Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Thank you, Switzerland, for freeing Polanski

The Swiss got it right. Their refusal to extradite film director Roman Polanski to the United States on a 33-year-old sex charge is the proper dénouement for this mess of a case. There is no doubt that Polanski did what he did, which is have sex with a 13-year-old after plying her with booze. There is no doubt also that after all these years there is something stale about the case, not to mention a “victim,” Samantha Geimer, who has long ago forgiven her assailant and dearly wishes the whole thing would go away. So do I.

There are only bad reasons to proceed with the prosecution. The first is to rebut the argument that some sort of legal or moral exception ought to be made for Polanski on account of his talent. Having just seen his film “The Pianist” for the second time, I salute his genius as, if I knew something about poetry, I might that of Ezra Pound.

Pound was both a traitor and an anti-Semite, but he was anyway awarded the Bollingen Prize by the Library of Congress for his “Pisan Cantos,” written as it happens soon after World War II, while US authorities had him imprisoned in Italy. He was finally incarcerated as an incompetent in St. Elizabeths Hospital, where he continued to write, while all sorts of other incompetents -- famous intellectuals -- continued to debate his worthiness. Into this controversy stepped the clear-headed art critic Clement Greenberg:

“I am sick of the… silliness which condones almost any moral or intellectual failing on the artist’s part as long as he is or seems a successful artist. It is still justifiable to demand that he be a successful human being before anything else, even at the cost of his art.” It seems pretty clear that, at least back in 1977, Polanski was not a successful human being.

It does not matter to me either that Polanski is a Holocaust survivor; not, even, that his wife, Sharon Tate -- pregnant at the time -- was murdered in 1969 by Charles Manson and his so-called “Family.” Lots of people survived the Holocaust and other tragedies, and few of them committed crimes.

The only argument in favor of Polanski’s continued freedom is that he is the victim of judicial misconduct. He had good reason to believe that the trial judge in his case was going to break the plea agreement and throw the book at him. He had already pleaded guilty to a reduced charge; he had already spent 42 days in Chino State Prison under psychiatric examination. (Another analogy to the Pound case -- a talented person must be nuts to do something so wrong.) He ran from the prospect of a judge who was going to make his reputation at Polanski’s expense and send him to jail for a very long time. I would have done the same.

It was this alleged -- but virtually proven -- miscarriage of justice that impressed the Swiss authorities and why they rejected the American requests for extradition. That was good. It would have been better, though, if at the same time they denounced the many artists and intellectuals who haughtily dismissed what Polanski had done on the basis of his talent and achievements. They thought of his films; they should have thought of their own daughters.

By Richard Cohen  | July 13, 2010; 12:33 PM ET
Categories:  Cohen  | Tags:  Richard Cohen  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democrats' bumpy ride to November
Next: The trouble with defectors

Comments

Richard, come on over and we'll watch my O.J. Simpson Football Hall of Fame speech. Man, could he run with the ball.

You write "I salute his genius as, if I knew something about poetry, I might that of Ezra Pound." Good for you.

No decent person who has read the victim's grand jury testimony would ever defend Polanski.

Posted by: slatt321 | July 13, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The man who created Volkswagen and the Autobahn was a genius, so I overlook that he killed millions of Jews. He also was a vegetarian, so Hitler like Polanski should be forgiven NOT! If Polanski was innocent, why did he flee before sentencing? If he was innocent, why has he remained in exile, why not face our authorities. He sodomized a 13 year old girl and should have to bend over and take our punishment too!!!

Posted by: russlovesronda | July 13, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Cohen should be writing from an asylum? (And I don't mean political or judicial.)

As a matter of law, judges are under no obligation to abide by the sentencing recommendations made by a prosecutor under a plea agreement.

Posted by: Ralphinjersey | July 13, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Polanski is a coward. He should have his lawyers and the US legal system take care of the matter at that time. But since Polanski is above the law and does not respect the United Court system, I have no respect for him at all and care less about his movies or other so called accomplishments. Roman Polanski is a coward!

Posted by: firstmagnitude | July 13, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Samantha Geimer was the one who spoke up. How many girls were there who didn't?

Posted by: ath17 | July 13, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Cohen should be writing from an asylum? (And I don't mean political or judicial.)

As a matter of law, judges are under no obligation to abide by the sentencing recommendations made by a prosecutor under a plea agreement.
_____________________
yes, but that's not what happened. The judge was part of the deal that Polanski made. The judge then went completely rogue, and let it be known that he was outraged at Polanski showing up at some party while out. If he didn't want to abide by the plea deal, he had to let Polanski out of the plea itself. The whole story is a mess, and the Swiss threw out the extradition request because the LA prosecutor wouldn't even give them the courtesy of a copy of some testimony by one of the attorneys involved. The arrogance of the prosecutors wound up letting him free to bounce between France and Switzerland, after the misconduct of the judge and the prosecutors prompted him to flee in the first place.

Cohen isn't defending Polanski anywhere in this article, by the way.

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Richard,
I often respect your reasoning skills and your perspective. This time you've got it all wrong.

Posted by: mnat | July 13, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Polanski is a coward. He should have his lawyers and the US legal system take care of the matter at that time. But since Polanski is above the law and does not respect the United Court system, I have no respect for him at all and care less about his movies or other so called accomplishments. Roman Polanski is a coward!

