anne mentions could be used as mitigating factors. However, his escape from that justice should not be allowed to stand and should be factored into the sentence. Maybe teaching Michael Moore how to direct a film.

Posted by: mzarowitz | September 28, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum yesterday wrote a blog post in support of Roman Polanksi -- who is being extradited on decades-old rape charges -- without disclosing that her husband, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is lobbying for Polanski's release. Obviously Applebaum is a columnist and not a news reporter, but you'd think the Post would see failing to disclose that connection as "tarnishing their journalistic credibility."

One final observation: It never ceases to amaze me how elite opinionmakers develop the sensibilities of college freshmen when it comes to the criminal justice system when someone important might end up doing time -- whether it's Scooter Libby, Roman Polanski, or John Yoo. They could care less about the anonymous millions in prison in this country, but when someone important enough for them to sympathize with is facing potential prosecution and prison time, it's time to break out the protest signs and bumper stickers.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

How is statutory rape different from rape?

Posted by: BobPolicy | September 28, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

The lesson: Leave children alone! The irony is delicious that this low-life monster gets detoured on his way to receive a “lifetime achievement award”, because of an outstanding arrest warrant from 1978, forcing him to California because the Los Angeles district attorney has his own “lifetime achievement award” to give him – a long prison term.

And Roman Polanski and his foppish European elite friends are up in arms? Cry me a river.

Tom

Posted by: Beachcomber | September 28, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

From the victims testimony

Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Yes I dont see no wrong there do you Miss Applebaum. I wonder if this were a member of your family if you would have that same ignorant mentality.

Posted by: jag1ed | September 28, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

ann is clueless on top of everything. Statutory rape implies legal age (sex without consent). Child could not give a consent so there is no statutory rape here. As I said, how polanski got "statutory" part is an interesting thing per se.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey since you're such a great supporter of Polanski, could you ask him how he felt about Susan Atkins dying in prison two days before he was arrested. You know the person I'm talking about, the one who admitted to brutally murdering his wife, then WASN'T granted a compassionate release because she had brain cancer. Awww, in your book we should feel sorry for Susan too.

AND, as for the films he couldn't make in the US because he was in exile, Roman could have had a great career here in the US IF he hadn't run away and not faced justice for 32 years and actually served his relatively short sentence all those years ago. Wipe the blood off your heart and face facts.

Posted by: pook1 | September 28, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Anne, you should be ashamed of yourself. The only outrage here is your willingness to sweep Polanski's crime under the rug.

Posted by: rmaisacsucker | September 28, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

To sum it up:
Washington Post, you should be ashamed.
She's using her access to the public to push her husband's agenda without giving her readers the full story.

Basic journalistic ethics should require full disclosure even if there was an appearance of conflict.

The previously undisclosed fact changes the entire story in the minds of many readers, IMHO, from a legitimate opinion piece to media manipulation and PR spin on behalf of a public official's agenda.

Not to disclose her ties is deliberate omission of a material fact and speaks to her lack of integrity and ethics.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 28, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

First, it wasn't statutory rape, it was rape, pure and simple, of a child. He drugged the girl, and then raped her vaginally, anally, and orally as she pleaded with him to stop.

Second, it doesn't matter whether she forgives him or not. He's a criminal. We don't make decisions on whether to charge child rapists based on whether they are forgiven or not. The entire point of criminal law is that the offense is against society at large.

Third, he had asked his victim's mother for permission to participate in the photo shoot. That's pretty clear evidence that he knew she was underage. She was 13, hard to mistake for an adult.

Fourth, he fled not during a trial, but after pleading guilty but before he had been even sentenced. If there was misconduct during the original proceedings, then the proper remedy for that would have been an appeal.

Fifth, the invocation of the Holocaust to excuse Mr. Polanski is despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself, Ms. Applebaum.

Lastly, you ought to have disclosed that your husband is lobbying on Mr. Polanski's behalf for leniency from the authorities in his capacity as a Polish government official.

Posted by: tommythegun | September 28, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Anne. Putting Polanski on trial would serve no purpose other than to throw fresh raw meat to the radical conservative jackals in this country. They don't care about justice. They just want something to help placate their insatiable appetite for revenge.

Posted by: irkulyen | September 28, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Anne might read Kate Harding's article in Salon for real insight into a rational discussion about Polanski and his predatory rape of a 13 year old girl. Makes me wonder...is there something else going on with Anne? Is there?

Posted by: RonGene | September 28, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum's arguments are disgusting and sad.

The concept that a victim's "forgiveness" - sometimes genuine, sometimes from misplaced guilt, sometimes out of a desire for privacy - somehow absolves the rapist's crime is shockingly obtuse.

The thought that being barred from the Oscar's even deserves mention in the face of drugging-sodomizing-raping a child is mind-numbing.

Posted by: eprhee | September 28, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I count on Anne Applebaum to help me figure out how I feel about so many complex issues, and to help me understand conflicts and controversies all over the world. So I'm literally shocked she has taken this position. I'm not sure what punishmnet Polanski deserves, but I'm sure he deserves for that issue to be resolved in a court of law.

Posted by: Elisabeth4 | September 28, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Barbara:

I am one who posted against Applebaum's astonishingly insensitive opinion. I am NOT a right-winger but a fervent Obama supporter. As such--and as a survivor of the drug/rape combo myself--I have zero tolerance for rape. Why would you EVER think that outrage over the brutal treatment of a girl as a sexual object would be limited to right-wingers?

It is interesting to me, though, that this is an area of strong agreement for some of us who would otherwise strongly disagree: people with conscience and a sense of fairness, on both ends of the political spectrum.

Quite honestly, I don't care what happens to Roman Polanski. He is a zero, in my mind. But I care a lot that anyone would dismiss child rape as irrelevant in light of the time that has past, in light of his brilliant career, in light of his past suffering... in light of anything.

Atrocity must never be forgotten or dismissed.

Posted by: sjohnston1 | September 28, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I haven't followed Ms. Applebaum's writing, but I wonder: does she agonize over the harsh treatment and alleged sexual abuses of the Gitmo detainees?

Posted by: elephant4life | September 28, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I have heard that Ms. Applebaum's husband is a Polish foreign minister who is currently lobbying against Mr. Polanski's extradition. If this is correct then, based on her husband's relationship with this case, I think Ms. Applebaume should be fired for at minimum failing to disclose her egregious conflict of interest in this matter.

Posted by: prosecutor1 | September 28, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

She was 13! Polanski drugged her, a crime in itself. Then raped her, the worst crime. He pleaded guilty. And fled. He's culpable, morally and judicially, regardless of the victim's forgiveness.

Posted by: boredwell | September 28, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Anne. You're opinion succinctly summarizes all that's wrong with America.

Posted by: stevependergast | September 28, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Anne. Your opinion succinctly summarizes all that's wrong with America.

Posted by: stevependergast | September 28, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Anne, Care to disclose your bias considering your polish minister husband Radoslaw Sikorski is trying pressure the US to drop the charges? Funny how your "fact" based opinion missed that little nugget. Kinda like you missed the fact that sex with a 13 year old and grown man has always been illegal no matter how you look at it.

I also don't see any articles on here saying the US shouldn't have sent "Ivan the Terrible" and his wheel chair back to Europe to face the music. I mean he was an old man with a family who suffered in Detriot for years with out killing any Jews so it is all good in your book right?

Posted by: Malc | September 28, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS SO DISGUSTING. I can't even believe that someone would advocate this position.

I guess all those men who go to Thailand and Cambodia to rape little girls should be let off too. Sometimes those girls look old! And they're mothers totally sell them off! I mean if its been 30 years, and the men are now successful businessmen, and had bad circumstances in their lives. Haven't they suffered enough?

Posted by: Completelydisgusted | September 28, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

This contemptible piece has elicited all sorts of responses, but most curious I find are the defenses of either Polanski or now, by association, Applebaum on some cultural or religious grounds.

Jew, Muslim, Christian, tomato worshipper -- what does it matter? He lured a 13-year-old girl to a private home with a phony modeling gig (her mother's complicity is deplorable but not exculpatory for Polanski), had her strip, drugged her, and raped her anally. Urged to give him a slap on the wrist by irresponsible prosecutors, the judge balked. Irregularities in that judge's treatment of the case are a separate matter, which never received proper treatment -- because Polanski fled the country.

Pedophile. Rapist. Fugitive. Add any other label you like -- Oscar winner, survivor, creative whatever; it doesn't change the facts of his crimes.

And Applebaum has the audacity to offer as an extenuating circumstance that he might have thought she was older? Disgusting. The victim's testimony, available at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html, paints a horrifying picture. She has a right to her feeling that it's behind her and that her wish that the whole thing would just go away. But the case has been decided. She can forgive him, but not free him.

Finally, the Wash. Post owes its readers better than to publish this trash without full disclosure that Applebaum's husband is a Polish diplomat who may intercede on Polanski's behalf. No wonder the public thinks to little of the mainstream media.

Posted by: Imperfections | September 28, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Um, if Polanski didn't know how old she was, why did he ask permission from her mother for the photo shoot? Not only that, but Polanski drugged her, vaginally and anally raped her, and then pled down to statutory rape.

"Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed … Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum[.] Applebaum failed to mention this little fact.

So at the same time that she was giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom."

Posted by: bosszeroboss | September 28, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

When I first heard of Polanski's arrest, being a little light on the exact facts of what Polanski's did to the girl, I might have agreed with Applebaum. However, one read of the girl's grand jury testimony brings to light what an awful crime this was. Applebaum tries to minimize the crime by calling it "statutory rape," what we all recognize is code for "she wanted to have sex, but she just wasn't old enough." Don't submit to this! Read the transcript at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html and tell me that this was anything but a sexual predator raping and sodomizing an unwilling girl whom he drugged. Then try to imagine the words on the page coming from the 8th grade student who lives in your neighborhood.

Polanski apologists either don't know the facts, are willfully blind or are just as monstrous as Polanski himself.

Posted by: mcsmythe | September 28, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

'


Anne:

Do you have a daughter?

If your response is yes:

Would you be writing the same crap if it was YOUR DAUGHTER this man raped?

'

Posted by: ahartnack | September 28, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, please do not advocate for a man who is guilty of this crime. Think of someone that you love, who could have been one of his victims. By all means, if you admire his work as a filmmaker you must separate that admiration with the unspeakable acts he did to this child. Justice has no time limits, and may he live the last years on this earth paying for what he did.

Posted by: rpms33 | September 28, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

WaPo's Applebaum Excuses Polanski, Fails to Note Her Conflict of Interest
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/09/28/wapos-applebaum-excuses-polanski-fails-note-her-conflict-interest

Posted by: StewartIII | September 28, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

So people who skip out on their bail and can afford to take off for Europe should be left alone. This is really one of the silliest arguments I ever seen in the WP. Are you serious in suggesting that Roman's inability to appear in Hollywood to accept an Oscar or direct a film constitutes sufficient punishment for this crime??! You are really very out of touch with reality.

Posted by: woconnor | September 28, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Have you lost your ever loving mind? Did you actually defend a child rapist by saying "he really didn't know how old she was." I want to ask how many 13 year olds do you confuse with 18 year olds? Or is this an affliction you suffer only when the rich and famous are implicated? I hope you don't have daughters. This from a woman who harrangued Bill Clinton for compromising a 24 year old girl. I just can't belive this!!

Posted by: hirutm | September 28, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

This article is the most vulgar example of journalism that I have ever witnessed, and it's from the US!

I don't follow Applebaum, but I can only guess that she is a star-struck woman without children that thinks that artistic ability and lifelong tragedy automatically justifies such putrid behaviour as paedophelia and child pornography. I only thank goodness that Switzerland has stepped up as an advocate of children's rights.

If you really find it necessary to advocate the rights of child molesters, perhaps you can find it in your heart to run to the aide of all the lower class child molesters trolling playgrounds and elementary schoolyards in America.. but you won't.. because you don't think they're "cool".

Posted by: Chere2 | September 28, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Charles Manson and all members of his so called family were given fair trials with an impartial Judge and Jury. It is a disgrace this was denied Roman Polanski when he found himself in trouble in 1978. I agree with this article. Given his age and the circumstances of his arrest and trial and the passage of 30 years the charges should be dropped.

Posted by: Clipper965 | September 28, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Why is this woman even collecting a paycheck from the WaPo? She has NOTHING to say that is worth any space in a newspaper. Maybe she would have a different view if Polanski raped her daughter.

Posted by: MikeJ9116 | September 28, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MOTHER FREAKING MIND??!! Lady you are at least advocating no punishment for child rape and at worst advocating child rape. How about someone does a trifecta rape on you or your friend's 8 year old daughter and then come talk that crap here. He had to get permission from the girl's mother obviously indicating that she was underage. He left no accommodating orifice untouched. He drugged a 13 year old child then had ORAL, VAGINAL, AND ANAL SEX, with her and the basis of your argument is he was going to get significant time (deservedly so - God bless that judge) so he ran and escaped justice and the act of escaping justice for such a long period of time constitutes a reason to not FACE justice. LADY A 44 YEAR OLD MAN RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD. If you try to defend that sick behavior, one can only assume that you yourself are sick to your core. Only God knows what kind of debauchery you have either performed or considered performing on minors yourself.

Posted by: eastlander | September 28, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Clipper965, you say it's a shame Polanski wasn't given a fair trial. Are you unaware that he pleaded guilty and fled before sentencing? He could have had a fair trial had he so chosen. He may get one now if he's allowed to back out of his earlier plea deal. His guilt, however, was not in dispute at the time he escaped to France.

Posted by: emmet1 | September 28, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Annie,
You are right. Anybody whose mother survived Auschwitz should be entitled to rape a 13 year old but only if they give her qualudes first. Also, if you survive your murdered spouse, again raping a 13 year old is the right thing to do. The poor guy couldn't get his Oscar! Rape, Annie dear, like all felonies, is a crime against the state. No wonder the Post has a declining readership.

Posted by: rjcd509 | September 28, 2009 9:52 PM | Report abuse

``There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.''

Of course, any one in the same position today would have the presence of mind after drugging the young lady to search her purse for i.d. before sodomizing her.

But you have to keep in mind those were different times; and as the Clinton White House once said, rape wasn't rape in the 1970s.

While I agree that one might blame him and at the same time find mitigating circumstances for his panicky decision to flee, I'm going to assume that it didn't take a full three decades for the panic to wear off. It's hard to find mitigating circumstances for his not returning to face justice until he was taken by surprise.

As for not pursuing fugitive child rapists unless they are famous- it may be true, but I really hope it isn't.

Posted by: Woody435 | September 28, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Disgraceful piece of trash by Applebaum. Also,quite unethical for her not to disclose her Polish husband's role in this affair. But frankly, I have found most of her articles third rate, not very thoughtful and appalingly eurocentric. WP keeps her for gender balance and nothing more!

Posted by: Panini | September 28, 2009 10:02 PM | Report abuse

The more I ponder Anne's piece the more I find it exceedingly disappointing, since she has surely served as a voice of moral authority on such issues as freedom and human rights, and has written the definitive history of the Soviet gulag system. A marvelous book! Now in some kind of angry, deranged fit she has exploited the memory of the Holocaust, and played the card of Jewish exceptionalsm, using both as an ideological weapon to distort Polanski's case, apologize for a crime of violence against a child, show disdain for the rule of law, and shill for the Polish government. What arrogance! What lack of self-consciousness! What moral prevarication! By now Applebaum will have read her smack down by Kate Harding at Salon and seen the error of her ways. But no, perhaps that is too much to hope for. For right now, Anne Applebaum, your credibility with me is completely shot to hell.

Posted by: Bailey7 | September 28, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Jerrycook1 that was a great comeback! "If he wasn't famous she wouldn't have written the article" Fewer words sometimes pack bigger meanings

Posted by: mskimberlyclark | September 28, 2009 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe Appelbaum or you people on here that would defend a CHILD RAPIST.....let alone a RAPIST......YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME.....you can excuse whatever you want.......some facts you cant dispute.....1. He knew she didnt want to be RAPED.....2. He knew she was underage and did not want to be RAPED.....(retards).......3. He knew she was underage.

Posted by: roycherian | September 28, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Why bother with a writing career? You could do so much better in porn films Anne. Obviously you have no qualms about men traumatizing and raping children. You sound like you probably enjoy forced sodomy and may even get off on old Nazi documentaries. Maybe Polanski has a role for you in his first prison film? Or would you prefer to write about the "injustice" Polanski will suffer when HE is sodomized in prison himself?

Posted by: BBlanton1 | September 28, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Anne- You're a moron.