Posted by: firstmagnitude
_____________________________
that's what they have been doing, and they have made a pretty good case that the judge acted improperly, along with the prosecution. Of course even his attorneys would have preferred that he not flee, but he would have been in jail while the judge's publicity stunt was challenged on appeal. The LA prosecutor wouldn't even back up the extradition request by giving the Swiss the records they asked for, they apparently stink so badly, so the Swiss had no choice.

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

If circumstances were different and Polanski would have done to one of Richards family members what he did to the 13 year old girl, this article would read different. Were it a Black man, who did that, he would have gotten life, would still be in jail, he would have been denied bail throughout the process.

Posted by: southernrican | July 13, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Lawrence Taylor should go free too. Man could that guy rush the passer.

Talent does not excuse rape.

Posted by: echovector | July 13, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

She was a "victim"? Since she was drugged and 13 years old at the time, and no one disputes that Polanski raped her, why the quotes? Or is it because great "artists" need muses, and Polanski needs his muses to be 13, drugged and raped? Gosh, I can see why you respect his genius.

As for judicial misconduct justifying Switzerland's refusal to extradite, that is ridiculous. As the U.S. is a democracy with a well functioning judicial system, extradition should be automatic, as he was a fugitive who fled after conviction and before sentencing. If he has a case of misconduct, he needs to make it here. As far as any rational person is concerned, Switzerland failed in substituting its judgment for our legitimate legal process. I hope Obama makes them recognize that there are consequences for their arrogance.

I assume you don't have children, because only you and the Roman Catholic leadership could so empathize with the perpetrator and not the victim.

Posted by: dfooter | July 13, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Rarely have you been this wrong Richard.

If you can overlook his perversion when examining his art, why can't you overlook the prosecution's failure and examine the justice of the case with the same clarity? Just because the lawyers messed up then (so you say) it doesn't mean justice still can't be served. The case can't just go away because so much time has passed...time created by the fugitive Polanski.

This is cynical in the extreme, Richard: fugitives can't be allowed to abscond because of lethargy, the criminal justice system can still work and justice can still be served if it isn't corrupted by mushy nihilism.

Posted by: joebanks | July 13, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing stale about this case, nor should the victim be referred to as a "victim," with quotation marks around the term to cast doubt on her story. She was drugged and raped at the age of 13, and she will never forget that night for the rest of her life, both because of what Roman Polanski did to her and because of the hundreds of powerful people who have come forward to protect and defend him, as if her rights meant nothing. Nothing.

If Polanski were a black man, he would still be serving a prison sentence for what he did. If Samantha Geimer were a boy, Polanski would be decried as a homosexual pervert. As it is, because Polanski is a wealthy white man, he got away with drugging and raping a little girl. Anyone who defends Polanski is defending child rape. Period.

Posted by: j_e_bartlett | July 13, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The self-appointed vengeance vigilantes out for Polanski's hide are now surely organizing boycotts of Lindt chocolates and cuckoo clocks! No matter that, at the time of sentencing, the prosecutor, the state psychiatrists, the victim, and her mother all wanted Polanski not to serve any further time in detention. No matter that the victim long ago had cordial meetings with Polanski and now fervently wants the matter dropped. No matter that the LA DA's office refuses to divulge the records of Polanski's sentencing hearing, probably because the DA had some choice comments to make about the judge's conduct. Hell, no! The only thing that's important is that Polanski be sent up for life, get sodomized in prison, be beaten to a pulp and so on. You can read the sick revenge fantasies in nearly every vigilante post on the subject. Amazing, really!

Posted by: LongTom | July 13, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

The legal and moral arguments aside, was this a good use of LA financial resources? With all the guys who are a danger to children today, why spend money to go after a 76 year old man living in another country, who happens to have the resources to fight every step of the way? My point is not to forgive or overlook anything. But if budget partly determines how many predators can be tried and convicted, shouldn't part of the decision who to go after be related to the protection of children from rapists now? Putting a famous old degenerate in jail may have felt good, but would it have done any good?

Posted by: TerryVEllis | July 13, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Roman Polanski is a 'tribe' member.

'nuff said!

Posted by: pedjr336 | July 13, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

This is the most disgusting article I have ever read from this bozo, and there have been many. I guess, with Cohen's sleazy history, his sexual harrassment and and creepy history with women, this should come as no surprise. What is always surprising is that the Washington Post chooses to publish this moral degenerate. His opinions are disgraceful.

Posted by: ajelcic | July 13, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Why the Post lets this guy write about anything remotely involving sex is beyond me.

http://www.observer.com/node/40521

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | July 13, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Cohen, Will you thank Germany for freeing John Demjanjuk?

Posted by: pedjr336 | July 13, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cohen, you are just wrong.

It seems the real motives for your support of Polanski remain unwritten.

Posted by: scott3 | July 13, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Cohen, Will you thank Germany for freeing John Demjanjuk?

Posted by: pedjr336 | July 13, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Switzerland should not be analyzing the details of the case making themselves a remote and other-national judiciary in this case. That is neither fair, prudent nor intelligent.

He admitted his crime both to prosecutors and in interviews where he basically said who wouldn't want to f*** a young girl?

Extradition is based on probable cause and then justice is meted out in the home country. It is up to the US Judiciary to handle it, not the Swiss.

I have actually never seen a single Polanski movie, despite being a movie lover. I have seen parts but as I learned he was a child molester and rapist before I was old enough to see them, I refuse to watch them or in any way give royalties to him.

I will never excuse a person who commits crimes against children.

I will continue to boycott Polanski and, now, Swiss chocolate too. It won't be hard.

Posted by: cb7032 | July 13, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Ha, ha, Richard, very funny! You actually almost made me believe that you really think Roman Polanski should be all but forgiven for raping a child. When I read your statement, "Having just seen his film “The Pianist” for the second time, I salute his genius as, if I knew something about poetry, I might that of Ezra Pound." I realized that there was no possible way you could be serious.

I mean, how ignorant, hateful and heartless is it to oppose a film to the drugging and sodomization of a child? If you've had any of your own, if you have any love whatsoever for them, you know instinctively that such brutality can never be forgotten or forgiven.

You almost succeeded in making me believe you to be a lazy, cruel, emptyminded writer. But I see the joke.

Right?

Posted by: whizbang9a | July 13, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how much mercy writers for the Washington Post can muster for their friends. They've fallen all over themselves to forgive crimes by many of their friends. It would be nice if they could muster some mercy for folks who weren't their friends.

Posted by: jjhare | July 13, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

You are an idiot if you believe this: "There is no doubt that Polanski did what he did, which is have sex with a 13-year-old after plying her with booze."

He held her hostage then he drugged her. Then he repeatedly raped and sodomized her while she pleaded for him to stop and let her go.

It is not relevant if *you* forgive him. It is only relevant that he is a criminal who has not fulfilled his sentence. And he was given special treatment throughout the process allowing him to plead guilty to much lesser charges than the actual crimes he committed. And after getting an obscenely light sentence fled thereby committing another crime.

"Victim of judicial misconduct"? He was no victim - he was a beneficiary of classist misogynist system that handed him easy street on a golden platter in the guise of a sentence. The only victim of judicial misconduct here is the American judicial system.

Posted by: HarryMay | July 13, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Seems like many wrongs were done:

- Polanski raping an underage girl

- The prosecution willingness to plea out the case without severe/ lifetime jail time.

- The judges apparent plans to break the plea agreement

- Polanski's fleeing the country before sentencing.

Polanki supporters are most outraged not by the rape, not by the plea agreement with little jail time, and not by Polanksi's fleeing the country. No, Polanki supporters are most outraged by the judges supposed plans to reverse the gravely under just sentencing agreement. I agree that such actions aren't right, but that is one of the smaller wrongs on the list.

I am outraged over Cohen's tunnel vision which has over looked everything but judge's reversal.

Posted by: niceshoes1 | July 13, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

shorter richard cohen: "children who have been raped aren't really victims"

shorter shorter cohen: "raping children is OK with me."

Posted by: brendancalling1 | July 13, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

aren't you the guy who got busted for sexual harrassment at the Post, Richard?

no wonder you identify with the perpetrator:

"After reading a Lewinsky-related article that referred to oral sex as "casual sex," Mr. Cohen engaged Ms. Spurgeon in a discussion on the subject that other staff members found offensive. Staff members said that Mr. Cohen sometimes used foul language in the office and that he remarked on Ms. Spurgeon's appearance, telling her she "looked good in black," according to a Post staff member. On another occasion, the staff member said, Mr. Cohen asked Ms. Spurgeon to "stand up and turn around.""
(source: http://www.observer.com/node/40521)

Posted by: brendancalling1 | July 13, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, oldabandonedbeachhouse.

The link you provided explains cohen's position better than anything he would have the chutzpah to state himself.

Posted by: HarryMay | July 13, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

The only judicial misconduct is that Polanski ONLY sat in jail for 42 days for drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. I think Lindsey Lohan is going to be in jail longer than that for frolicking in Europe drinking cocktails.

Polanski fled: the passing of time, or "staleness" Cohen describes is a completely illogical reason to be "tired" of this case. Polanski's actions caused this case to be drawn out.

And as for the victim's "forgiveness", this is also another error in moral reasoning on Cohen's part. Most domestic violence cases, many times, only come to a head after repeated attempts from the misguided and scared victims to "forgive" their abusers; justice is pursued only by the prosecutors because of the viciousness of the crimes committed.

Cohen's tone is dismissive and critical; his lack of empathy for sexual abuse victims seems calloused and bitter.

Posted by: elletextiledesigner | July 13, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

In a case like this, one almost wishes for fatwahs, suicide bombers, and revenge killings. As an alternative, since our justice system is unable to mete out justice, we can at least boycott anything involving Polanski. Or do we in the West have no moral scruples left at all?

Posted by: dmm1 | July 13, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Cohen's column mentions 'anti-semite'
and holocaust, et. al.

Wasn't this about a little rat who raped a 13 year old girl, sodimized, too, and fled
American justice?

But all Cohen can see is that he was a Jew, so we get the history of Ezra Pound, this and that.

It's like the constant scrummaging to get the Israeli Spy, American Jonathan Pollard freed. Tho the damage he did was tremendous and his guilt clear.

And the reason that congressman and dual loyalist Janie Harmon, caught by an FBI phone tap plotting to get two American Jewish lobby
officials (AIPAC) off indictments of spying for America. (their non-jewish cohort was prosecuted and jailed!)

No Jew can go to jail. Madoff being a miracle.
And Israel is never guilty of the war crimes they commit. Right?

Posted by: whistling | July 13, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"I would have done the same." You would have drugged and raped a 13 year old girl? Good to know, Richard Cohen.

If this were not Roman Polanski, no one would support him.

And now I sadly must not watch anything with these rapist appeasers either:
--Whoopi Goldberg (what is "rape-rape."??)---Martin Scorsese
--Mike Nichols
--Harvey Weinstein
--Woody Allen

Got to go find the other 100 luminaries to avoid.