I will never understand this world that liberals live in. There is no right or wrong in la-la land. In this world where no one on the left can ever do anything wrong, a man can drug and rape a baby, but shouldn't stand trial because he is sorry. And of course because he is one of the annointed. WTF!

I'd be interested to see Anne's opinion if it was her daughter that was drugged and raped.

Posted by: flyingmd1 | September 28, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

APPLEBAUM - It is not Statutory rape. He raped and sodomized her after intoxicating the little girl..what universe are you living in?

Is everyone forgetting....Polanski, a 44 year old man, CONFESSED to the RAPE (oral, vaginal and sodomy) of a 13 year old child, after coaxing and intimidating her in to getting drunk (on Champagne) and giving her drugs (half a tablet of Qualude). These are not allegations, he has confessed to them. He then was not man enough to face punishment but fled like a common criminal. A 40 yr old Paedophile who intoxicates and sodomizes a 13 yr old child....everyone rising to his defense should have their heads examined.

Posted by: AJ1806 | September 28, 2009 10:33 PM | Report abuse

So if Bill Ayers crimes can be so easily dismissed with an Obama remark " I was only 8 " And Polanski's rape can be dismissed because it was so long ago. Why are we still hearing about Slavery and the Holocaust?

Posted by: dencal26 | September 28, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Anne forgot to mention that she is married to Poland's foreign minister, who is lobbying for Polanski's release on bail.

Rape is rape and he admitted guilt. No matter his age, he's still a sex offender. His current wife was 10 years old when he was raping the 13 year old.

Sick is sick.

Posted by: lindsay11 | September 28, 2009 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Let's it be a lesson to all rapists of underaged girls

Posted by: abc7 | September 28, 2009 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum,

It is difficult to comprehend the lack of intellectual depth and moral judgement you have displayed. He raped a child. I don't know how anyone can justify the rape of a child.

he raped a child.

Posted by: charleshugh | September 28, 2009 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Anne, I see from the discussion thread hosted by Karl Vick that you responded to the question of your failure to point out a conflict of interest, thusly,

"I have disclosed that before, more than once. Also, when I wrote the blog I had no idea that my husband, who is in Africa, would, or could do anything about it, as Polanski is not a Polish citizen. I am not responsible for his decisions and he is not responsible for mine."

Did you not read the WaPo report you linked in your column, above, the one that contained the following paragraph:

"Polanski also received support from Poland, where he moved as a toddler and avoided capture by the Nazis, who put his mother to death in a concentration camp. "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, according to the PAP news agency."

I find your professed ignorance regarding your husband's intentions hard to believe.

Posted by: DustyRaftery | September 28, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Take two aspirin and call me when you find your moral compass.

Posted by: Namazu | September 28, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes its outrageous in the extreme that a man who drugged a thirteen year old to have sex with her and then sodomized her for good measure should be arrested.What is this world coming to? The deeper meaning here is that Ms Applebaum's husband works for the Polish Government and is actively lobbying for Polanski to walk.

Posted by: diana11777 | September 28, 2009 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Polanski can make any argument he wants, and I don't care what the judge rules. But he MUST be brought back to the US and face the judge.

Applebaum and the Washington Post are total hippocrates for arguing that President Nixon is not above the law, but Polanski is above the law.

Posted by: Delongl | September 28, 2009 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum-

I am literally incredulous at your comments that a 13-year old girl having anal sex with a 44-year old man, who then runs away when he gets convicted, is owed any sympathy.

I won't repeat any of the comments that came in, I think they spoke for themselves and me.

If it is true that your husband has a financial interest in the case, which I have read, then you should be fired.

To repeat, the guy anally raped a 13-year old and then ran.

I am appalled by your column. I have a close relative who was subjected to this, and I can assure you it was not fun.

I hope that your editors consider the issues.

Todd

Posted by: tcrockett31 | September 28, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Poor rapist. Hasn't been able to travel where he wants too. Poor rapist couldn't get his award because he raped a girl. Poor rapist how could we as a nation be so cruel.

Posted by: Bubbasgotgas | September 28, 2009 11:10 PM | Report abuse

STATUTORY RAPE?????? STATUTORY RAPE?????? ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?????

She was a 13 year old baby girl. I feel literally sick reading this in WaPo.

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 28, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

"He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee."

But not for his original, perverted decision to sodomize a child?

Ugh. This article is unbelievable.

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 28, 2009 11:19 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Anne would write the same story about a man that rapes and sodomizes her granddaughter

Posted by: mnpilot | September 28, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

I think Applebaum is right. Raping children is no big deal.

In fact, we should applaud child rapists instead of sending them to prison. Chalets for all child rapists! Polanski is a hero for drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl! Free Polanski!

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | September 28, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

This woman is nuts. Simply disregard.

Posted by: polonius1 | September 28, 2009 11:26 PM | Report abuse

There is a caveat on this blog that inappropriate comments and materials will be removed from the site. If that in fact is true Why has the Washington Post not removed Anne Applebaum's complete commentary. Anne is an absolute wacko! Her argument is pure fantasy! Maybe she is just trying to be a clown but most probably she is just another untalented mindless "writer of no substance". Polanski should only see the inside of a 6 x 6 cell for the rest of his life. He has no excuse. his crime is a major offense. It does not matter that the woman he raped and sodomized says she wants to move on, lets not forget he committed a crime against civilized society and he MUST BE PUNISHED. Convict him send him to prison and put him in general population and let him understand what it's like to be raped!

Posted by: bradford2 | September 28, 2009 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum says it's ok to drug and rape a 13 year-old girl if you are rich and famous. Anne is a pig and a disgrace.

Posted by: johnhopkinson2004 | September 28, 2009 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Someone has stolen Anne Applebaum's by line. No sentient adult would admit to such an abysmally stupid piece.

Posted by: al1123 | September 28, 2009 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Facts:

1) Roman Polanski is Jewish and a Holocaust survivor

2) Roman Polanski is well-regarded movie maker

3) Roman Polanski is wealthy

4) Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 years old girl in 1977 and admitted to the crime in a plea bargain

5) Roman Polanski fled before his sentencing

6) Roman Polanksi has been a fugitive for 30 years

7) Roman Polanksi has the support of Ms. Applebaum due to the fact that he is Jewish

8) Roman Polanski is being supported by the rich and powerful despite his crime

9) Roman Polanksi is dirt, but his supporters are lower than dirt. They are panderers to a pedophile just because he is wealthy and Jewish

10) This is a moment of Revelation.

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Given her forgiving view of child rape, perhaps the DC police should look into Applebaum's past.

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | September 28, 2009 11:43 PM | Report abuse

My god, I actually felt sick after reading this column.
He raped a 13 year old, period, and to read these excuses on his behalf is disgusting.
The girl has the right to forgive him, but he fled so that justice could not be carried over.
I hope to never have to meet a person who thinks like Anne Applebaum.
Sick. Thats the only word for it. Sick.

Posted by: wpsmores | September 28, 2009 11:44 PM | Report abuse

* * * * *

DustyRafferty's comment calls not only Anne Applebaum's integrity into account with her not disclosing her conflict of interest... the fact her husband is Poland's Foreign Minister working on behalf of Polish citizen Roman Polanski...

... DustyRafferty's comment also calls into question Anne Applebaum's HONESTY.

Ms. Applebaum linked to ONE AND ONLY ONE article in her blog post. She linked to this single article in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of her blog post.

This article said Anne Applebaum's husband (who has a different last name) is working to assist Roman Polanski.

And Ms. Applebaum expects people to believe that she is unaware of this fact?

Really?

THAT'S what Anne Applebaum is saying?

Anne Applebaum should be fired for both not disclosing a conflict of interest and for incredulously lying about it after it was disclosed. The Washington Post, of all newspapers, should know it's not just the crime that gets you, it's also the cover-up.

Applebaum's must immediately resign or be fired: The Washington Post's credibility requires it.

Unfortunately. Ms. Applebaum, you could have done the right thing. It didn't have to come to this. However, it has.

* * * * *

Posted by: Christoph---WP_Reader | September 28, 2009 11:44 PM | Report abuse

You're defending a child rapist. What's wrong with you. They have testimony where the girl says she told him no. This was a tragedy, and you defend the man. You should be fired.

Posted by: mdayley1 | September 28, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Anne, so your husband will ask Obama to grant clemency. I don't think Obama will have to wait for the polls on that one. You see most of us in this country just don't understand that Polanski's already suffered enough by having to miss the Academy Awards ceremony.

The elites in Hollywood, Europe and the media are rallying to Polanski's side. How outrageous, they exclaim, that a man of his genius should be punished for raping a thirteen year-old girl! How moralistic and judgmental!

The French are so much more sophisticated than we are. In France and Hollywood Polanski is a hero, but here in America he's just another perverted creep on his way to the slammer.

God bless America!

Posted by: emmet1 | September 28, 2009 11:47 PM | Report abuse

*DustyRafferty = DustyRafftery

Posted by: Christoph---WP_Reader | September 28, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Anne, your morales are deficient. Did Roman have a brain replacement...so he's not the guy who raped a 13 year old?
Did we flush the rape down the toilet and make it go away?
You have all the makings of a suck up.

Posted by: PaulLeddy | September 28, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah he only drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. But he can direct a movie let him go. If it were my daughter I would personally cut his balls off and set him on fire.

Posted by: harley2002 | September 28, 2009 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Well, the women's movement has come full circle with Ms. Applebaum's reason-starved quiff of swooning emotionalism. Poorly-argued reasons aside, the sentiment comes through loud and strong. Polanski, cool! He made some very hip movies I watched in a film class! Who are we to judge tortured genius? And so we arrive back somewhere around . . . oh, 1310. Droit de signeur, anyone? Anne might have a problem should her own daughter be chosen, but someone else's? No problem! Roman might ask her to cocktails!

Posted by: pettacom | September 28, 2009 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Come on all you right wing Christer's... A 40 year old guy buggers a 13 year old girl...heck, she probably looked 15 at least. He's part of the left elite. Are you all fools? All that running and hiding in the South of France, jet setting it here and there, being lauded and honored by the liberal elite. Have you not pity?

Posted by: jpaulparker | September 28, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Fernaz1....I'm afraid one of us is wrong...

(from CNN: In 1977 — he pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in the U.S., but he fled to Europe before he was sentenced.)

...try to guess which one. Also, since I'm "wrong down the line" I assumed you would address my other points, but since you didn't... Like I said, one of us is wrong.

Try NOT subscribing to Leftist conspiracy theories.

Posted by: garrettyork | September 28, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Now that I know the Washington Post harbors pro-pedophila columnists... I will greatly enjoy its impending descent into bankruptcy.

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | September 29, 2009 12:03 AM | Report abuse

You write:
"Here are some of the facts: Polanski's crime -- statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl -- was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children."

Do you understand the difference between a civil suit and a criminal trial? A civil suit is brought BY A VICTIM on behalf of him/herself and seeks monetary damages or injunctive relief and a criminal suit is brought BY A PROSECUTOR on behalf of the STATE and seeks a different remedy - punishment for a crime. The victim is a WITNESS for the prosecution. Whether she forgives him or not is irrelevant to the state's right (and I would say obligation) to try him on behalf of the other potential victims out there and to create the chilling effect necessary to deter other people from committing such crimes.

Posted by: KTM1 | September 29, 2009 12:05 AM | Report abuse

"Staturatory rape?" He drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl! Justice doesn't depend on where or not this girl has forgiven him. A crime was committed.

Dang, Ann, I expected more from you...

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | September 29, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Fernaz1Mansouri1

Repeating false statements ad nauseam does not make them any more true. You are completely and utterly wrong, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Polanski copped a plea deal which the Judge intended to vacate based on his opinion that the deal was far too lenient. It's perfectly legal, and happens frequently in our legal system. Furthermore, Polanski never served any time because he was never sentenced (again, claiming repeatedly that he served a sentence doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. It only serves to make you look so utterly foolish), and he fled the country before a sentence could be handed down.

Posted by: garrettyork | September 29, 2009 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Anne's narrative…what the hell are we doing prosecuting Polanski for something that Clinton legitimized a decade ago. Polanski exiled himself to France for 30 years of remorseful self-reflection…that should be enough punishment for any crime.

For 5,000 years older men with a taste for youth and beauty (especially sensitive artists) have been having their way with nubile girls. And what NOW said about respecting the word “no” is history, as the lyrics of any rap song will tell you. Let statutory rape be legalized, and don't forget what NAMBLA says...eight's too late. What a giant step beyond repressive Victorian morality.

Luckily, my daughter’s married and safe from such predators. So go ahead – Free Roman Polanski. It’d be so uplifting to have him exhonorated so he can make another film.

Posted by: Multikultur | September 29, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Poland's foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, told the Polish news agency that he will join France in asking United States and Switzerland for Polanski's release, and also plans to ask Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to offer the director clemency. Polanski grew up in Poland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice try, bit@h...

Posted by: tissot21 | September 29, 2009 12:19 AM | Report abuse

There is also evidence there was no judicial misconduct. There is also evidence that Polanski did know her real age.

So the victim says to let it go? Should we just let domestic violence go and drop all charges when a woman says that she loves the man who beat her? If the victim decides not to pursue civil penalties, that is her prerogative. However, Polanski committed a crime not just against a then 13-year-old-girl, but also against society.

He sure paid for his crime, Ms. Applebaum. That poor soul. He couldn’t even visit Los Angeles to receive his Oscar. Oh the unfairness of it all.

Posted by: TastesLikeChicken1 | September 29, 2009 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Anne,

"There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age."
Do you do any research before you make your posts?
What drives you to write at all? I am sorry, but this article stands out as very dull and inconsistant.

Posted by: pigswithfigs | September 29, 2009 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Quoted from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/09/28/DI2009092801782.html

Trenton, N.J.: Your colleague Anne Applebaum has written an opinion piece voicing her outrage about the arrest of Roman Polanski. Do you agree with her? She did not disclose in the piece that her husband, who is the foreigner minister of Poland, has been working to have Polanski released? Does this constitute a conflict of interest? Does this violate WoPo's ethic rules?

Karl Vick: Trenton, I passed on your question by e-mail to Anne. Her reply:
"I have disclosed that before, more than once. Also, when I wrote the blog I had no idea that my husband, who is in Africa, would, or could do anything about it, as Polanski is not a Polish citizen. I am not responsible for his decisions and he is not responsible for mine."
[end of quote]

Interesting arguments. So it should be the responsibility of a casual reader of Washington Post to conduct his/her own background investigation as to what the author may have disclosed in the past to be able to judge the article's objectivity and lack of bias instead of having this information served explicitly with the publication?

Secondly, even a superficial Google search for "polanski" and "citizenship" reveals in the top 10 results a number of pages that state that he holds dual citizenship of France and Poland. How can an expert like Anne Applebaum not be aware of it?

Posted by: Dr_007 | September 29, 2009 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Somebody is lying here... Appleboum states that she had disclosed her marriage ties to polish politician working tfree polanski, "more than once"-whatever that means...
She also claims that she does not know that Polanski is polish citizen. Is she stupid? Or just a plain liar?
Interestingly enough, according to Patterico, Applebaum disclosed her marriage only five days ago, in a column about Obama’s diplomacy in Europe.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/pro-polanski-wapo-columnist-fails-to-disclose-marriage-to-polish-diplomat/

Posted by: tissot21 | September 29, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

I'm appalled by the callousness of so many commentators here. A crime is a crime because a victim has suffered first and foremost - society only secondarily through the victim. If the victim has determined that the harm to be done to her family through opening up this chapter is so not worth it, why not give her the respect she requests in not pursuing it? Anne, you were brave in writing your article. Sadly, the brokenness of Polanski's humanity that led him to commit his crime is also mirrored in the broken, and sadly hate-filled humanity that have made so many posts here. True, society deserved better than how Polansky acted. But society also deserves so much better than so many of the people who've posted. The victim and her family deserve better. It's sad that so many people can write what they have and then consider themselves good citizens. What a further tragedy to come out of the sad tragedy that occurred all those years ago....

Posted by: kurtluzny | September 29, 2009 12:51 AM | Report abuse

It was Switzerland because they have to arrest someone at the request of the US under the terms of our extradition treaty.

Re: facts:
1. "Crime" you're using this word weaselly. By crime do you mean what he pled to in court or are you referring to the actual event? According to the victim, the event itself was rape, not consensual. Your argument hangs on this idea that it was a consensual encounter and not rape. Mind, we're talking about a 13 year old child here. If we say rape of a 13 year old, does your set of debits and credits work out to zero?
2. The victim says that the lack of resolution in the case has harmed her. Who is responsible for the lack of resolution? Polanski and US law enforcement. In addition to the original crime, the ongoing controversy over his fugitive status, the movies, your editorial etc. redound to Polanski's credit as consequences of 1) his crime and 2) his 30-year flight from justice.
3. Time. I don't think this time thing changes things. If Polanski had fled the country last week, would your argument for non-extradition hold up? No, it would be nonsensical. So how does thirty years of endurance as a fugitive from justice from justice make your argument work? Granted, time may have led to the victim giving up on justice being served and desiring instead for the thing to just go away. Is that a reasonable argument for leaving Polanski alone? I think it's an argument for Polanski being extradited as soon as possible. Would've been nice if it had been, say, the first time he stepped on Swiss soil. But the only way to get closure is to get the guy back to CA.