Posted by: Greent | July 13, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

This is the most disgusting thing I've read in a major newspaper since the last time you wrote about Polanski, which I'd hoped was an aberration. Be proud of yourself. I'm voting with my feet and blocking washingtonpost.com from my browser. I'll miss out on a lot of good content, but I would've thought that a major paper wouldn't house an apologist for kid-rapists. I was wrong.

Posted by: masterlevitt | July 13, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The full list of rapist apologists:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/over_100_in_film_community_sign_polanski_petition/P1/

or here:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/09/29/naming-names-the-free-roman-polanski-petition/

SALMAN RUSHDIE! My goodness.

Posted by: Greent | July 13, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse


Cohen didn't think Scotter Libby, one of the Jewish claque in Cheney's office,
should be prosecuted, ether

for the outting of a CIA agent!

Cohen thought it was just "practicing the dark art of politics"!

See a trend there?
Do go to Wickipedia and see what a lousey
record Cohen has acquired. (at least one well known Washington affaris isn't mentioned among the ONES THAT ARE.

Posted by: whistling | July 13, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey, why doesn't that Swiss judge free Robert Blake as well? Nobody was more entertaining than Baretta. What a genius. And, from what I understand, a real good shot at about 2 feet.

Posted by: ShovelPlease | July 13, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cohen, the Manson family is paying for their crimes. Perhaps we should let them go, even force Mr. Polanski to pay restitution for the length of their sentences, the poor, misunderstood dears. After all, what's a little murder between friends?

Not only am I boycotting the Swiss, Polanski's films, the films of every person who has ever worked with him after his flight from justice and all of his more vocal apologists, I'm also boycotting the Washington Post. There is no such thing as justice anymore. We are living in a state of anarchy,all of us sedated, like a thirteen year old child, perpetually raped by the vile acts of those around us, but knowing there is no hope of any defense against them--against people like you, Mr. Cohen. You are disgusting.

Posted by: LuthienKennedy | July 13, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse


Cohen didn't think Scotter Libby, one of the Jewish claque in Cheney's office,
should be prosecuted, ether

for the outting of a CIA agent!

Cohen thought it was just "practicing the dark art of politics"!

See a trend there?
Do go to Wickipedia and see what a lousey
record Cohen has acquired. (at least one well known Washington affaris isn't mentioned among the ONES THAT ARE.

Posted by: whistling | July 13, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

To say he 'had' "sex with a 13-year-old after plying her with booze..." is not completely true - but don't let the truth interfer with your narrative. He also plied her with drugs and sodomized her and she said no and tried to get away. I read the report. Drugging a 13 year old child and then raping and sodomizing her is a crime that no amount of time erases.

You need to read Pultizer Prize winner - Eugene Robinson's column on the same subject. He's a co-worker have a chat with him - maybe he can explain to you why your column is an insult to ALL rape victims. Time does not erase the crime.

I'm furious just furious that you have denigrated ALL rape victims by your cavalier attitude.

Posted by: rlj1 | July 13, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Someone explain to me how Froomking & Weigel got booted from the WaPo while pedophile rapist apologist Cohen keeps drawing a check.

Posted by: 0666 | July 13, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Let's see. Polanski drugged a 13 yer old girl and when she protested No! No! penetrated her vaginally and anally. Then when a sleazy deal he made with the prosecutor was overturned he fled the country. Does anybody believe Richard Cohen would be defending this guy if he was an Irish Catholic.

Posted by: mlang461 | July 13, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Cohen must think the show "To Catch a Predator" on NBC is an abomination and all those criminals caught on the show should be released and given a Swiss chalet with resident children to compensate for the inconvenience.

Switzerland should have straightened out everything they required to extradite Polanski BEFORE they detained him in the first place. They should NOT have detained him and then refused to extradite him. Polanski could even sue for compensation for being detained so long while the Swiss drank cocoa and penned their rebuttal.

Posted by: scorpio6 | July 13, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

As for judicial misconduct justifying Switzerland's refusal to extradite, that is ridiculous. As the U.S. is a democracy with a well functioning judicial system, extradition should be automatic, as he was a fugitive who fled after conviction and before sentencing. If he has a case of misconduct, he needs to make it here. As far as any rational person is concerned, Switzerland failed in substituting its judgment for our legitimate legal process. I hope Obama makes them recognize that there are consequences for their arrogance.

I assume you don't have children, because only you and the Roman Catholic leadership could so empathize with the perpetrator and not the victim.

Posted by: dfooter
________________________
the arrogance was on the part of the LA prosecutors, who couldn't even be bothered giving the Swiss the hearing documents they requested.

extradition petitions are not automatic. sovereign nations take them seriously, and review claims of misconduct by the petitioning country. deference is due, but not docility, and in this case, it was U.S. arrogance that left the Swiss no choice but to deny the request.

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It was "mutually proven" that the judge would break the agreement. This is impossible. The judge is not a party to any agreement. Both sides agree to a recommendation which does not bind the judge. Normally the defendant must state to the under oath court that he is fully aware that the recommendation is not binding. The judge then proceeds to exercise the powers invested in him.

The only reason Polanski fled was that he doubted that the rancid deal he negotiated would succeed.

Cohen's strange circuitous defense appears truly weird, as though he is hiding his true position which , I suspect, is that Cohen is a racist who will ever come up with an excuse, any excuse, however farfetched, to prevent a member of his tribe from being punished for a crime against anyone who is not a member of his tribe. In brief, he believes in racial superiority of his ilk before the law.

Posted by: tadzio | July 13, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I sometimes wonder if people read articles before they post. Cohen rejects the notion that Polanski's art, or anything about his tragic live is any good reason to let him go.

Rather, he simply notes that at this late date, so little would be served by pursuing this that the judicial misconduct which has now been exposed, not to mention (Cohen doesn't mention it) the U.S. failure to even give the Swiss the documents they asked for to support their own petition, is reason enough to just drop it.

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

JoeT1, you keep posting that the LA prosecutors goofed it up. We get that. But most of us are by far more outraged that a child rapist gets off than whether the prosecution was fully on the level with him.

If the U.S. and Swiss have reasonable judicial systems then extradition should be automatic. This shows us that the Swiss have a paternalistic attitude towards our level of justice, and it's wrong.

Posted by: slatt321 | July 13, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

He had help from other people in Hollywood that think that celebrities are above the law and should get away with anything, including child rape. I think that things would have been different if Judge Revel, the judge in charge of the Lindsay Lohan DUI case, would have been around then. I think that there should be a boycott of Polanski supporters, if you hurt them in the checkbook, they will change their tune.

Posted by: superbenA2002 | July 13, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Like Helen Thomas, you are showing your age.

Posted by: kejia32 | July 13, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

It was "mutually proven" that the judge would break the agreement. This is impossible. The judge is not a party to any agreement. Both sides agree to a recommendation which does not bind the judge. Normally the defendant must state to the under oath court that he is fully aware that the recommendation is not binding. The judge then proceeds to exercise the powers invested in him.

The only reason Polanski fled was that he doubted that the rancid deal he negotiated would succeed.

Cohen's strange circuitous defense appears truly weird, as though he is hiding his true position which , I suspect, is that Cohen is a racist who will ever come up with an excuse, any excuse, however farfetched, to prevent a member of his tribe from being punished for a crime against anyone who is not a member of his tribe. In brief, he believes in racial superiority of his ilk before the law.

Posted by: tadzio
________________________
you are simply incorrect on the facts. the court participated in the deal, which is also proper. the judge, totally improperly, then decided on a publicity stunt of reneging on the deal, for no good reason other than the opportunity to make a name for himself. absolutely improper.

Polanski did not skip town just because he wondered whether the judge would go along with a deal he had made with prosecutors. The judge actually let it slip that he was going to screw Polanski despite having originally sanctioned the deal. Procedurally he should then have let Polanski withdraw the plea. The whole thing stunk, and the U.S. folks are still covering up what the judge did. The Swiss asked for the transcript of a hearing on the judge's conduct, and we refused to give it to them. None of that would even exist in the situation you describe, which is the general rule, but not what happened here.

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

JoeT1, you keep posting that the LA prosecutors goofed it up. We get that. But most of us are by far more outraged that a child rapist gets off than whether the prosecution was fully on the level with him.

If the U.S. and Swiss have reasonable judicial systems then extradition should be automatic. This shows us that the Swiss have a paternalistic attitude towards our level of justice, and it's wrong.
__________________________
paternalism has nothing to do with the Swiss merely asking for the transcript of a critical hearing and the U.S. telling the Swiss to shove it. Any country processing an extradition request does the same, and we shouldn't be surprised at their response to our arrogance.

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

As far as i can tell no one commenting read the article. I have only seen one polanski film (fearless vampire killers) and know next to nothing about the case, but attempting prosecution on a 40 year old sex crime where the victim has no interest in continuing prosecution strikes me as stupid. And no it wasnt my 14 yr old daughter , and yes I have one, and yes I would have killed him had it been my daughter,etc ad nauseum, but LA county probably spent a heck of a lot of money on this which since they are broke could be spent on current threats to the community and I think that is very much Mr Cohens point.

Posted by: chet_brewer | July 13, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"As the U.S. is a democracy with a well functioning judicial system, extradition should be automatic."

The UK is also a democracy with a 'well functioning' judicial system. That didn't stop US judges pandering to the Irish-American lobby by refusing to extradite IRA terrorists accused of far more serious crimes.

Posted by: BobT2 | July 13, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

BobT2 if I read you correctly you think that politics has a lot more to do with extradition than the law. You're probably right.

JoeT1 what's your take on why LA wouldn't give up that simple request? You really think if they'd done it then Polanski would be prosecuted? Again, it's about politics and culture, and it's wrong.

Posted by: slatt321 | July 13, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Cohen, you Traitor.

It's disgusting scum like you that let rapists roam our streets free, just because they have high positions in society.

The Rule of Law demands that there be no exceptions - for anyone.

Especially Polanski.

Posted by: WillSeattle | July 13, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Soon Cohen will be wanting to free Madoff too. How predictable!

Posted by: qualquan | July 13, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

JoeT1 what's your take on why LA wouldn't give up that simple request? You really think if they'd done it then Polanski would be prosecuted? Again, it's about politics and culture, and it's wrong.

Posted by: slatt321
_______________________
I'm just guessing that it would have embarassed a lot of people, so we just gambled that it wouldn't jeopardize the extradition proceeding to refuse - and lost the gamble.

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

It would be best, for the sake of the constrained budgets, if we just free all the child rapists who have cases older than, 5, 10, maybe 15 years. That would free up money, and allow the ex-inmates the decency to pursue artistic endeavors.