On the other hand, we can all say that Applebaum recommends the old Polanski strategy to fugitives from justice. Wait it out and it ought to go away. And by ought we mean what is right and fair.

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 1:08 AM | Report abuse

It makes me sad that this garbage provides additional fodder for crazy zealot-types to throw at the left. That's cool, Applebaum hasn't done us any favors anyway, and the crusty avant-garde types are on their way out, what with the recession and their increasingly old age and all. Thank god the new left has no time for elitist nonsense such as this. We've got the goods, so Anne, you can do us all a favor and just stop writing now. Go ahead and take a break, indulge in art for art's sake, maybe relax at the R. Kelly day spa for a bit. We'll take over from here.

Posted by: jensnow221 | September 29, 2009 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Young teenagers, including the victim in this case, have had sex throughout history. She testified that she was not a virgin.

I don't have a problem with this in particular. Certainly I have no idea why a Christian -- when Mary was probably 14 or 15 at her marriage, and when the Catholic church recognizes marriages between males as young as 14 and females as young as 12 -- has a problem with it. The common European attitude in these matters is not unreasonable.

However.

The law is the law and it's a constitutional law: Roman Polanski is subject to it. There IS a minimum age of consent in each jurisdiction and everyone must abide by it, whether they agree or disagree. It is for good reason because while intelligent people may disagree as to which age is appropriate, there IS an age at which it is woefully unacceptable to have sexual relations with a minor. The people in each jurisdiction have the duty to make this determination.

Further.

This was forcible rape, not simply statutory. Polanski agreed to a PLEA BARGAIN to avoid the greater charge, which the facts supported. This was leniency. By agreeing to the plea, he ought to have served his sentence, considering he forcibly and using drugs and alcohol raped this girl orally, vaginally, and anally.

Is Ms. Applebaum arguing that it's outrageous for rapists to be extradited to serve their sentences?

While not informing her readers that her husband is Poland's foreign minister working on Polanski's behalf?

Then lying about it ridiculously saying she had no idea, all the while she linked to a single article in the first sentence of her Washington Post opinions post where her husband -- by name -- is identified as working on Polanski's behalf?

Some journalistic standards you got there, Anne Applebaum and WP.

Posted by: Christoph---WP_Reader | September 29, 2009 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Applebaum,you are a liar:

Anne Applebaum today defended her decision not to disclose her Polish politician husband’s official efforts on behalf of Roman Polanski, in a blog post she wrote on behalf of Roman Polanski:

Also, when I wrote the blog I had no idea that my husband, who is in Africa, would, or could do anything about it, as Polanski is not a Polish citizen.

Odd. The very first sentence of her post reads as follows:

Of all nations, why was it Switzerland — the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators — that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski?

Click on the link in that last sentence, and you’ll see a Washington Post story that contains the following passage:

Polanski also received support from Poland, where he moved as a toddler and avoided capture by the Nazis, who put his mother to death in a concentration camp. “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, according to the PAP news agency.

Radoslaw Sikorski is Applebaum’s husband.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 29, 2009 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Anne, shouldn't you have disclosed that your husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case?

Posted by: siddartha9 | September 29, 2009 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Alright I am going to say this plainly. I can't believe ANYONE thinks that this arrest is outrageous. I especially cannot believe that a WOMAN would make this kind of argument. It's incomprehensible to me.
Time may have gone by, but Polanski deserves to be hauled in front of a U.S. court to face whatever punishment the judge sees fit. To use the celebrity defense, again, to me is ludicrous. HOW can any self-respecting adult defend what Polanski AGREED that he did and then fled the country to avoid punishment? Living a life of luxury, flouting common decency. Forcible rape on a 13-year-old girl deserves to be ajudicated. Sorry if he is an Oscar winner, Ms. Applebaum, but he committed a horrific crime and needs to face a judge.
Madam, how DOES a woman defend forcible rape even after more than 30 years. I hope you can re-examine your convictions here. Your sympathies with Polanski are horribly misplaced.

Posted by: pipemannow | September 29, 2009 2:01 AM | Report abuse

I'm way left of center and this guy needs to face the music. The law can take into account the circumstances when it comes to sentencing but to not bring him to justice WOULD be outrageous. What kind of a message would that send re: the rule of law? He got his day in court but then skipped out.

Posted by: CincyJames | September 29, 2009 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Kurtluzny, Mind you, Applebaum only mentions the victim's preference as one of several reasons. I'd like to know if Applebaum would come to the opposite conclusion on extradition if the victim were to say that she'd like to see Polanski brought back?

Anne Applebaum says Polanski has paid for his crime in many ways. My question is: well, how has he paid for the consequences that being a fugitive has had on his victim, who has spent her youth and thirties and now the beginning of her middle age dealing with the famous guy who raped her and fled from justice? Isn't that a kind of crime that has been compounding since the day he left?

I don't see how the price of being a fugitive--avoiding the place from which you are a fugitive--pays for the crime that led to you becoming a fugitive. That argument is ludicrous when you see that Polanski was arrested on the way to his skiing chalet! Some price to pay for being a fugitive!

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Another question we might ask Anne is: if Polanski were to fly into hollywood tonight. Should the police arrest him?

Anne seems to be saying that it would outrageous do so? But on its face that's ridiculous. So how does his fugitive status completely switch the disposition of the case in Anne's mind? Why should he not be brought to justice?

What is it about the extradition process that decisively makes the difference between this man having to pay or not pay for his crimes?

I just cannot understand it!

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 2:22 AM | Report abuse

"...Polanski was arrested on the way to his skiing chalet! Some price to pay for being a fugitive!"

Hear, hear.

Posted by: Christoph---WP_Reader | September 29, 2009 2:23 AM | Report abuse

I also love that Anne says that we should leave Polanski alone because he has paid for his crime by the hardships of having to avoid punishment for it--punishment which includes not being able to accept his best director oscar. Ludicrous!

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 2:26 AM | Report abuse

I thank you Anne, for the kind demostration of your hooves and horns...
I wish everybody would look again at what you wrote before keeping this column in mind.

Posted by: pigswithfigs | September 29, 2009 2:27 AM | Report abuse

I think the leftist Apple Bum wishes she was raped when she was 13 ...


I mean why couldn't she have been the lucky dummy to be doped with drugs ... have her panties removed while she's dreaming of bunnies have have this bumb rape her till she bleeds!

Apple Bum is a rape advocate!

Posted by: SelfDeterminationtrumpsenvy | September 29, 2009 3:02 AM | Report abuse

I think the leftist Apple Bum wishes she was raped when she was 13 ...


I mean why couldn't she have been the lucky dummy to be doped with drugs ... have her panties removed while she's dreaming of bunnies have have this bumb rape her till she bleeds!

Apple Bum is a rape advocate!

Posted by: SelfDeterminationtrumpsenvy | September 29, 2009 3:03 AM | Report abuse

MS Applebaum,

You have the basic facts so wrong than one has to ask the question are you a complete idiot or complete liar.

1. There was no trial!!! Polanski plead guilty to one count in lieu of trial! He admitted to all of the victim's charges: He gave her Champaign; He gave her some or all of a Quaalude; He forcibly raped her; and He forcibly had anal sex with her

2. Polanski had a signed model's release signed by her mother with his victim's correct age.

3. You fail to remember that in the country for a criminal trial the victim is the people of the jurisdiction. As in People of the State of Ca. vs. John Doe.

4. It is my understand that judges do not have to accept the negotiated sentence.

5. He got his mitigation at least in part with the reduced plea.

6. To bring up his personal history is a complete non sequitur.

7. If Polanski were a Nobel Prize winning Physicist or Economist would you have the same position?


WHY DO YOU LIE ABOUT HIM NOT BEING CONVICTED?

Posted by: HudsonJoe | September 29, 2009 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Democrat party ... is now full of rape advocates like Apple bum!

Perhaps Apple Bum just didn't get enough of daddy when she was a girl.

Is she bringin' all that lost destitution to her "modern senses" ...

In the pursuit of an "open mind" she's willing to consider "anything" including child rape.


Having an open mind is not always a virtue ... you stenographer of the Oppressive Obama State!

Washington Composte! no wonder why they loose so many readers ... they insult anyone with a moral conscience ... and anyone with a brain beyond the intellect of an amobea.

Posted by: SelfDeterminationtrumpsenvy | September 29, 2009 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Get rid of Rape Advocates in the Washington post ... and perhaps you'll stop the reader bleeding.


Posted by: SelfDeterminationtrumpsenvy | September 29, 2009 3:09 AM | Report abuse

Hey .. I think she's both an idiot and a liar!

She stenographates from the Washington Composte.

They gonna go completely broke soon without the Obumba Bail Out for Leftist Stenographers of the state.

Posted by: SelfDeterminationtrumpsenvy | September 29, 2009 3:11 AM | Report abuse

THE 5 FOOT 5 INCH SEX DWARF WAS FINALLY CAUGHT: Polanski had a history of seducing women, in this case a 13 year old girl after plying her with alcohol and drugs.

He was well aware that he continued to have responsibility for his felony and has gone to great lengths to avoid extradition and sentencing.

His celebrity, age, and expressed remorse have no bearing on his legal responsibility.

He is not being persecuted...he was simply CAUGHT!

Posted by: mikekittle | September 29, 2009 3:19 AM | Report abuse

Bread and circuses!

Public will be pleased...

It's much easier to arrest Polanski than ben laden.

Posted by: d_egmont | September 29, 2009 5:24 AM | Report abuse

Applebaum refers to the offense that Polanski pled to as if it were the event itself. What an outrage. The crime was drugged rape of a 13 year old. The plea, for whatever reason, was to unlawful sex with a minor. Outrage Applebaum!

It's an outrage because Applebaum is pulling the wool over her reader's eyes with a little rhetorical sleight of hand. And surprise her husband is advocating for the release of Polanski, a Polish citizen.

Against this little outrageous bit of sophistry, Applebaum (or her copy editor) calls the arrest of the child rapist outrageous! What a hypocrite.

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 5:26 AM | Report abuse

If one looks at the actual facts of the case--and not the "facts" suggested by vague evidence--the true outrage of this whole case is 1) that Roman Polanski drugged and rapped a 13 year old girl and 2) that he was only going to have to serve 90 days total in confinement total due to a plea agreement.

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 5:48 AM | Report abuse

Question for Anne: if Polanski had served his time and been deported, given that he raped a child, should he be allowed back into the United States to make and cast movies in Hollywood?

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 5:51 AM | Report abuse

Question for Anne: in general, for how long should the United States pursue child rapist fugitives before giving up?

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 5:57 AM | Report abuse

Question for Anne: in general, for how long should the US pursue the extradition of child rapists before giving up?

Posted by: notfromDC | September 29, 2009 5:59 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what's wrong with the world. This man drugged and raped a little girl. I don't care how hard his life was or what a good director he is. He is not above the law, even if he was able to buy his victim off.

Posted by: JamieRoberts | September 29, 2009 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Anne. You missed this one big time.

Posted by: dellbabe68 | September 29, 2009 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Hollywood hypocrisy. A publicity seeking judge back then. And now a publicity seeking District Attorney chasing Polanski. They are the gangsters. Another DA chased Michael Jackson with phony charges and led to his early death. Hollywood moralists chased the genius Charlie Chaplin into exil. They condemned Ingrid Bergmann and ran her out of town. God save us from Hollywood hypocrites.

Posted by: eppe27 | September 29, 2009 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Fire Applebaum TODAY

Would you employ a Holocaust denier? Child rape apologists should not be allowed to write for the Washington Post.

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | September 29, 2009 7:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but please have some concept of the rule of law. And I would suggest that read the defendant's grand-jury testimony. If you have then, you might see why I have a problem with someone who flees the country after orally, vaginally, and anally raping a 13-year old. Let's not forget that despite all this, the man PLED GUILTY.

What was his punishment precisely? Forgive me if I don't adore and heap praise on him like in France, where this incident has been summarily ignored. He has never (over the past 30 years) had to atone in any manner for his actions. But what I don't get is the standard you create or the standards that other countries have created in their apologist defense of Polanski. Should the US fly all their rapists and sexual predators to France? Or should we tell these rapists that they're home free if they can hop a flight to Paris? And if enough of them go, will they get a discount on airfare?

You blame the United States for this supposed miscarriage of justice arguing that he is only being sought because he is famous, but if he were not famous, would France and Poland (or even you) come to his defense?

Because what you basically tell me is that we should cease pursuing a criminal, a convicted rapist, whoever, once they cross into French territory. Just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well."

That's absurd.

Posted by: mcwilson1 | September 29, 2009 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

Mr Polanski admits that he was well aware of the fact that the girl was 13 years old.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

Posted by: RushHour-1 | September 29, 2009 7:34 AM | Report abuse

You can read more of the girl’s own story, as recorded in her statement at

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

This provides some indication of the actual crime committed by Mr Polanski, 44 at the time, for which he needs to take full responsibility. This is especially important since he is a public figure. People who want to argue over this case should read the girl’s story before entering into too unprincipled and amoral thinking about the case.

Roman Polanski is a public figure and it is extremely important that he is extradited so that all outstanding legal matters are brought to closure.

This is not a private matter and Mr Polanski has to take responsibility for the acts that he committed, not only with respect to his victim but to society as a whole.

Posted by: RushHour-1 | September 29, 2009 7:34 AM | Report abuse

According to the girl’s witness statements, which can be found at
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib10.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

Mr Polanski (44 at the time), after having served the girl (13) alcohol and a potentially incapacitating drug (qualuude), engaged in oral, vaginal, and anal sex against her will.

The girl (13) describes herself as being afraid and alone with Mr Polanski (44); she repeatedly said no and pleaded to be sent home – ”I told him — I said I wanted to get — I wanted to go home”. Mr Polanski (44), ”Yeah, I’ll take you home soon”.

Posted by: RushHour-1 | September 29, 2009 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Full transcript of grand jury testimony is at:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html


Revolutionary idea would be to check facts before forming an opinion, not that the Post encourages letting facts ever get in the way of ideology!

You know the Post will be out of business in a few years because fewer and fewer people trust it any more to report facts.


Posted by: lawdoc1 | September 29, 2009 7:58 AM | Report abuse

What is Anne's response to Howard Kurtz's column today?

Posted by: subwayguy | September 29, 2009 8:24 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that Obama will provide a Presidential pardon because the liberals can not stand to see such a fine screen director behind bars with the other child molesters and rapist. They have always made exceptions for the elite to commit crimes and not be punished.

I call that "democrat justice".

We will soon see.

Posted by: longbow651 | September 29, 2009 8:30 AM | Report abuse

"some research before you publish your opinions."

Ms. Applebaum knows full well the ugly truth but as with all things LEFTISTS, Polanski get a PASS because he is on the correct side of politics. Ms. Applebaum did NOT tell her readers that her husband was leading the Leftist parade to free Polansi because this was to be her contribution to the effort.

And when caught red-handed, Ms Applebaum LIED egregious that she didn't not know her husband would working diligently to release Polanski. But it was a bold face lie because the FIRST ARTICLE SHE LINKS TO IN HER STORY CONTAINS A STATEMENT FROM HER HUSBAND THAT HE WOULD BE CONFERRING WITH THE SWISS ABOUT THE CASE.

Now what should be done with a reporter who LIES and attempts to cover up here involvement in the story with more egregious LIES? Well, I know what I would suggest but I am not part of the Leftists world which believes that the team must be protected at all costs and any behavior can be overlooked if it is in service to the team.

Posted by: LogicalSC | September 29, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

We know Applebaum is ignorant of the topics she writes about (and links to). But are we also to believe that she is ignorant of her husband's efforts to win clemency for a child rapist she writes about?

When Applebaum's 13 year old child is raped, then maybe she will have the moral authority to speak of "irrational" punishment for child molesters. Poor, famous Polanski. Seems everybody's always picking on famous child rapists these days.

Truly unbelievable.

Posted by: mattwalter | September 29, 2009 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Well I commented yesterday and am heartened to see that 99% of these comments are of the reality based variety.

Ms. Applebaum, you deserve every last one.

Posted by: soupcity | September 29, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

“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, according to the PAP news agency.

Radoslaw Sikorski is Applebaum’s husband.

Way to discredit yourself, Anne.

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | September 29, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

You've broken my trust. I'm going to tune you out now. Bye-bye, Anne.

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | September 29, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I have a daughter and two sons. If someone did that to my daughter (or my sons) they would not be on this earth to worry about being extradited.

Posted by: melleeb | September 29, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The man gave alcohol and ludes to a 13 year old girl. Then he took naked pictures of her before having sex with her despite her protests. That's rape not statutory rape. Then while on trial (after accepting a plea deal and actually admitting his guilt) he fled the country because he felt the judge would not honor the plea aggreement.

His self imposed exile from the UK and US (as well as others) to avoid prosecution is some how punishment enough? Oh boohoo the pedophile couldn't collect an Oscar because he was a wanted criminal. Sounds to me like he's guilty. If that were my 13 year old daughter I would have hunted Polanski down for the rest of my life or his. Why shouldn't the courts do the same?

Posted by: evil1dwk | September 29, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

When you commit a crime, you are comitting it against the STATE. While the well-being of the victim should be considered, the victim does not get to decide whether the crime should be prosecuted. And his childhood is totally independent of his actions as an adult. You disgust me, Anne Applebaum. If I hadn't already cancelled my Post subscription because of the poor customer service, I would have cancelled it upon reading this.

Posted by: umyeah1 | September 29, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum: I Had Absolutely No Way to Know That My Husband Was Helping Polanski — That Is, Other Than by Reading a Story Which I Myself Linked
http://patterico.com/2009/09/28/anne-applebaum-i-had-absolutely-no-way-to-know-that-my-husband-was-helping-polanski-that-is-other-than-by-reading-a-story-which-i-myself-linked/

WaPo’s Applebaum still defending failure to disclose Polanski conflict
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/29/wapos-applebaum-still-defending-failure-to-disclose-polanski-conflict/

Posted by: StewartIII | September 29, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

It wasn't "statutory rape". He got her drunk, then drugged her, and then forcibly raped her. He did so vaginally and anally. There was no consent whatsoever. Read the trial transcripts before opening your ignorant mouth again.

Posted by: TheEcoDude | September 29, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I do not see Anne Applebaum's disclaimer:

"The author is spouse of Radek Sikorski, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Poland. Mr Sikorski has been using his official position to strenuously lobby the Government of the United States for an unconditional release of Roman Polanski, a dual French-Polish citizen. Radek Sikorski has been implacably opposed since 2000 to the exercise of rights of the US citizenship by US-Polish dual citizens."

Posted by: staryw | September 29, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Is Polanski Jewish? This would explain Applebaums blind support of this pedophile.

Posted by: dencal26 | September 29, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

What’s wrong with you, Ms. Applebaum?

Polanski pleaded guilty to a reduced “statutory rape” charge which is not the same thing as what he had done. If anyone else drugs a 13-year-old girl and has sex with her the charge will not be a statutory rape and you know it.

There are plenty of Anti-Semites who will try to link Polanski’s crime to being a Jew but where I go, nobody would dare to make such a stupid connection. Until now, that is. Your motives are different but your judgment is equally flawed. There are many Jews (and Gentiles) who experienced horrible persecution without turning into self-serving weaklings and moral idiots. You know it, too.

The most bizarre thing here is your judgment.

Would you consider renaming your Washington Post pages from PostPartisan to PostReason?

Posted by: ColoradoWellington | September 29, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

The Ombudsman serves as the reader's advocate. He attends to questions, comments and complaints regarding The Post's content.

The current Post Ombudsman is Andy Alexander. You can reach him by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com or by phone at 202-334-7582.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

ATTN: Andy Alexander,

PLEASE HAVE ANNE APPLEBAUM FIRED.

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/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

(Others, please feel free to forward this to the ombudsman at the Washington Post.)

Posted by: goaway5 | September 29, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Please fire columnist Anne Applebaum.

Her defense of Roman Polanski (see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html) was outrageous.

Further, she should have disclosed that her husband is a Polish official advocating on behalf of Polanski.

She give liberals a bad name.

Posted by: NoBullBert | September 29, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Fire Anne Applebaum

Today

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | September 29, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I strongly disagree with Ms. Applebaum's column. Roman Polanski is a self-confessed rapist and child molester; the facts of his crime are not in dispute. Neither is the fact that he fled justice rather than face a trial.
His apologists will say...
1) there was prosecutorial misconduct;
2) the gloryhound judge wasn't going to abide by the terms of his plea bargain;
3) Polanski is old and putting him in jail serves no purpose;
4) the crime happened 32 years ago and we've all moved on;
5) the victim has forgiven him, why can't we?
6) hasn't he suffered enough?

Addressing these in turn:
1) If there was prosecutorial misconduct, that is grounds for an appeal. That is not grounds to leave the country and avoid punishment.
2) I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the judge is required to accept the terms of a plea bargain. If this is malfeasance on anyone's part, again, it is grounds for an appeal.
3 & 4) He would have been 44 if imprisoned at the time of his crime. Why should we forgive his crimes because he's 32 years older now? He's hardly been persecuted like Jean Valjean--he's been able to enjoy a rich and rewarding life (albeit without being able to visit the USA). But his day of reckoning has arrived, spurred on perhaps by his lawyers' snarky and insulting behavior toward the LA prosecutor's office.
I would suggest that the families of those who suffered criminal violence decades past, whose offenders were never caught or escaped punishment, would not be sympathetic to Polanski's plight.
5) Her forgiveness is irrelevant. We aren't prosecuting him FOR her; we're prosecuting him because he broke the laws and the laws must be enforced. It's nice that she doesn't want him in prison but it should have no bearing on his being on trial for rape.
6) If you consider having many homes in Europe, a successful career, a marriage with two children, riches and fame scarcely dented by the inconvenience of being unable to visit the USA... well, then, yes, the man is a veritable Job.
He *did* suffer the loss of a wife and unborn child; that was a heinous crime. But those criminals were caught, prosecuted and imprisoned--his wife's murderer died last week in prison. But that doesn't excuse his crimes nor should it mean he doesn't face justice.

Ms. Applebaum, you have entirely missed the mark here. I have to question your sense of right and wrong, if you believe a child molester and rapist should not be prosecuted.

Posted by: dbitt | September 29, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"10) This is a moment of Revelation.

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 28, 2009 11:41 PM"

Yes, i agree. Applebaum sharply reveals the kind of thinking behind the entire pantheon of modern liberal ideology.

It is not liberal in the sense of our Forefathers, advocating the Rule of Law, Free Markets, Human Rights etc.
Now, liberal really means leftist or a liberal interpretation of actual liberal concepts.

Marriage, the role of government, crime, deviancy...all interpreted LIBERALLY or not at all.
Taxes are investments, rather than dollars confiscated from the economy.
Gay equals marriage.
Abortion is birth control rather than...
And Polansky's arrest is outrageous and serves society no purpose.

Applebaum reveals the subversion of liberal concepts that is post-modern liberalism.
I like to call it for what it really is...NIHILISM and LEFTISM and STATISM.

Posted by: glezzery1 | September 29, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Anne, you've got to be kidding me. Just substitute "Oscar Winning Director Roman Polanski" with "Father Roman Polanski, a Catholic Priest in the diocese of Los Angeles" and then tell me how you feel about it. If he had been a Catholic priest, you'd be screaming to lock him up and throw away the key, it's about time he got what's coming to him, and rightfully so. But an Oscar winning director...awww, poor guy.

Posted by: tasermf | September 29, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age."

In other words, Applebaum is trotting out the excuse of almost every teen predator who gets caught as somehow having exculpatory weight. The law of statutory rape has no mens rea requirement for a specific reason. And that reason is simple, if you want to have sex with young women, then the onus is on you to confirm their age. The very fact that they are children precludes them from responsibility. Following Applebaum's logic, it is the thirteen years old fault for not informing forty year old Mr. Polanski of her true age. Blame the victim, indeed. If Applebaum considers herself a feminist, she should be ashamed.

Posted by: Daedulus | September 29, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Since you raise the issue of the Holocaust, do you believe that it is wrong to prosecute and deport 90 year old ex-nazi's? You pretend sympathy for the rape victim but if Polanski had just served his jail time or gone through the proper justice system, his victim wouldn't have to be going through this hell all over again.

Posted by: elong1 | September 29, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey Anne,

How's your husband Radoslaw Sikorski like your story? You know, the guy who is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed.

Oh and BTW, you forgot to mention that Polanski drugged her with a Quaalude and champagne, forcibly had sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her afterward.

Talk about a biased column!

Posted by: ChiefPayne | September 29, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

i don't blame him for running, he must have been terrified, but fleeing the country before sentencing is a crime. whether the u.s tried to have him arrested until now does not change that.

if he gave a child alcohol and drugs then he should go to jail.
if he had sex with a child he should go to jail.

also, let's all remember-
THE VICTEM OFTEN WANTS THE WHOLE THING TO GO AWAY IN A RAPE CASE.

Posted by: paddy5200 | September 29, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum, isn't your husband the Polish Foreign Minister actively lobbying the US Government to drop this case? Why is the Post allowing someone with a clear conflict of interest to write on this subject? Do you have a daughter? If a friend of yours plied your 13 year old with drugs and alcohol and proceeded to go down on her, rape her, and then rape her anally, would justice be served by allowing the perp to walk?

To agree Mr Polanski doesn't deserve punishment, I'd have to believe a 13 year old capable of concenting to anal sex with a guy older than her dad. You're sick.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

From Salon: Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Posted by: hdc77494 | September 29, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Polanski's arrest was not "outrageous," but this post certainly is.

I am flabbergasted that anyone thinks that California should just "let it go" when the ONLY reason this case has dragged on for so long is Polanski's absolute refusal to take responsibility for his actions. He ADMITS that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. Oh, sure, it's been a long time, so let's all just "forgive and forget" it, right?? You should talk to survivors of childhood rape and abuse before you post anything so disgusting and offensive. How lucky for Polanski's victim that he was fabulously wealthy and provided her a generous financial settlement. Most victims of childhood rape and abuse aren't so lucky, and to argue that Polanski should get away with this -- because he's rich, famous, and gee, he's made some really swell movies -- is absolutely outrageous.

Posted by: magnolia88 | September 29, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

There is NO evidence of judicial misconduct. And regardless of whether he knew her age or not, RAPE is RAPE at any age! He admitted to rape but wasn't man enough to own up to the judicial consequences(I'll bet he felt like a real man when he drugged and raped a 13 year old! Why shouldn't he face the consequences of his crime no matter how long ago. Had he stayed back then they would have gotten him to jail back then!!He is not a victim when HE chooses to flee the justice that he deserved. The law is the law and if it were your daughter you'd feel the same way! How disgusting!!

Posted by: oldbattleax | September 29, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

This just show that there is more then one system of justice in the world. Most especially in the USA. there is a system for USA citezens, there is on for the rich and poor, there is one for the black and whites and there is for the famous and non famous.
when a lack man dose something wrong in the eyes of the law he his judged long before he gose to court. a white man dose it its fine and he gets heads of states talking on his behalf. this world has a long way to go for equality for all. This is really The Animal Farm. All animal are treated fairly and some more fairly then others.

Posted by: Rebathothosemoments | September 29, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

this reminds of animal farm the book. All animal are equal and some animal are more equal then others. the worl especially The USA is full of double stands. If this was a black man and not famous he would have been arrested years ago. Or no debate would be had.

Posted by: Rebathothosemoments | September 29, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Anne, you are looking at this with a jaundiced European eye. You also have a conflict of interest in that your husband, the Polish Foreign Minister, is working to secure Polanski's release.

He raped her. He did not have sex with her, although that may be the charge that was settled upon.

It doesn't matter that the judge was corrupt or that her mother was an idiot or that she wasn't a virgin or that Angelica Huston thought she looked "sullen."

It doesn't matter that he is a Holocaust survivor or was traumatized by his wife and baby's horrific murder. It doesn't matter that he is a famous and gifted artist.

He committed a crime by his action and another when he fled. He must face the consequences of his decisions.

And you must face the consquences of your poor judgment. You owe us an apology, at least.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | September 29, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Anne - with all due respect, you and your husband are sick puppies.

Posted by: bfv1 | September 29, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Funny world we live in: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney continue to live in undeserved comfort and freedom, in the face of their deliberate misconduct that killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 4,000 of our brave soldiers -- for a lie.
And yet, Roman Polanski (whom, granted, is NOT a sympathetic character) is facing more prison time.
Go figure.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | September 29, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, you are just a clueless half-wit, there is no other way to put it.

The 'forgiveness' that the victim extends to him is really a personal matter between her and Polanski, not an issue for the justice system.

There are many cases where doctors have butchered or botched treatment of patients and the patients 'forgive' the doctor. That is a nice thing to do but it does not follow that the doctor did nothing wrong and should not be prosecuted. There was real harm in this case, the man did something that was patently immoral and illegal. He used his power and influence to escape the consequences of his perverted acts. He should be sentenced to whatever the court deems appropriate. He is a chicken sh!! for not owning up to his crime, and you are a sad apologist for him. Perhaps you should move to France, where such criminal behavior against a 13-year old girl can be excused in the name or 'artistry.' Or, perhaps, you, like the French just like to insert your subjective morality in a bid to satisfy a smug and misplaced sense of self-importance. Perhaps you and Debra Winger can meet for a drink at the sentencing hearing.

Posted by: jacksquat100 | September 29, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Anne, I am sure this was an oversight on your part but you forgot to tell the readers your husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed. What a non-biased article. The Washington Post board should fire you before you print anymore garbage.

Posted by: fshines | September 29, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse


Applebaum reveals a disgusting moral character in her defense of a celebrity pedophile.
Not disclosing her personal and financial interest in Polanski's case also is disgusting.
And there's little reason not to wonder about the personal life of Applebaum. No one should trust young children or teens or vulnerable adults around her or her husband.
The Washington Post should take a good look at why they are employing someone who is such a staunch defender of pedophiles of this sort.

Posted by: nodakboy | September 29, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I realize this is just an opinion piece and not an actual journalist's article, but the only thing I find outrageous is just how stupid you apparently think your readers are.

Are you unaware of just how big the internet is? Did you honestly not think that your complete and utterly laughable bias would be not exposed here?

Despite your histrionics, the story is simple: A 44 year old man drugged and screwed a child. She needed to be drugged because she was uncooperative. He was convicted. But since people like Roman Polanski don't do jail, so he choose instead to flee. He's continued to live his good life in Europe, where he has spent the last couple decades trying to soften the original facts of the case which was a 44 year old man drugged and screwed a child.

No matter how you excuse it, the original behavior remains pretty disgusting.

But apparently since time has passed, and he's directed a few movies, defying the law is no longer a big deal. It's all OK, cause it's been a long time. It was a single incident (or at least, the only one where charges were brought)

By your bizarre reasoning, we should just reset the statute of limitations to about a year and hey, all is forgiven after that. So if a fugitive can just elude justice for that period of time, Go You! Here's your get out of jail free card.

I don’t feel even a little sorry for Polanski. He brought this ALL on himself. This could have all be over years ago had he just manned-up. But his arrogance was his downfall, as is yours.

Posted by: westwingpotus | September 29, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't even know what to say to this. Did you read the transcript in which he drugged and sodomized this girl who was underage!

But hey that's okay right? We should just let him go and set a precedent that all child rapists who leave the country will get off without extradition or prosecution.

Anne, you're a moron. Why don't you go and sign the french petition regarding his extradition along with all the other child molesters/enablers.

Posted by: lj68 | September 29, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty amused by the fact that Applebaum starts her piece with "here are some of the facts" and then carefully leaves out the relevant fact of a middle-aged man drugged and sodomized a 13 year old who said "no" to him. While I doubt this is appropriate behavior in any country, the concept that it becomes OK if you live in eurpose for a while and have a career in the movie industry is a strange one at best.

Oh and having survived the Holocaust, one would think that Polanski would have learned something victimizing the innocent. One would think that having suffered the death of his wife and child, cruelty against the weak would not be appealing. He has suffered, it's true. And others have suffered as he has. Most have not drugged and raped a little girl who said no. We're not talking an error of judgement, what happened here was a guy who didn't care because he wanted what he wanted.

So the excuse-wall you're trying to build her wans thin because it's made of paper.

Posted by: westwingpotus | September 29, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Anne, Thanks G-d it wasn't you or your little girl that was raped and sodomized. You're an idiot!

Posted by: rustynailx | September 29, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum's opinion is disgusting and disgraceful in every conceivable sense. The only possible good that can come from this trash is that it vividly and openly displays the unvarnished moral depravity of the Left, its publishers and salons.