Using quotes around "victim" is just [sic] and so is Cohen's opinion.

Posted by: elletextiledesigner | July 13, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Cohen, you Traitor.

It's disgusting scum like you that let rapists roam our streets free, just because they have high positions in society.

The Rule of Law demands that there be no exceptions - for anyone.

Especially Polanski.

Posted by: WillSeattle
______________________
you appear not to have read very closely. Cohen's point is that Polanski deserves no special treatment whatsoever because of his artistic abilities or any other reason.

He simply notes that the Swiss got it right with respect to processing a defective extradition request

Posted by: JoeT1 | July 13, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I will dispense with the invectives but man oh man did you get this one wrong. Read the Grand Jury testimony about the rape of a 13 year old girl by a 40+ year old serial pedophile and tell me justice was served. He plead guilty; there are NEVER *none, not a one, nada, nyet* guarantees that a judge will EVER accept a plea bargain. All of you armchair lawyers don't seem to get that fact. And the extradition was not even about that arrest, but was to deal with his being a fugitive from justice. Boy it must be great to be rich and a "genius" and able to rape and abuse girls and boys with impunity. See, Richard, I have never watched another piece of art produced by this genius, nor have I watched any Woody Allen films or Mel Gibson's tripe. But, please, go right ahead. Just don't ever get on your freakin' moral high horse about any attack on your sacred cows again (hmm, I seem to be stuck in a barnyard metaphor ... but you get the point). Until I read the transcripts I was ambivalent at best and lukewarmly believed Polanski should be "left alone." Not anymore. He is a fugitive and I hope LA continues to pursue him until he receives appropriate punishment (which does NOT include 90 days in his villa in Gstad). No more Swiss watches for me...

Posted by: Omyobama | July 13, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to read the article to know what Cohen is going to say. To stress Cohen's argument, let's combine the following two reader comments:

pedjr wrote: "Roman Polanski is a 'tribe' member. 'nuff said!"
brendancalling1 wrote: "... "shorter shorter cohen: "raping children is OK with me."..."

We get "raping children is OK with me (Cohen, i.e.) because Roman Polanski is a 'tribe' member." But we already know from several recent events that it's truly a fact that everything a 'tribe' member or government does is OK, don't we?

Posted by: KT11 | July 13, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"He ran from the prospect of a judge who was going to make his reputation at Polanski’s expense and send him to jail for a very long time. I would have done the same."

Let's roll back the blarney for a moment here. The only reason that the judge's career would have been enhanced was because he was dealing with somebody who had assaulted and anally raped a thirteen year old girl over her tearful protests, not just because the case involved a celebrity.

Posted by: fzdybel | July 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I would have done the same,

you say.

I did escape flawed democratic justice (refusing to be inducted, jumping bail) and regretted it while I was still fairly young. At your age and R.P.'s it can only mean life has not taught you respect for democratic justice, flawed though it may always be.

Posted by: PeterMountain | July 13, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey Richard - maybe as a Father it should have been your daughter? What say you now? What a piece of garbage coming from a flaming lib.

Posted by: short1 | July 13, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

oh, are you going to get comments. mostly shredding your logic.

Posted by: daphne5 | July 13, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

and, Shorty above me: Cohen ain't no lib, "flaming" or any other kind. That he's demonstrated many times over.

Posted by: daphne5 | July 13, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Glad to know you're pro-child rapists.

Posted by: solsticebelle | July 13, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

A plea bargain must be accepted by the trial judge in order to be enacted. This is so, partly, to prevent either egregiously lenient or severe punishment. It is the judge who decides.

Apparently, Richard Cohen believes 45 days incarceration in a celebrity ward is sufficient time served for drugging and raping a 13 year old child. I wonder if he'd feel the same if it were his own daughter, niece, or granddaughter. Probably not - his dismissal of the horrific nature of child sexual abuse carries the tone of "she was probably asking for it".

The judge's motivations can only be guessed at. Do you think refusing to agree to such a ridiculously light sentence can be attributed SOLELY to the judge's personal vanity and ambitions? Why? Because no other reason could explain wanting to put a child rapist away for longer than 45 days? Are you puzzled that anyone would think this despicable act is such a big deal that a man, who confessed his guilt, should be jailed for more than a month and a half. That's a travesty of justice to you?

Richard writes, "not to mention a “victim,” Samantha Geimer, who has long ago forgiven her assailant and dearly wishes the whole thing would go away".

Richard, have you reached the age you have and never met a rape victim? Do you honestly believe this is something that "goes away"?

Schmuck.

Posted by: grohlik | July 13, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Disturbing piece.

So, when judges try and make "a name" for themselves and regular citizens get the book thrown at them, or their plea deal ignored...where was/is Cohen?


Seems to me he is doing the exact same thing of those he accuses:
Just instead of saying his art trumps his crimes, time and one judge (appeal?) makes it worth going away?

And if you would do the same, run away..
Well, Cohen, you're a coward.

Posted by: kreator6996 | July 13, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

So Cohen is advocating for defendants to flee their responsibility to face their crimes while out on bail, just because they feel a judge will throw the book at them? WHAT????? This guy is a moron.

Posted by: comeonpeople | July 13, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Cohen fails at logic.

According to Cohen, if you commit a crime, and there is a chance you may have to serve the full sentence for that crime, you are justified in fleeing the country.

If he was promised some kind of deal, and he felt the judge was going to go back on that deal, what does that change? He would still not serve any more than the maximum time allowed for his crime. It would be unfair of the judge to do that, yes. But not unjust.