Posted by: 4commonsense | September 29, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Anne.

It doesn't matter how old she was.

It doesn't matter if he knew how old she was.

She said no. He knew she said no.

He drugged her. Then he had sex with her AGAINST HER WISHES.

He pled guilty. Then he ran.

It doesn't matter how old he is now. Or how much he's suffered by not being able to come back, or how great his movies are. It's time to pay the piper.

As for his fears because of what he's survived, well, we all have to survive our childhoods.

The justice system serves justice, it does not serve that one victim. It is regrettable that her identity is known, but that bell has already been rung.

I cannot imagine what you were thinking when you wrote this column. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: sscarbrough | September 29, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I hope you are enjoying your newfound notoriety as the link to your disgusting opinion works it's way across the worldwide blogosphere. Now you get to find out first hand if the saying about "no press is bad press" applies to you too.

Posted by: jahs4fun | September 29, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

This is an easy one. Kate Harding (link to article below) is 100% correct and Anne Applebaum is 100% wrong.

Making an argument in favor of leniency for a guy that admitted to raping a child and then slinked away from justice like a rat? Anne, making that argument can be hazardous to your reputation.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

Posted by: firethief | September 29, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Anne, I now no longer have to listen to your moralizing about human rights as you clearly do not have a clue about human rights. He plead guilty with the best lawyers money could buy. I seriously hope Slate fires you. At least I would hope Christopher Hitchens will appropriately blast you for this posting. This from a reader that has generally always enjoyed your articles but this is way beyond the pale.

Posted by: mcarlton | September 29, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum, isn't your husband the Polish Foreign Minister actively lobbying the US Government to drop this case? Why is the Post allowing someone with a clear conflict of interest to write on this subject? Do you have a daughter? If a friend of yours plied your 13 year old with drugs and alcohol and proceeded to go down on her, rape her, and then rape her anally, would justice be served by allowing the perp to walk?

To agree Mr Polanski doesn't deserve punishment, I'd have to believe a 13 year old capable of concenting to anal sex with a guy older than her dad. You're sick.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

From Salon: Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Posted by: hdc77494 | September 29, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all."

No Anne, if he weren't famous, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to escape justice after drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old child, then pleading to a far less serious crime. How about you let a pedophile climb into a hottub naked with YOUR kids, Anne. As for me, if someone rapes and sodomizes MY 13-year-old daughter, I'm going to disembowel the pig and dump his carcass on the Indian reservation near my house.

Posted by: pepperjade | September 29, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Humorous article posted here at www.smallballreport.com that calls out Hollywood actors like Harrison Ford who have enabled Polanski's activity over the last 30 years.

Posted by: muskie319 | September 29, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Anne

It basically boils down to this:
all people are either US or THEM

US are the thoughtful intelligent prescient moral elites who are born not just to rule, but are imbued with an implicit wisdom, whereby they KNOW what is right.

Them are the unwashed masses for whomit is a pleasure and a priviledge to exist on the same planet as our elites.

Given this substratum it is obvious that the rules for these two groups have to be different.

The law is really just for the rubes , right

Posted by: vic5 | September 29, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Joan Shore and Ms. Applebaum must have swapped notes and thoughts before posting seemingly identical articles containing nothing short of rubbish. While both people (not writers) do their worst to interject every possible detail to justify and lessen the crime, justice must still be served. These two lack luster story tellers forget what it was like to be that young, or perhaps were test tube infants raised by heartless vagabonds.
We have to ignore morally inept thinkers which include Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski as well as anyone else sympathetic pedophiles.
It's simple: Roman Polanski must pay for his crimes.

Posted by: GhostCritic | September 29, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski drugged and sodomized a girl. Even if we leave the "statutory" part out of this, it's still a disgusting, unforgivable crime. And Anne Applebaum is a disgusting, unforgivable person for suggesting the 13 year old girl deserved this and that we should pity the rapist.

Posted by: reader8709 | September 29, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

From Salon:

"My favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case."


http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

Posted by: SactoNed | September 29, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

What's outrageous is how Polanski's defenders are twisting the facts. There is evidence that Polanski didn't know her real age? So if Polanski had drugged and sodomized a 30 yr old woman it would be ok? He paid the price with stigma? What stigma was that? The fact he gets a standing ovation at the Oscars like he's some hero or seemingly a life time achievement award every year? If he wasn't famous they would have left him alone by now? No, if Polanski was not famous he would be in jail and getting the snot kicked out of him everyday for being a pedophile, because he is famous he had the money and connections to flee and live a comfortable life in Europe. Being a famous director doesn't change the fact he drugged and raped a 14 yr old girl. This isn't some debate about how old you are to be able to give consent, she didn't give consent either way, she was drugged and he raped her. Am I being too repetitive? Good because it seems like you pinheads cannot get this through your head. I don't care what kind of "miscarraige of justice" bs you proclaim, he raped a 14 yr old girl and before he could be sentenced (to a lenient plea deal) he got scared he would be punished more severley and fled.

Posted by: ochocinco85 | September 29, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Aside from all the arguments for Applebaum being insane, let us ask this very simple question:

Why would she call the arrest "outrageous" if it weren't for propaganda? You can question the arrest (if you are a
pedophilo-phile) but to judge it as outrageous is outrageous!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 29, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

There is no such thing as fair punishment for Jew-on-Gentile crime, because Jews only acknowledge crime against God or another Jew - as Applebaum is trying to explain. If Polanski raped Monica Lewinsky - at any age - Applebaum (and/or Israel, where he vacationed recently) would have thrown him to the lions.

Posted by: CCross2 | September 29, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

This post is by Applebong's co-Judeopedophile Joan Shore regarding Pedolanski"

"The judge in the 1977 statutory rape case is dead. Polanski had agreed at the time to a plea bargain, but then the judge reneged on it. Polanski has tried to appeal.

But there is more to this story. The 13-year old model "seduced" by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.
I met Polanski shortly after he fled America and was filming Tess in Normandy. I was working in the CBS News bureau in Paris, and I accompanied Mike Wallace for a Sixty Minutes interview with Polanski on the set. Mike thought he would be meeting the devil incarnate, but was utterly charmed by Roman's sobriety and intelligence.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html"


Applebong and Shore, "elite" Jews with no shame!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 29, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Here is another source that AA has an undisclosed, impermissible conflict of interest:

http://themoderatevoice.com/47946/applebaum-i-am-not-my-husbands-keeper/


Amazing? From the paper that wanted to charge lobbyists for "parties" where "stake holders" could meet with "power centers?"


Wait till the Examiner gets hold of this one!


Where is the Ombudsman?

Posted by: lawdoc1 | September 29, 2009 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Just Wow. You are a freak Applebaum. And so is your husband. Can't see how you survive this one. Enjoy the crash, I know everybody else will.

Posted by: mike20169 | September 29, 2009 10:13 PM | Report abuse

wasn't president of Israel, Moshe Katsav also indicted for rape? what do you Applebong, was that ok too?

(also Ariel Sharon for stealing money, Ehud Olmert for stealing money, etc etc)

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 29, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

The anti-Semites on this blog are disgusting. There is no reason to believe that Applebaum's religion had anything to do with her unfortunate column.

I think her column reflects the peculiar notion that someone the intellectual/artistic elite admires and identifies with deserves more deference in our criminal justice system than a Father Polanski or a plumber Polanski. We saw the same phenomenon with Skip Gates. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans are repulsed by that sort of snobbery.

Posted by: emmet1 | September 29, 2009 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Close ranks, close ranks. Applebaum, Winger, Goldberg (that last brown noser is just laughable) - where do you get your instructions from? I remember Michael Savage talking saying "why don't Arab "moderates" speak up"? Well, how about that now?

Very disappointing from you Anne.

And what does your husband get out of this? Does he just want to "spite" Americans now? Or does he still hope that Persky will call back Obama to move the shield back to Eastern Europe? Sad.

Posted by: jebb2 | September 29, 2009 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Here's what Poland is going to do with pedophiles:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58O4LE20090925

How about that

Posted by: judisharp | September 30, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

I have no problem with chemical castration for child rapists, if it is effective, because their recidivism rates are near 100%. Either that or never release them.

Here's what Polanski said to Martin Amis in a 1979 interview shortly after he fled to France. I must lack sophistication for wanting to kill the little creep:

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/

Maybe Anne can explain to us rubes why this is an admirably sophisticated, nuanced European attitude toward 13 year-old girls.

Posted by: emmet1 | September 30, 2009 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Good news for Mr. Polanski - Harvey Weinstein is now on the case and he's going to write Arnold (apparently he's not too shy, in his own words) - Arnold knows why he's governor despite his youthful indiscretions so it's all taken care of.

And Sikorski may now become President of Poland - he's precleared.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html

surprising foxnews even posted this - internal power struggle?

Posted by: jebb2 | September 30, 2009 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think Ahmadinejab is behind this nefarious arrest (and the old crime) - Maybe Judy Miller can write a column tying the two so that we can then nuke Iran!


Posted by: jebb2 | September 30, 2009 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Only one interest is important: that of the victim. She wants this behind her, as she has a family to protect. If this comes to trial, the poor woman will be subjected to more, and hurtful, publicity. Her family will be hounded by photographers that will follow them around for a relevatory scoop for cable channels. She deserves peace and what shred of anonymity her family can salvage. Our justice system is not perfect, which means this sad case will have no clear cut resolution. Who will benefit from a legal action against Polanski? Probably the district attorney, concerned about his public persona. Perhaps the judge will get some airtime on the cable channels. Maybe Polanski will go to jail. No one cares about him. It is his victim, 30+ years later, that now has to deal with an event that she thought was behind her, and her family that was not involved in this sad crime, that will clearly not benefit. Here again the victim is victimized by the legal system. I don't like Polanski, he is reprehensible. But the harm that will be visited upon his victim by this very public prosecution is in many ways worse than the underlying crime, since it will damage not just the victim, but also her family. Mister district attorney, forgo showing us your toughness regarding that lousy bastard Polanski, and instead show some compassion for the victim and her family.

Posted by: jbigosjr | September 30, 2009 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Question: if once Polanski is released (no doubt he will be), and he (perfunctorily and after he thanks Kouchner and Mitterand) goes to Anne's hubbie's home to thank for his release, and, just hypothetically say one of her sons had misbehaved that day, will the parents not allow the kid to wear his chastity underwear? If so, any bets on how quickly a 76 year old man will close in on the child?

Posted by: jebb2 | September 30, 2009 1:50 AM | Report abuse

The age old questions: the relationship between morality and low... and, identification of the behaviour with the person... and, the bounderies between acceptable norms of sexual behaviour, the different perceptions between males and females, young and old etc...
No doubt, what Mr Polanski did on that day was deeply immoral and emotionally hurting to that 13 year old who Ms Geimer was at the time, given the power/vulnerability differences between the two. It was also unlawful at that particular time and space and those particular circumstances.
It was also irresponsible on the mother's part to pursue a career for her daughter that was not necessarily suitable for a 13 year old, especially doing so without considering the risks involved.
It should be clear to everyone who read enough about the case that Mr Polanski acknowledged his guilt and was ready to accept the consequances for his action. He did not run away from taking resposnibility for what he did.
He run away from being punish for what he did not do. Rumour says the judge was motivated by personal ambitions and vendetta and that he shared some antisemitic views. And Mr Polanski hapens to be born a jew, something he just happens to be. He did not choose to be anything but a human being and had been already punished "enough" for being something he just happend to be. And in that particular time and space he was vulnearable again to be immorally/unjustly/horribly wrongly being hated for what he had been (and whatever that meant to be in Judge Rittenband's value system), and being judged and punished for that again.
Whoever is pursuing "justice" in this case today, proves lack of moral judgement. By following the law blindly, they achieve nothing but hurting and damaging people who are around Ms Geimer and Mr Polanski: their families and friends and their relationships with them. (I believe Mr Polanski's children are about the age of or younger than Ms Geimer was at the time...?)
Is this level of immorality and irrisponsibility the accaptable standard of the American legal system?

Posted by: mark6499 | September 30, 2009 2:17 AM | Report abuse

mark: (1) learn to spell and (2) hope you get raped

Posted by: jebb2 | September 30, 2009 3:05 AM | Report abuse

Why refer to it as "statutory rape" as though it were a 17 year old girl and her 18 year old boyfreind? It was the rape of a 13-year-old girl - a child by a 43 year old man. It was clearly premeditated, he is a predator. Its is our society's job to protect children and we frequently fail them. The courts should never have given him a plea deal in the first place. It is a judge's right to reject such a deal if he/she thinks it is unjust. He has gotten nothing but special treatment. Disgusting and vile. Your defense, and that by so many others makes me ill.

Posted by: lamaestas | September 30, 2009 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, you should be ashamed of yourself! Notoriety and money spent on lawyer fees are punishment enough for raping a 13 year old? Are you kidding me?

Are you really saying that it's okay for a rich man in his 30s to drug and rape a 13 year old girl? What if he had raped a 13 year old boy? Would that have been different? Would you be as dismissive of this crime if Polanski were a Catholic priest?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: femalenick | September 30, 2009 3:44 AM | Report abuse

I think Roman the Rapist may have inadvertently redeemed himself with this incident. The depraved knee-jerk excuses of Applebaum and so many other commentators are now frozen in the amber of the internet way-back machine, a permanent scarlet letter that will (mercifully) destroy careers and sully reputations for years to come.

People: how did we come to listen so intently to these scumbags?

Posted by: blackjeans | September 30, 2009 3:52 AM | Report abuse

It is shocking to have to explain to anyone why child rape might be a bad thing but here goes: Does Applebaum have a child, or can she, for a moment imagine having a 13 year old child, imagine how you might feel if someone drugged them, gave them champagne, had intercourse with them, sodomised them, without consent. Can you really say you would feel fine with that? If so, let this be an alert to Social Services to come over to your place. If not, then why should you be outraged at Polanski's arrest? If a rapist dodges his crime for long enough, does it not matter any more? Is that your argument? I am at a loss as to why you feel Polanski is in any way a victim. If a man in his forties cannot make basic moral judgements, and as a result severely abuses and hurts a child, he should surely be old enough to take responsibility for those actions.

And shame on the Post for not only publishing this, but failing to declare this person's conflict of interest through her husband's ties and interest in Polanski.

Posted by: sswriter | September 30, 2009 5:17 AM | Report abuse

Anne's primary "conflict of interest" has nothing to do with her husband.

Posted by: jebb2 | September 30, 2009 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Mark6499: A 44 (forty-four) year-old male plotted and raped and sodomized a 13 (thirteen) year-old girl!!! He was old enough to be a GRANDFATHER!!! Your misspelled prattle does not address roman polanski’s LACK OF MORALITY and LACK OF DECENCY and LACK OF REMORSE and LACK OF COMPASSION and LACK OF SYMPATHY and LACK OF HUMANITY.

In plain English, roman polanski is foul and does not deserve to live with decent people. He needs to be alone, in a cell, until he can understand that what he did was horribly wrong. Unfortunately, the fact that he is STILL fighting the results of our legal system means that he continues to put himself above others.

If you think that American Justice is so corrupt and unfair, please, feel free to go live in a country that is superior to ours! You don't even understand the difference between "blindly following the law" and "blind justice." Please, continue your education and take a few classes in Constitutional Law and Criminal Justice! Oh, that's right; there aren't any! You flap your gums but fail to deliver!

Posted by: axioma | September 30, 2009 6:10 AM | Report abuse

I wonder whether Ms Applebaum has read anything from the original trial of Roman Polanski. Though I'm positive he knew she was underage, the facts are thus (and these are not in dispute):

That Polanski plied the girl w/champagne and a quaalude and afterward engaged in oral/vaginal sex w/the girl despite her protestations and then, upon finding out that she was not on the pill, penetrated her anally.

If this or any other man did this to one of my kids he could never be dead enough. Ms Applebaum you are a disgrace to your profession and a penultimate example of why the Washington Post is known as a liberal rag with absolutely no moral standards.

Posted by: nbits | September 30, 2009 7:49 AM | Report abuse

axima,

The funny thing is that Anne lives in Poland, a country that just voted to legally castrate men like Polanski. On Friday, it became law that men who rape children under the age of 15 can be chemically castrated. Ironic that Anne and her husband (a member of the same government) are fighting for the right of a rich man to be free to rape 13 year olds.

Posted by: bigdick1 | September 30, 2009 7:53 AM | Report abuse

For those disgusted with the Posts editorial support of raping children, I refer you to the following link of an editorial board composed of decent human beings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30wed4.html

Posted by: bigdick1 | September 30, 2009 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Hello. This is not about that. It's about jewish mafia in US of A and Hellwood. They are protecting their own.