I wonder how many articles Cohen has written about how a blue-collar black man guilty of raping and drugging a 13 year old white girl should only serve 42 days.

I wonder if Cohen researched the average sentence term for child rape. I'm just going to take a wild leap and say it is just a tad longer than 42 days.

According to Cohen, if your rape case is ever possibly mishandled, you should be good to go after 42 days, even if you are in fact guilty.

According to Cohen, if you rape a child, flee from justice, and then 33 years later the now grown up child has made peace with her past and forgiven the crime, you should be free to go.

And by the way, nice job throwing in the Holocaust survivor and murdered wife bit only to say it doesn't matter. If you weren't trying to make it matter, you wouldn't have thrown it in at all.

Posted by: rileyes | July 13, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

There's nobody like a "journalist" to help us all understand when the time has come for a rape "victim" to retreat to the history shelf, shrouded in quotation marks except for her name, which "journalists" can't seem to repeat often enough. Just the facts, etc.

Thanks for the "journalism," Mr. Cohen. Now can you please stop, for everyone's good? You're done.

Posted by: jussayin | July 13, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse


AND, are we PRETENDING that some
Swiss civil servant just discovered the right paper there, 'did his job...saw there was a 'flaw' in the petition and had to let the miscreant go?

We subscribe to that fairtale when clearly
there were superlawyers, and probably bribes available, and hell to pay for anyone who didn't coddle the Jewish hero
Polanski.

You think the, as mentioned often above, the "tribe" who now hails his freedom with every news cycle

wasn't huge in there threateneing and pushing and demanding and screaming holocaust (as does Cohen here) ...like AIPAC? No, you don't, do you. Smarter than that.

Posted by: whistling | July 14, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous post! "He had good reason to believe that the trial judge in his case was going to break the plea agreement and throw the book at him." THAT, Mr. Cohen, is your justification for allowing a 43-year-old man who has admitted drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl to escape accountability for his actions? Guess what? A judge is not obliged to honor a ridiculously lenient plea agreement between a celebrity and a star-struck prosecutor, and it is not up to the defendant to decide what is fair and what is not. And as for "something stale about this case," what about the other women who have come forward to reveal that, after Mr. Polanski fled the U.S., he continued to molest underage girls for several decades!

Posted by: PaulF2 | July 14, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

This is no doubt one of those opinions that Richard Cohen will wish he kept to himself. Mr. Cohen is always articulate and well-reasoned in his writing. But this is trash produced from a twisted logic. Mr. Cohen has turned the criminal into the victim and blamed society (here the judicial misconduct). The real reason that Polanski is free, of course, is that he is another rich celebrity who can remain above the law with money and connections. And for ignoring that Mr. Cohen should be ashamed.

Posted by: bryan37 | July 14, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

So Cohen joins his Post colleague Applebaum in defending a child-rapist. How disgusting.

Polanski admitted his crime and should face justice. That he remained free for decades, produced great art, and continued to molest underage girls is not an issue for dear Richard.

Two Post liberals and most of Hollywood think it is OK Polanski is free to roam Europe. Parents of young starlet-wannabes be warned.

Liberal tolerance of child-rape is sickening.

Posted by: Petras123 | July 14, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Cohen,

Your piece of garbage friend Polanski didn't "have sex with a 13 year old". He RAPED her. Come on, you and Applebaum both, say it with me. He raped a child. You and Applebaum are both as sick as Polanski for defending a man who RAPED a child.

Posted by: wadeb123 | July 14, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Once again, the world has shown that ours is a planet where human beings make the rules to please themselves if they are powerful enough, and Mr. Cohen shows how complicit he is in this. Welcome to The Elders, Mr. Polansky, along with Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other biggies who have "gotten away with it."

Posted by: sailhardy | July 14, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous post! "He had good reason to believe that the trial judge in his case was going to break the plea agreement and throw the book at him." THAT, Mr. Cohen, is your justification for allowing a 43-year-old man who has admitted drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl to escape accountability for his actions? Guess what? A judge is not obliged to honor a ridiculously lenient plea agreement between a celebrity and a star-struck prosecutor, and it is not up to the defendant to decide what is fair and what is not. And as for "something stale about this case," what about the other women who have come forward to reveal that, after Mr. Polanski fled the U.S., he continued to molest underage girls for several decades!

Posted by: PaulF2 | July 14, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Getting a thirteen year old girl drunk and then having sex with her - a stale case? Oh, and, by the way, I love your use of quotation marks around the word "victim" - that's particularly artful. I was going to suggest that it might be time to hang up your typewriter, but then I wondered whether you were just becoming the WWF of the WP - you know, anything for attention....
Do you have daughters or granddaughters? Think about how "stale" you might think the charges were if it had been your child (and notice I didn't put quotation marks around the word "child").

Posted by: sellio4291 | July 14, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Apparently Cohen thinks that's not serious. Cohen, retire already, every column you write just makes you look more senile.

Posted by: redsfan323 | July 14, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Petras123: Do you actually READ Cohen regularly? If so you wouldn't try to tar "liberals" with anything this obnoxious has-been says or writes.

Cohen hasn't been a liberal for at least a decade.

Posted by: howie14 | July 14, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Opinions are like a$$h01e5, Richard. And if you or anyone you loved had ever been raped in theirs, you would realize what an a$$h01e you are.

Raping a child is a crime against society, not just the victim. (And what exactly is the heartless reason that drives you to you use quotations when referring to a victim of rape?)