Posted by: tissot21 | September 30, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Polanski orally, vaginally, and anally raped a 13-year-old who said no to all 3. If she had been 35 and not drugged, that would still have been rape. Having sex with a woman who says no -- rape. Having sex with a 13-year-old child who "looks older" when the legal age of consent in the state is 16 -- not 14, 16 -- is rape.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

Pleading guilty to rape, and then fleeing the country to avoid possible prison time -- a crime against the state. Not against the child, but against the state.

Do Holocaust victims who are traumatized get a free pass on all crimes, or just on rape?

Posted by: JonquilSerpyllum | September 30, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Do Anne of any of Polanski's other glitterati defenders - Bernard-Henri Levy, Milan Kundera, Salmon Rushdie, the French government, ad infinitum, ad nauseum - realize the damage they have inflicted on their own reputations by defending this monster? Do you, Anne, or they realize just how sick and disturbing it all is?

No one who defends Polanski deserves an ounce of respect. None.

Posted by: wjalden | September 30, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum,

You are a horrible, horrible person.

Posted by: dablinka | September 30, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Can we please stop using the murder of Sharon Tate to excuse this man. I truly believe Sharon would have been horrified by what Roman did. She had a sister near that child's age.

Posted by: plapier | September 30, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

There is a problem with every single comment posted so far. Mr. Polanski did serve time decided by judge/law. He escape only after he learned that corrupted judge dishonored the plea that was demanded. The victim layers and persecutor welcomed the punishment. Hence, Polanski did not escape the punishment but the corrupted judge. It will be virtually impossible to reopen the case because there is so much to be explained. One more thought, Polanski did not hide so why one time felon would be so desire, if after his return there is nothing to be done. Just a thought.

Posted by: marcindec | September 30, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"One more thing...this 13 year old girl was no virgin."

What's your point? She said no. Repeatedly. He drugged her. He raped her. She said no. She was 13. He was in his 40s.

What part of this has anything to do with virginity? Are you under the impression that once a girl has sex, she's fair game for any middle-aged pervert who wants to stick it in her? I'm afraid you're very much misunderstanding the laws of the United States.

Posted by: AliB | September 30, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I recently heard someone pose the question, "What if it was Father Roman Polanski rather than Roman Polanski, celebrity?" We certainly went after priests who sexually abused children years earlier. Why is this situation any different?

Posted by: rosjan | September 30, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, your elitism is shining through; shame on you. You have lost one more reader here.
Thanks to the previous poster for link to the better-written NYT op ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30wed4.html
Also, correction to poster re age of consent in CA: since 1913, it has remained age 18.

Posted by: cmac7 | September 30, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The unfortunate thing is that I used to look forward to Anne's columns, and tended to agree with her opinions. But this is a posting that makes me reconsider very strongly how much I should read her columns considering her very poor morals and arguments in this case.

Posted by: mg72 | September 30, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe ANY person -- let alone a WOMAN could advocate turning a blind eye to drugging and raping a woman, let alone a 13-year old GIRL. And that, if a person leaves the country to avoid the justice that is to be meted out in the service of the laws of the US, that he should not be hunted down, brought back and have additional punishment for that. Outrageous! I assume that the Post has only published this outrageous drivel so that people like me -- and so many others -- could vilify on this writer and her support of rape, the sexual abuse of children, and wealthy privilege and running from the law and justice in public.

Posted by: SFinSF | September 30, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I suppose she also thinks that the hunting down of the men who ran Nazi death camps in their old age was wrong because -- well, they're so old..and you know, a lot of time went by and...you know...who cares anymore? She'd better not set foot in my neighborhood -- I don't want her anywhere near any of the kids I know.

Posted by: SFinSF | September 30, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

FIRE APPLEBAUM TODAY!

Posted by: dablinka | September 30, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I hate to sound racist here and I am sorry if it may offend anyone Jewish, and maybe I need help realizing where I am wrong with this, but:

Do we see a relationship between Applebaum and Polanski due to their religion? Applebaum does bring up "Holocaust" as a justification for Polanski's escape from the US. Do we seriously believe that Applebaum would have come out in defense of a Christian or Muslim or other Pedophile?

The reason this is important is because we have a subculture of elitism and exclusivity in the world that abuses the plight of Jews throughout history for material gain in the present moment. Is this an illusion? Is this an antisemitic "canard" that has afflicted me?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum, you have finally proven that your writings are not worth reading. In the future I won't bother with your stuff. You seem to have no brain, no heart, no courage, and no integrity. Shame on you for writing such morally blind trash, and shame on the Post for printing it.

Posted by: diogenes22 | September 30, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

people bring up the concept of "consent"

let us be clear. a 13 year old girl can NEVER consent to sex with a 44 years old man, NEVER!!

I think for any adult, from any religion, to suggest that there can be "implied" consent for sex in this case is beyond strange. We have managed to outlaw "questioning" of Holocaust in Europe. Can we also outlaw "suggesting" that sex between a 44 years old man and a 13 years old girl is absolutely and unequivocally wrong (regardless of whether the perptrator is Jewish or a contributor to Zionist cause)

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I am not suggesting that all "Jews" support Polanski because he is Jewish. My suspicion is that people like Applebaum in their circle of power, are willing to overlook the crimes of a pedophile because of his other qualities. In this case, It was Ms. Applebaum who brought up the effect of "Holocaust" in this case. Both Whoopi Goldberg and Shore refer to his fear of being overly punished for this crime because of his experience in Holocaust.

Do you see the distinction here? Applebaum IS supporting Polanski and giving him all the support because of Polanski's Holocaust experience.

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

People rightly feel that it is insensitive to discuss Holocaust. But ironically, it is usually people who are Jewish who bring up Holocaust as a justification for something else. I am not trying to be an insensitive jerk (at least at the moment) but wouldn't it be just as wrong for a Jew to abuse the memory of Holocaust as it is for a non-Jew?

Sort of like a black person breaking the law and then claim "racism" when justice is about to be served. Bringing this up is delicate phenomenon because if you point out that the "black" person is crying foul, you run the risk of sounding like you do not appreciate all the "real" racism towards blacks. Do I make any sense?

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mrs Sikorska
I must admit I am deeply shocked by your comment on the issue.I don't now how it looks from your Chobielin manor but we, the people =)feel ashamed of Roman Polański,your husband and minister Zdrojewski histerical fit.overwhelming majority of the nation condemns Polański and you are perfectly aware of the fact.
I used to support your husband and regardet him as a future president.I guess i was wrong.
yours sincerely

Posted by: malena-76 | September 30, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The irony is that at some basic level, even Applebong loves her children or other family members. But when it comes to her self interest, or that of her husband or her tribe, etc, she overlooks basic human dignity, integrity, honesty, etc. I am sure we all have a little Applebong in us. It is just that for most of us, we draw a line in the sand when it comes to pedophilia

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Only in a liberal's twisted, sick mind could the drugging, rape and sodomizing of a 13 year-old girl not really be "rape-rape." Would Whoopi's definition of rape be different if this had happened to one of Obama's daughters? Read more at: http://conservativetm.blogspot.com/2009/09/31-depraved.html

Posted by: conservativetm | September 30, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

emmet1,

After more pondering, I can see how this is more an affliction of the Hollywood elite than it is of a particular ethnicity. It is just so shameful for so many people in position of power to overlook this crime.

I am generally a liberal myself, and I believe that even a pedophile deserves a second chance. But we are talking about a "second chance" after he has placed himself at mercy of justice. I don't think Polanski should be shot to death for his rape, but he needs to come before justice. Let the judicial system determine his punishment, just as it does all other crimes.

I believe that all humans have good and bad qualities. I am not claiming "purity" by condemning Polanski, but then again, I do not drug and rape little children. I think people who come to Polanski's defense are confusing leniency with justice!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum:

You neglect to mention a huge conflict-of-interest here: you are married to the Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, who's pushing all the buttons he can to get Polanksi released.

It's absolutely shameful you do not mention this intimate relationship anywhere in your article.

You not only dishonor the journalism profession by advocating that the laws of California regarding UNDERAGE RAPE not be pursued in the case of a man who happens to have artistic talents, you put salt on that wound by not mentioning your personal relationship to the issue.

Posted by: pgbsan | September 30, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you, Anne. Shame on you for thinking that FAME outweighs being brought to justice for RAPING a 13 year old girl, and subsequently fleeing the country to avoid punishment. Shame on you for telling people that just because a person is famous, it makes them above the law.

Lest we forget, Roman Polanski RAPED A CHILD! If it was someone you care for, or you, or heaven forbid, your child, would you think "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" were enough?

Before pleading guilty to any crime, defendants are told the consequences of pleading guilty. He knew what would happen if he plead guilty and yet he did it any ways. He knew, and was admitting guilt, and in that same breath, he was accepting the consequences of raping a 13 year old girl. He then ran, like a coward.

Shame on you, Anne. Shame on you for defending the actions of a coward. And shame on you for forgetting what this is really all about: a 13 year old girl being raped and sodimized by a 44 year old man.

Posted by: pope71187 | September 30, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Ann - You are disgusting. You should be kept far far far away from children for the rest of your life.
You digust me. I threw up in my mouth while reading your defense of this pedophile/rapist.
You deserve to be fired and shamed for the digusting human being that you are. I am calling for your immedaite firing.

Posted by: kanetrain | September 30, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Please fire the cow who wrote this column. Her line of thought has no place in any rational or tasteful discussion. Some nations advocate that rape is justified in certain situations. This is not one of them. Anne, I suggest you move to a place where your legal rights to not be raped are a little less clear.

Posted by: denisondelivery | September 30, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Anne, it's true that only famous suspected Nazi war criminals and white supremacist murderers in Mississippi are pursued by the USA scores of years after the crime. Out of charity I will assume Anne is grossly ignorant of the facts of the case, including the graphic grand-jury testimony about what Polanski did sexually to the 13-year-old girl after he drugged her.

Posted by: DoTheRightThing | September 30, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Whoopi Goldberg and Debra Winger, stars of next Polanski film!!!

"Lolita-2, The Bit*h is too damn sexy"

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

great post form the other Applebong "article" and my response to it:
------------------------------------------------
Lot's of repetition here and it's all warranted, but I'll try not to add to it.

I'll try to add some "nuance".

Surviving the Holocaust, then using it as some kind of excuse for evil behavior, is horrid.

His mother was a direct victim of the Holocaust. Roman was a child who lived in a ghetto and escaped.

Ms. Applebaum, before excusing "survivors" like Polanski, perhaps you should ask someone like Elie Wiesel for his opinion.

He didn't just survive in a ghetto, he survived Auschwitz where his mother and sister perished. He then survived Buchenwald where his father perished. A photo from Buchenwald captures his gaunt face staring into oblivion as he shares bunks with dozens of other men.

Ask Mr. Wiesel if he ever considered his Holocaust experience as license to harm others. I imagine we all will know his answer. As a matter of fact, the life he's led since being liberated is all the answer we need. He's a Nobel winner who's dedicated his life to issues of freedom and peace.

You are using the Holocaust to not only excuse Polanski's drugging and anal rape of a child, but as a reason for him to elude justice. This not only dishonors survivors like Wiesel who've used their lives for good, but dishonors every victim that never made it out of a Nazi camp.

Those millions of souls prayed for survival so they could reunite with loved ones and continue raising families....silent promises to God to live wonderful lives and be good people.

You have spit on each of their graves. Shame is not a strong enough word.


Posted by: Vasago | September 30, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Vasago,

Great post, and cathartic for some, including myself, who as a non-Jew and Anti-Zionist, has been spewing misplaced anger.

You are absolutely right, just because Applebong is Jewish, it doesn't give her the right to abuse Holocaust to serve her little elite circle of friends. Applebong is no authority on Judaism or Holocaust and is a shameful pandered. I believe people like Elie Wiesel MUST come out and condemn this kind of abuse. It will go along way to eradicate antisemitism.

Peace

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | September 30, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Posted by: pcheckie | September 30, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

What a disgusting posting. Shame. Some day you will look back on this with deep regret.

Posted by: tacophan | September 30, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Applebaum says: "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."

What? He didn't get to collect his Oscar? This poor man has suffered enough!!!


Posted by: dpblusee | September 30, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The Judge in this case had agreed to a plea bargain of 43 days and a psychiatric evaluation. Then suddenly disregarded the agreement and stated he was going to sentance Polanski to 50 years in jail, and even suggested that Polanski seek deportation, encouraging him to flee. That coupled with the victims own testimony in January of this year asking for the court to dismiss the charges against Polanski and her feeling that the media is making her a victim all over again are important considerations. This is not about condoning the criminal actions of Polanski. At this late date it is no longer about justice but about egos in the Los Angeles Prosecutors office.

Posted by: MKelley2 | September 30, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Anne Applebaum I will laugh if you are members of your family are raped or hurt like this child was. This child was 13 YEARS OLD! You are a scum and should be fired.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: txengr | September 30, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum you are a nut case. If some man had gone up the butt of your 13 year old daughter you would be the first person to be whining that the government did not do enough to protect her. You are a disgrace!

Posted by: MKadyman | September 30, 2009 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Applebaum you are a nut case. If some man had gone up the butt of your 13 year old daughter you would be the first person to be whining that the government did not do enough to protect her. You are a disgrace!

Posted by: MKadyman | September 30, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Anne, never have I been moved to comment so radically, although I almost always strongely diasgree with you.
Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. I don't care how good Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown was. Only d-bag frat boys use "she looked 18!" or the "slaves to the phallus" as an excuse. Regardless of the questions regarding judicial ethics, he confessed! Poor baby has had to live in France and receive awards for 30 years, while his victim continues to suffer. People like you who justify rapists are the reasons women don't want to report their crimes. You obviously have never suffered such humiliation, because I have. I regret that I never spoke out, and let my perpetrator possibly commit more crimes, just because i didn't want to draw attention to myself. The justice system is around to respect the desires of people like myself, they are designed to protect the safety everyone else from becoming possible victims.

By the way, you have failed to disclose that your husband is actively working for Polanski's release. I will do that for you.

Posted by: palipride47 | September 30, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Also, "I survived the Holucaust" or "My family was murdered by the Manson family" aren't good excuses either. I haven't heard about Elie Wiesel or Doris Tate drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, unwilling to give consent and therefore committing a crime that unlike robbery, has NO statute of limitations.

Posted by: palipride47 | September 30, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

How many of you parents would leave your 13 year old alone for hours with a man alone to take nude pictures. Alone in a large mansion! Polanski should be punished and so should be the girls parents to allow such a thing to happen. They should be prosecuted for child neglect and abuse.

Would you leave your child in a lions den? This would never happen if girls parents were there to watch over her while she was being photoghraphed NUDE!

It is pathetic that none of you or the news media mentions this extreme case of child abuse by her parents.

Posted by: whizmd | September 30, 2009 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I was until recently sympathetic to Polanski and enjoyed his films until I read the details of the rape case. After reading the details and statements of the victim I realized and was shocked to find that the rape was a diabolically premeditated rape of a minor who was intentionally drugged first. The only thing outrageous about the arrest is that it took 30 years to happen due his hiding and running from justice. There is no excuse for his crimes, and there should be no free pass after many years for his successful avoidance of justice.

Posted by: Michael_B | October 1, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

He can be blamed, it is true, for drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old. But he's old! And he surived the holocaust!

But you failed to mention that Polanski made The Pianist; surely that buys one free rape.

Brilliant argument Applebaum. I'll never bother with your column again.

Posted by: blutozson | October 1, 2009 12:34 AM | Report abuse

The first sign that you should not take the author seriously is her use of the the term statutory rape. It was not statutory rape Ms. Applebaum, it was rape pure and simple. Statutory rape implies consent, in this instance there was no consent.
He drugged a 13 year old child with quaaludes and champagne then ignoring her protests had sex with her and then anally raped her.
And I can't even bring myself to address the people who attack the child's mother, they are just sick.

Posted by: ahassan05 | October 1, 2009 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Is it possible that in a sick way, Applebong has succeeded by having so many comments to her article? I mean, isn;t it all about readership and advertising prowess in the new media? I hope not, and I hope Applebong never recovers from this shame unless she realizes and appologizes to her readers

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 1, 2009 1:41 AM | Report abuse

keeping track of Polanski/pedophile supporters:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/28/round-up-of-hollywoods-polanski-supporters/

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 1, 2009 7:05 AM | Report abuse

naming names:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/09/29/naming-names-the-free-roman-polanski-petition/

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 1, 2009 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Sentiments expressed by Anne Applebaum give liberals a bad name. Is it no wonder the GOP uses "Liberal" as a term to describe weak-mindedness and moral relativism? Being liberal is all being strong-willed in defending the weak and not weak-willed in defending the strong. Roman Polansky must face justice like the rest of us regardless of his circumstances. There is no other outcome that reason can justify.

Posted by: Notsofastmyfriend | October 1, 2009 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Wow! Playing the Holocaust and the Manson card all in one article, that must be a first. It's unfortunate that Polanski forgot to check the victim's ID before he drugged and raped her. And as to the victim's wishes to just let it go, sorry, but the law decides what happens to criminals. Polanski is too old to go to prison? Then I say free Bernie Madoff! Finally, the point about Polanski's clelbrity being a factor in this belated justice is debatable. But if it that is the case...so what?!

Posted by: junkybarn11 | October 1, 2009 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Notsofastmyfriend,

Anne works at the American Enterprise Institute. Calling her a liberal is like calling Polanski a caretaker of children.

Posted by: bigdick1 | October 1, 2009 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Dismiss this pedophile defender immediately WaPo, if you have any level of decency as as a respected newspaper. He paid for his crime because he couldn't get his Oscar in LA??????? Are you saying that with a straight face. This woman is disgusting and should be relieved of her duties.

Posted by: truth5 | October 1, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I have to say that the comments to this article are very heartening. I'm glad that so many people still have a moral compass.

(Except for that one guy who defends Polanski because the victim wasn't a virgin. Wow---flashback to the 50s!)

Posted by: LynnfromColumbia | October 1, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

It's simply amazing to me how quickly people will come to the defense of other people they think are "like them" for no other reason than the assumed kinship. I am Jewish, and I've noticed an overwhelming number of the people who are publicly defending Polanski (A Jew himself) are also Jewish. It boggles my mind that simply sharing the same religion causes someone to overlook and dismiss the RAPE OF A CHILD by someone else. "It's ok for him to rape children, he's a lansman!" seems to be the thinking.

I am canceling my subscription to this paper immediately, and I'll be shocked if Applebaum isn't fired over this ridiculous public defense of a CHILD RAPIST.

Posted by: sudz28 | October 1, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

You have broken my heart Anne. How can you defend a man who drugged a girl for sex. He should have been in a real jail all these years; why not now and why does old age invalidate justice.

- Matt Sylvestre

Posted by: mattsylvest | October 1, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I just cannot understand your logic. It’s quite clear he used his position as a “famous Hollywood Director” to sexually exploit young girls who were aspiring actresses, models, etc. He also engaged in a sexual relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 14 or 15. Let’s face it: He liked them young and Ms. Kinski herself has said in interviews that she was “exploited by the industry.” When you read Ms. Gailey’s (now Geimer) testimony, it is so disturbing to hear how methodical he was when he sexually assaulted her. He clearly knew what he was doing and still believes that he did nothing wrong. He thinks it’s perfectly normal for 40+ year-old men to have sex with 13-year-old girls. If he were anyone else other than a “famous Hollywood Director,” he would be in jail - not living the good life in Europe. The real travesty here is that they took so long to arrest him because it’s highly likely that he exploited many more girls than we even know about. Since you are so kindhearted toward sexual predators, why don’t you open up your home to them since I hear they are having a hard time finding a place to live in “Puritanical America.”

Posted by: aprilny | October 1, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I am really astounded as how people are asking for this rapist to go free for raping a 13 years old child. Fact is that there are many African American men sent to jail just because some white grown women accused them for rape, end up being free through DNA test, while these rapist is having a high life? Is it because he is a Jew or a white man that people are clamoring for him?

Posted by: kitcho53 | October 1, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

As a long time reader of Washington Post, I would like to make a formal complaint to you regarding the two recent blogs/articles by Ms. Applebaum. As you are surly aware, Ms. Applebaum has written strongly worded articles in defense of Roman Polanski and the case involving his rape of a minor in 1977.

Although Ms. Applebaum is entitled to her opinions based on the First Amendment, I believe that Washington post has a duty in vetting its writers and protect the readership from false information and conflicts of interest.

1) Ms. Applebaum failed to disclose her husband's role in trying to free Mr. Polanski in Europe. This conflict of interest is important because it can be suspected that Ms. Applebaum is trying to effect public opinion in the US while her husband is working the political channels in Europe.

2) It may be understandable that reasonable people may disagree on what the faith of Mr. Polanski should be going forward. However, there are certain facts on the ground that a newspaper with the reputation of Washington Post needs to protect. Ms. Applebaum is strongly supporting an admitted pedophile and she subverts the known facts from the case. There is obvious evidence and admission that Mr. Polanski gave alcohol and drugs to a child and had sex with her. These are not subject to the "opinion" of the Washington Post. Would Washington Post agree that sex between a 44 years old man and a 13 years old girl can ever be "consensual"?

As a reader I would hope that you would seriously consider eliminating Washington Post as a forum for Ms. Applebaum to spread opinions that serve her personal interest.

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 1, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Since when do victims get to choose if criminals are prosecuted?

Polanski anally raped a 13 year old, he needs to do the time. They should put Applebaum in with him for 60 days, just for good measure.

Posted by: dmarshall1 | October 1, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Send your complaints to Washington Post c/o

hiattf@washpost.com

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

As a long time reader of Washington Post, I would like to make a formal complaint to you regarding the two recent blogs/articles by Ms. Applebaum. As you are surly aware, Ms. Applebaum has written strongly worded articles in defense of Roman Polanski and the case involving his rape of a minor in 1977.

Although Ms. Applebaum is entitled to her opinions based on the First Amendment, I believe that Washington post has a duty in vetting its writers and protect the readership from false information and conflicts of interest.

1) Ms. Applebaum failed to disclose her husband's role in trying to free Mr. Polanski in Europe. This conflict of interest is important because it can be suspected that Ms. Applebaum is trying to effect public opinion in the US while her husband is working the political channels in Europe.

2) It may be understandable that reasonable people may disagree on what the faith of Mr. Polanski should be going forward. However, there are certain facts on the ground that a newspaper with the reputation of Washington Post needs to protect. Ms. Applebaum is strongly supporting an admitted pedophile and she subverts the known facts from the case. There is obvious evidence and admission that Mr. Polanski gave alcohol and drugs to a child and had sex with her. These are not subject to the "opinion" of the Washington Post. Would Washington Post agree that sex between a 44 years old man and a 13 years old girl can ever be "consensual"?

As a reader I would hope that you would seriously consider eliminating Washington Post as a forum for Ms. Applebaum to spread opinions that serve her personal interest.

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 1, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

He admits he is guilty.

The crime is a serious felony.

It is disgusting that Ms Applebaum is defending him.

She wouldn't be defending a pervert who raped, sorry had consensual sex, with her own 13 year old daughter.

Posted by: neilwilson | October 1, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect."

Using past Nazi atrocities to attempt to "mitigate" fleeing prosecution for the drugging and sodomization of a 13-year-old........ do you have ANY IDEA how positively obscene your words are? Even Whoopi Goldberg wasn't that crass and disgusting.

Posted by: LNER4472 | October 1, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Ms. Applebaum would like to introduce polanski top the underage female members of her family. After all we all know that any 13 year old's life would be enriched by having a relationship with this dirt, I mean upstanding citizen.

polanski took a plea deal to avoid trial for rape and a long prison sentence. He fled because he didn't want to face the consequences of his actions. Tiome to "man up."

Posted by: Philopublius | October 1, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Ms. Applebaum would like to introduce polanski to the underage female members of her family. After all, we all know that any 13 year old's life would be enriched by having a relationship with this dirtbag, I mean upstanding citizen.

polanski took a plea deal to avoid trial for rape and a long prison sentence. He fled because he didn't want to face the consequences of his actions. Time to "man up."

Posted by: Philopublius | October 1, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

MS. Appledumb,
First, read the court documents... he admitted he knew her age. Pedophiles don't care about age except that she was in the right "teen" bracket. I trust you will be banned from this medium in the future... falling into the oblivion of past Post scribblers, not for your opinion, but because you chose to ignored the facts and your twisted politico inclusion of henious Nazi acts as an excuse for Little Romo's behaviour... well I would say it leaves me speechless, but I'm gagging at the thought. You are truly a sour little girl. When did justice and feminine rights piss you off?
I can only hope you are able to hear the echo of the sane world say "bye-bye Ms Appledumb"

Posted by: goddog1 | October 1, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Since the Geneva Convention Switzerland has been a place of refuges from war torn countries like Poland who fled from the tyrany of Facisism and Dictatorships from war torn countries bent on the execution of their laws and policies concerning others not of the same beliefs and faiths. Well not only is a refuge, but it seems he is Polich as well, and instead of being extradited for treason,terrorism,sabotage,or acts of war and violence he will be extradited to the US for sex as soon as his money is distributed among the officials from his Swiss Bank Account, probably to Blowfeld and Spectre or is it Specter ?

So instead of those old Polish Jokes we all loved so well we will now call them " Polanski's,"just like we did for our president when we made " Lawinski's!"

My Polanski Joke for the day is " Yes your ON HER I have Roman Hands and Russian Fingers!"

Posted by: whitecloudbia | October 1, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

How many Polish Romans does it take to date a teenager ? The answer is "It's not how many Romans, but how many teenagers want to pull a Polanski ! "

Posted by: whitecloudbia | October 1, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm not defending anyone ! I'm just making Jokes out of Jokes for my USO Tour for our Troops whoom most may of dated a teenager before they enlisted as service men and either recieved a Dear John letter saying they found someone else, or Recieve a court summons for child support and pregnating their girlfriend and she is nine months pregnant and they haven't been home since 2001 ! Besides if you don't like me and my jokes try Heckling at me like they did Kramer and see if I get mad an say the N-WORD, " NUTS !"

Posted by: whitecloudbia | October 1, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I THINK THE BEST DISCRIPTION OF RAPE WOULD BE THE MOVIE WHERE SOPHIA LOREN WAS AN ITALIAN MOTHER WHO SOLD HER STORE AND MOVED WITH HER DAUGHTER TO THE COUNTRY ON A FARM.WHEN SHE RETURNED TO ROME WAS RAPED WITH HER DAUGHTER IN THINK IN AN OLD CHURCH BY A BUNCH OF SOLDIERS WHO WERE FIGHTING THE GERMANS.SHE HATED THEM SHE HATED THE GERMANS.I THINK SHE HATED EVERYONE.

THEN THERE WAS THE MOVIE CATCH 22 WHERE SOME AIRMANS GIRLFRIEND LITTLE SISTER WALKED OFF WITH ONE OF HIS FELLOW PILOTS WHEN HE WAS KILLED IN BATTLE.SHE WAS 13 AND LASARIAN WHO TOLD HER SISTER THAT HER BOYFRIEND WAS KILLED WAS THE ONE WHO GOT STABBED IN THE BACK.... YEP YOUR DAMMED IF YOU DO AND YOUR DAMMED IF YOU DON'T "CATCH 22 !"

Posted by: whitecloudbia | October 1, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

YES I THINK WE SHOULD NOW MAKE ALL OUR CHILDREN IN A TEST TUBE AND USE JUST THE FINEST OF SPERM FROM THE FRIDGE. RIGHT DOCTOR MENGLER FOR THE MASTER RACE ! I KNOW LETS CASTTRATE ALL THE MEN (STARTING WITH ME ),AND YOU GALS CAN SHOW US MEN HOW TO MAKE BABIES.MAYBE CHAZ WILL BE THE FIRST WOMAN TO IMPREGNATE A CASTRATED MAN ? AT LEAST I WILL STILL BE NUTS AS I DON'T THINK I'LL EVER HAVE A GIRL WHO WILL WANT ME EITHER WAY BECUASE OF MY JOKES AND SARCASTIC REMARKS.KIND OF LIKE WINSTON CHURCHILL WHEN THAT LADY SAID " SIR YOU ARE DRUNK,"AND WINSTON SAID " AND YOU MADAM ARE UGLY !" THEN LADY ANN SAID " TOMARROW YOU WILL HAVE A HANG OVER,"AND WINSTON SAID " AND YOU MADAME WILL STILL BE UGLY ! "

Posted by: whitecloudbia | October 1, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I HOPE WHEN I GET RAPED AND SODOMISED THAT THEY DRUG ME AS I CAN SAY NO AND TAKE A DRAG OFF MY CIGARETTE AT THE SAME TIME AS WELL "NO!DONT STOP!" "NO!DONT STOP!" "DONT STOP!" YOU SEE I'M NOT REALLY AN EXPERT ON SEX AS I JUST LIKE TO READ THE COMICS AND HAVE NEVER REALY HAVE HAD MUCH SEX OF ANY KIND SO I'M NOT AN EXPERT OR A PRO,BUT I WILL VOLUNTEER TO MAKE FUN FOR FREE.....i MEAN WITH ALL THIS CRIME AND SEX ON TV AND THE NEWS WE ARE MORE INTESTED IN THAT THAN HOW HOW BOYS ARE DOING GETTING SHOT UP DURING WAR.I MEAN ALL THE MONEY WE COULD SPEND ON THEM GOING TO SOME GOODY GOODIES TEMPERESTS OVER SEX INSTEAD OF A CURE FOR CANCER OR A PILL THAT WILL STOP STD's LIKE PENICILLIAN SHOULD BE PRIORITY AND THE MORE THEY SQUAWK THE MORE ATTENTION THEY GET WHEN NO ONE PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE NOT EVEN THE 13 YEAR OLD GIRL!

APPLEBUM! DOES THAT MEAN HER BUM IS SHAPED LIKE AN APPLE WHEN IT'S THE PEARS (PAIRS), I LOOK AT !

Posted by: whitecloudbia | October 1, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

YOU KNOW WHEN POPE JOHN PAUL WAS POPE WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THESE ATTACKS AGAINST PRIESTS AND THE POLES,AND I DON'T THINK THE NEW POPE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE AGAINST HIM AS WELL WHEN THEY BREAK AWAY FROM THE CHURCH TO START THEIR OWN CHURCH AND MAKE THEIR OWN PRIESTS AND BISHOP'S LIKE CHINA AND THOSE WHO WANT SAME SEX MARRIAGES AND CALL EVERYONE ELSE A PERVERT !

Posted by: whitecloudbia | October 1, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

i agree with miss applebaum. and wonder why are all these people writing here so angry?
polanski is not a pedophile...
but i am afraid its uselless to try and explain human nature to angry people who have no capacity for understandng, compassion or forgivness...what a shame....

Posted by: calliopara | October 1, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

i agree with miss applebaum. and wonder why are all these people writing here so angry?
polanski is not a pedophile...
but i am afraid its uselless to try and explain human nature to angry people who have no capacity for understandng, compassion or forgivness...what a shame....

Posted by: calliopara | October 1, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Harrump? More like the sound of my stomach churning.

Judicial misconduct? Show evidence. If I were the judge I'd sue your for libel. I'd break you.

The victim wants it to go away? If it were up to victims to prosecute or forgive, the weak wouldn't dare and the strong would murder for an insult.

The poor guy couldn't pick up his Oscar? As an artist I'm offended by that comment. Artistry is no excuse for monstrous behavior. His rape can't be undone, neither should his punishment.

He has suffered enough? All his suffering was self-created by an evasion of justice.

Citing his family's experience in the Holocaust is beneath contempt. There were 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust and at least as great a number whose family suffered because of it, possibly all of us, mine included, and I don't recall a lot of us buggering 13 year old girls let alone whining about facing justice for it.

How revolting! How contemptuous of the very civilization that created your livelihood! You should be profoundly ashamed and would be if you had an ounce of moral fiber.

Posted by: dsgoorevitch | October 1, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

A 13 year old girl said "No." You don't believe that a man who ignores that plea has committed rape. Further, you don't believe that a such a man deserves to be punished, perhaps because his *admitted* felony occured 30+ years ago. Sorry, but I just cannot read your columns anymore. I cannot understand how you can defend Mr. Polanski's unlawful, immoral, and grotesque actions. Time does *not* heal all wounds.

Posted by: spmom1 | October 1, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"The Outrageous Arrest of Phillip Garrido" and all the pediophile priests etc etc.

Are you out of your mind Anne Applebaum?

Or would the story be different if it was your 13 year old daughter? Or if it was Dick Cheney who fled 30 years ago?

I can't believe the Post published your wacko column!

Posted by: darlav | October 1, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: calliopara | October 1, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I agree with miss applebaum. and wonder why are all these people writing here so angry?
polanski is not a pedophile...
but i am afraid its uselless to try and explain human nature to angry people who have no capacity for understandng, compassion or forgivness...what a shame....

Caliopara: ummm.... pedophile -- a pervert having sex with children. Roman Polanski: a man who admitted intoxicating, drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. Pedophile? That's the nicest thing you can say about him (check out his history with other underaged females like Natassia Kinsky as well). And forgiveness? Why don't you ask Polanski's supporters who rallied to prevent Susan Atkins from leaving prison to die of her brain tumor (she died last week, amputated, alone in a cell). Yes, she committed a heinous crime ... 40 years ago ... no forgiveness there from Roman and his folk when she was dying!
And people, Anne Applebaum is no liberal -- she works for the American Enterprise Institute, a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. Just like those Republicans ... Larry Craig, Mark Foley etc. Hey -- what's a little sex among friends, even if they happen to be children. Anne, you are a disgrace. The Ombudsman should suspend your column.

Posted by: Omyobama | October 1, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

So, let me get this straight . . . De La Beckwith a nice retired old man who wasn't harming anyone should have gone to his grave without paying for killing Medgar Evers.

Should we stop pursuing Nazi War Criminals.

All this pandering to polanski truly turns my stomach.

Posted by: dshumate1 | October 1, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bigdick1

"Notsofastmyfriend,

Anne works at the American Enterprise Institute. Calling her a liberal is like calling Polanski a caretaker of children."

Polanski has two children. Try another analogy. Could you see any of her AEI colleagues writing this column?

Posted by: Notsofastmyfriend | October 1, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Is this suppoed to be a well reasoned opinion? He sodomized a 13 year old girl, over her loud, frightened cries, pled guilty, and then fled the country for over 30 years. What a man, what a talent, what a hero. The only reason he deserves our compassion is because, when he does go to jail, the other inmates likely will treat him as they do any other child molester

Posted by: stem | October 1, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

I've seen this woman reporter described as a "conservative" columnist for The Washington Post. This is patently ridiculous! I've never seen this woman attend a single right wing hate meeting in my life! I've attended every meeting of the "Right Wing Conspiracy" for the past 20 years and I can assure you, she is not a conservative. She's not an Independent, nor is she anywhere close to the middle of the American political scene. She is a F*C*I*G half wit liberal. Ms. AppleToe, on behalf of the Right Wing Extremists of our donkey ruled government, please refrain from trying to pass yourself off as nothing short of the marxist turd that you are. Furthermore, anyone who agrees with this "Woman with a Third Toe" deserves to endure a Polanski of their own. Perhaps even their own prepubescent daughter would care to join in the fun? Let's make it a gang bang! Everyone join in on the fun! After all, we should be forgiven right?

Anyone who doesn't agree with me deserves to spend a week anchored to Jack Nicholson's hot tub dressed up as a 10 year old boy with a prelubricated Crisco glistening hole.

Posted by: RightWingBunny | October 2, 2009 9:40 AM | Report abuse

What if there is, out there, a 13-year-old child who has been raped by an older man, whose world has just been ripped apart at the seams, and who has just finished reading your opinion piece? So, does she come forward knowing that there are people who will excuse her rapist's behavior because of this or that reason? Whose world have you validated? The rapist's or the child's?

Shame.

Posted by: dfgrayb | October 2, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Anne,

I normally really enjoy reading your articles.

Both your reasoning and apparent total lack of moral bearing is breathtaking on this topic.

The only thing "outrageous" to me at the moment is that there are defenders of this self-admitted monster. What about drugged, child rape and sodomy do you not understand?

I hope after some soul searching you will think about which side of justice you argument leads you.

I truly can't believe you wrote this. It makes me recalibrate all the otherwise reasonable writings I felt I had enjoyed from you over the years. Your credibility is now in tatters, and I doubt it's just with me.

Posted by: just4_the_facts | October 2, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Polanski's actions are indefensible. This was a case not just of statutory rape, but of flat-out forcible rape. He drugged a 13 year old child and then forced himself on her vaginally, orally and anally all the while ignoring her protests and pleas for him to stop what he was doing to her and allow her to go home. He is a rapist, a pedophile and a misogynist. The fact that he makes good movies is irelevant. He should be brought back to the United States to finally face the consequences of his actions.

Posted by: patrickwhalen2 | October 2, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I suppose it is odd that a country finally decided to give up Polanski, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Is your argument that if someone has sufficient resources to evade the legal system of a country for a certain period of time, that they shouldn’t be pursued? It is true that the victim doesn’t want this to go forward, but that doesn’t matter in a criminal case. Predators generally choose victims who won’t complain, or won’t be credible if they do—this doesn’t make the predators’ actions any less wrong. Judicial misconduct? If true, doesn’t excuse the act. Didn’t know her real age? Don’t know what evidence you’re talking about there. When you are a 44 year old man discussing modeling with a girl and her mother, and you or the girl’s mother are driving her around, you should understand that this is not someone you should be having sex with. He has paid for his crime in notoriety, lawyer’s fees, and travel restrictions? So as long as some people think you’re a bad person for what you did, you’ve paid some lawyers, and avoided capture, the state shouldn’t pursue you? Bad life circumstances as a mitigating factor? As an earlier commenter said, let’s just open the jails and let everyone out, then. Pursuing him does not serve society in general or his victim in particular?

I think it does serve society in general, actually. I’m now a 37 year old woman, but I remember being a teenager. I remember noting adult men looking at me differently, and at times behaving inappropriately. I was lucky to escape this victim’s fate, but it could easily have been different. There are a lot of reasons adult men find young women sexually attractive, and one of the reasons is that they think they can get away with things they might do to them—that they can intimidate them into silence, that no one will believe them, etc.—particularly if they are someone with standing in the community. And well, Anne, I guess you’re proving the predators right on this one—as are many in the artistic community. Woody Allen I might have predicted, but I’m so disappointed at Debra Winger and Whoopi Goldberg. I am heartened to see that almost all of your commenters disagree with you, and that a petition supporting the extradition has gathered nearly 2000 signatures ( http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/art-does-not-excuse-rape-polanski-must-face-justice ). Better luck with your next opinion column…

Posted by: JJ13 | October 2, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

This is the kind of crap that is going to make me cancel my subscription and root for the ultimate collapse and failure of the Washington Post. When this "journalist" is done minimizing victimization and glorifying a pedophile, who is she going to defend next? This entire column is a moral outrage. If I wanted this kind of distortion and nonsense, I'd tune in to Fox Noise.

Posted by: el-gibby1 | October 2, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Polanski has never shown any real remorse for his crime and went on to have an affair with 15-year old Natassja Kinski. He once claimed that everyone likes to f*** young girls so what's the problem? His only regret was that this was inconvenient for him because he couldn't travel to America.

Polanski was getting a slap on the wrist and fled because the judge was considering a slightly harder slap on the wrist. He deserves significant prison time, not only for the original rape but for his flight from justice.

Posted by: rsrobinson1 | October 2, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, let me get this straight: “But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable FEAR OF IRRATIONAL PUNISHMENT. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen” blah, blah, blah. This man DRUGGED, then RAPED a 13-year-old girl, and fled the US after he was CONVICTED. I don’t care how old he is, and I don’t care how much of a “celebrity” he is. Would you be so forgiving if he was Joe Blow down the street, or this was your daughter? Your “rationalization” disgusts me…

Posted by: TraceyW1 | October 2, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I would turn your question on its head. If Polanski was not a famous director, would you be here writing an article defending a man who committed this crime.

Posted by: CommonGuy | October 2, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Not to be offensive or anything, but exactly how old do your children have to be before Mr. Polanski can have sex with them?

13?

10?

5?

The point of statutory rape is that a minor does not legally have the capacity to consent. Period.

If Polanski's childhood horrors are relevant to this case, then executed mass murderer Eileen Wornos should still be out hitchhiking her way around the country, Jeffrey Dahmer should have his own show on the Food Channel, and John Wayne Gacy should have been given his own after school television show. Polanski's pity card was revoked when he chose to sodomize a 13 year old child.

Posted by: bob-dog | October 2, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what Ms. Applebaum would say about a priest who had sex with a 13-year old over 30 years ago, where the (now) woman said "let's forgive and forget." I wonder whether Ms. Applebaum would feel that such a priest was being oppressed by being brought to justice, as she apparently feels is the case with Mr. Polanski. In both cases, whether Roman Polanski or some other pedophiliac, priest or otherwise, he or she should be brought to justice no matter how long the passage of time (which is only a factor because Polanski decided to flee) and the (understandable) desire of the victim to put this crime behind her.

Posted by: kolars6 | October 2, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

THE WASHINGTON POST read on 10/02/09
“The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski” by Anne Applebaum
Comment below written by Norman Rosenblatt, Houston, Texas

The author, Anne Applebaum, is married to Radoslaw Sikorski, the Foreign Minister of Poland. Mr. Sikorski is lobbying for the dismissal of charges against Roman Polanski. The author's failure to mention this connection, along with the Washington Post publishing the article, makes me question the ethics of the Washington Post.

The author states: "Polanski's crime -- statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl." If it was her daughter, that would be horrible. Anyone else's daughter, not a big deal.

The victim has forgiven Polanski. So what? Do the crime, do the time.

Evidence of judicial misconduct? Come back and prove your case. A judge is NOT required to accept the recommendations of the prosecutor.

Evidence that Romanski did not know her true age? She was THIRTEEN, for crying out loud. Besides, it's YOUR duty to determine the age. Do the crime, do the time.

"... but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways." Since when does the criminal get to choose the punishment? Get real, Ms. Applebaum!

Fear of irrational punishment? Umm, that would be to string him up in public by his private parts. Wait, that ISN'T irrational, is it?

"Oh, gee, my mom was killed by the Nazis and my pregnant wife was killed by the Manson gang. Therefore, I am free to do whatever I want." Yep, makes a lot of sense to me!

"To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society...." Oops, I forgot that excuse: "I'm a decrepit old man and I should not have to pay for my crimes." Uh huh, right!

Posted by: Solstice1319 | October 2, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Why should a convicted criminal be allowed to decide for himself what his punishment should be or whether there was misconduct?

Shall we just tell people to come to court only if they "think" they're guilty and only if they think the punishment will be fair? Because I'm quite certain there would be a lot of empty courtrooms.

Do you even understand why societies have a Justice System? It's so people don't feel they need to exact revenge on the "evil-doers" themselves. If you want our courts to degrade to the point where anyone can just walk away from sentencing, then be prepared for angry mobs taking care of people like him themselves.

He should appear in court as he should have years ago. Any real friend would advice him so. Any real friend wouldn't have enabled him this way. Because honestly, if there had been misconduct, if he had been innocent... he could have afforded the lawyers to put an end to it.

Look at OJ. Look at Micheal Jackson.

Instead he may end up spending months in a holding cell in Sweden. Then up to a year awaiting several trials in jail because he can't be trusted to get out on bond. Then he may end up getting prison time for taking off. Running was a stupid, stupid thing to do. He had/has terrible friends and a really awful lawyer.

Posted by: 123410 | October 3, 2009 3:46 AM | Report abuse

I am very disturbed by the apparently growing portion of society that views the sexual exploitation of young people by adults as not only acceptable, but inevitable. Goodness gracious - Woody Allen has signed the petition to free Polanksi. Polanski should tell Allen, "Thanks but no thanks! You're not helping!" Allen, of course, is famous for pedophilia and misbehaviour. What is wrong with the part of our society that this is an accepted practice by the "elite?" Why is a person a pedophile and prosecuted if they download naked pictures of children to their computer, but a movie producer/director who rapes a child should be excused in the name of art? I am glad I am not an artist - I would be running from that title after all this! I am completely astounded at Whoopi Goldberg, Annie Applebaum, and the scores - no hundreds - of others that are making the statement that pedophilic behaviour is acceptable in any form. It is disgusting. It is horrible. It must NOT be tolerated in society. How absolutely hypocritical of these supporters. The ONLY reason I can think of that has motivated these people to excuse and support Polanski is because they harbor or act upon the same pedophilic thoughts themselves. The only reasonable explanation for supporting Polanski is because they are sympathetic to his perversions. I think every single person that has expressed support for Polanski should be investigated for pedophilic crimes. Actually - maybe this has done us a favor - now we know who to prosecute!

Posted by: amyepps | October 3, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

ts scary how many people project their anger on somebody like polanski....

Posted by: calliopara | October 3, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090925/od_nm/us_castration;_ylt=AuM.bVCSWi0sQd94mq03.IoSH9EA

I say we release Polanski if he agrees to face these charges in the country of his origin.

Posted by: evil1dwk | October 3, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

And I suppose the Washington post paid for your misinformation and liberal stance on the rape of a 13-year-old girl.
The only misconduct I can recall was the out rage of such a light sentence and its was effects on the DA office and judge in the case. Who didn't have to accept the deal in the first place.
No wonder I canx my subscription a long time ago.

Posted by: hardcore | October 3, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Ms Applebaum:

You are going to wake up in a cold sweat one night, maybe tomorrow, maybe in 20 years from now, and fully realize what you have said here, and what it means, how utterly indefensible and bankrupt your "position" on this matter is, and what it says about you as a human being. And you are going to be so disgusted with yourself that it will make you want to vomit, and maybe you will write about that, and maybe we will pay attention to you again if you do.

Posted by: BDeux | October 3, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

It appears that Polanksi also reneged on the $500,000 that he was supposed to pay the victim as part of the civil settlement.
Chutzpah!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 4, 2009 12:22 AM | Report abuse

from yahoo:

"n a December 1995 filing, Silver said "defendant has failed to pay any part of the sum due or the interest due on the attached note." Silver added that he talked to Finkle, who agreed Polanski was in default.
Silver then sought some of Polanski's earnings by canvassing Hollywood for his wages. Among those who were contacted about Polanski were the Directors Guild of America, International Creative Management, Warner Bros. Inc. and Sony Studios.
ICM head and Polanski agent Jeff Berg declined comment.
If Polanski hasn't paid over the past 14 years, it's unclear if he would have to pay interest. The court documents state he'd owe $128.42 per day, for a total of about $650,000."


Applebaum, Polanski and Bernie Madoff. Moses must be shaking in his grave!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 4, 2009 12:37 AM | Report abuse

For a glimpse into Polanski's perspective about the events preceding his arrest, consider this quote from an interview he gave with Martin Amis in 1979, a year following his flight from the U.S.

The interview appeared in Tatler magazine, and also appears in Amis's book "Visiting Mrs Nabokov". Read it and consider.

Polanski: "When I was being driven to the police station from the hotel, the car radio was already talking about it ... I couldn't believe ... I thought, you know, I was going to wake up from it. I realize[d], if I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal for the press, you see? But ... f - king, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f - k young girls. Juries want to f - k young girls- - everyone wants to f - k young girls!"


Posted by: DShere | October 4, 2009 1:40 AM | Report abuse

If anyone has not taken up Ms. Applebaum's suggestion to read the transcript of Polanski's trial, I urge you to do so immediately. It's on the web. No deep analysis will be required to show you that Ms. Applebaum's assertion that the transcript somehow shows something other than a brutal sexual assault on a 13-year old girl is an outrageous lie. Of course, note Applebaum's sly use of words about what she is parsing, "the original incident at the heart of this story." Let's see now. A teenage girl is asked out on a movie date. In the course of the evening, she is brutally raped. That, in Applebaum's reasoning, raises questions as to whether this was "a straightforward and simple criminal case."!!! And the lynching of a black man by a white mob? Let's parse the details before coming to a conclusion.

The transcript shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that Roman Polanski, with malice aforethought, lured a 13-year old girl to a private home, got her drunk and drugged, and brutally assaulted her. Period.

I fully support those who use the analogy of Anne Applebaum's daughter being raped to make their point. Such comparisons seem to offer the only possibility of introducing some modicum of rational thought into the brains of people with her mentality, a mentality that somehow can rationalize brutal behavior if the perpetrator is a rich and famous celebrity. These people do seem to live according to a double standard, where the reality of an evil act being committed against someone else's child arouses less outrage than someone’s raising the theoretical possibility of the same act being committed against their own child.

Try this, Ms. Applebaum. Imagine someone saying to a slave trader as he is about to throw a kidnapped African child into the hold of a slave ship; or to a Nazi as he is about to shove a Jewish child into a gas chamber, "What if that were your child?" Would that be appropriate, Ms. Applebaum? Think about it. But somehow, I believe you still will just not get it. You are one pathetic human being.

Posted by: tbarksdl | October 4, 2009 5:51 AM | Report abuse

This is one of the most disgusting articles I have ever read. I can not imagine the sort of revolting person it took to have written it. Someone desperately in need of self-examination and probably psychiatric help.

Polanski's act was not only statutory rape but would have been rape whatever her age - even drugged and plied with alcohol the girl had the character to say no and resist. Despite her continued protestations he sodomised her.

A grown man anally raping a 13 yo girl while she begged him to stop - how can any sane person defend that?

Posted by: neversaylie | October 4, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company