And dear Post, please, before you delete my comment for using the word a$$h01e, consider that your publication has once again printed an opinion piece in defense of fugitives and child rapists (i.e. Anne -raping children is so much fun-Applebaum). If you feel a need to protect your readers from vile words, you need to fire Cohen and Applebaum before deleting this.

Posted by: dicklongshot | July 14, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Cohen:

This is, without question, one of the worst instances of amoral, navel-gazing I think I have ever encountered.

It is singularly unimportant how the Polanski case makes you feel, and utterly inconsequential whether or not you believe it is "stale." There are clear laws in this country that are supposed to apply to everyone equally, whether or not you like The Piano, or Chinatown, or anything else directed by Mr. Polanski. Are you really this blindered?

You should not only be deeply, deeply ashamed of what you have written here, you should be fired. That is, unless the Washington Post finds value in continuing to employ a defender of child rape.

Posted by: SensenNoSen | July 14, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Did any other reader out there have the experience during high school that when kids that would say horrible racist and anti-Semitic things would have to read "Roots" or "A Diary of Anne Frank" and write a report on it? Or else they would have to spend an extra Saturday in class at the Holocaust Museum?

I think it's high time that the Post bring in child rape victims (or "victims" as Cohen refers to them and "wanting it" as Applebaum insinuates) to discuss with their columnists how utterly destructive rape is on the life of anyone, especially a child. I would be more than willing to set up the post with articulate rape victims. And then Applebaum and Cohen can argue with the survivors about how their attackers should not be punished.

Posted by: dicklongshot | July 14, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I can't even describe how offensive it is that you put "victim" in quotation marks, as though there is some doubt over whether a 13-year-old girl can be anything else when she is drugged and raped by an adult. Are you insinuating that Samantha Geimer was secretly begging for it? That she deserved what she got?

That backtracking you did at the end of the article doesn't make up for the disgusting things you'd already said.

Rape apologists are scum. Congrats, you're one of them.

Posted by: dubiouslygreat | July 14, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I've never been exposed to more tripe than from Richard Cohen. This is one of his most half-witted posts ever, and that's saying something. What drivel.

The jerk raped a 13 year old girl, Cohen, what are you, stupid?

Posted by: brantl1 | July 14, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Given the power, I would burn Polanski at the stake. I would give some thought to having Cohen join him.
I am appalled by today's column.

Posted by: cperrym | July 14, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I rarely agree with you, but this time I do. The victim wants it to go away, she probably has put it behind her thru much therapy. Hasnt enough money been wasted on this case already? Dont we have better things to do with our money than pursue this dirty old man?

Posted by: maryd1 | July 14, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Here's my test for those who defend Polanski: would you be saying this about someone who wasn't an Oscar-winning director? If Polanski were just some dude who raped a kid 30 years ago, then fled the country and got away with it all these years, would you still be wishing that "the whole thing would go away"? What if Polanski were black?

Posted by: dubiouslygreat | July 14, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Cohen speaks like the sexual harasser that he is.

Posted by: ej_smug | July 14, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny that as long as the pedophiles agree with the left's way of thinking it is okay.But if they are conservative it is not.

Well Mr. Cohen I don't care how talented, how liberal or how conservative one is there is not excuse for raping a 13 year old girl and Mr Polanski belongs in prison no matter how much he paid the girl off.

Posted by: Pilot1 | July 14, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

To Pilot1: some of the angriest condemnation of Polanski has come from the feminist left, which has always been an impassioned defender of rape victims. Please do not paint us all with the same rape apologist brush. Most of us are as disgusted with Polanski as conservatives are, if not more so.

Posted by: dubiouslygreat | July 14, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cohen isn't being honest when he said that it doesn't matter to him that Polanski was a Holocaust survivor. Polanski was only ten when he escaped from the Krackow ghetto and was then protected by caring Christian Poles. The Germans murdered l.5 million Jewish children during the Holocaust. But he was honest in his appraisal of "The Pianist."

Posted by: johnson0572 | July 14, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

This case was unpleasant. Let's let it slide so we don't have to focus on the bad stuff anymore. Time heals all crimes!

Let's talk about Bristol and Levi instead!

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | July 14, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

This case is a mess and a stale mess at that. Over thirty years ago there was an agreement reached between all parties and then the judge decided to back out and pull a fast one. Word reached Polanski and he flew the coop. Technically he 's been a fugitive ever since but as the Swiss pointed out - if the original agreement which amounted to 'time served' was valid, why should they extradite him? The US refused to give them access to testimony from the original prosecutor that could have helped answer that question and left with an incomplete picture, the Swiss threw out the extradition request. The ideal situation would be to have Polanski come back, plead guilty, and implement what was agreed to thirty years ago - time served - but since it looks like the US will now not honor the original agreement it's no surprise that Polanski isn't racing back here. I guess the US can hope that Polanski will stumble into a country that will turn him over but since he now has free reign in both France and Switzerland I wouldn't count on that.

Just an afterthought but I can't put Polanski and Hitler on the same moral plane as some here are doing. It is very true that Polanski committed a serious crime but not one that compares to the systematic extermination of six million people.

Posted by: calgrl75 | July 14, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

What would your thoughts about Polanski's freedom be if a year from now he rapes another child?

Your comments on Polanski's case are absolutely sickening. He drugged and gave alcohol to a 13 year old girl and raped her.

Posted by: powell2 | July 14, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Richard, you must not have a daughter, sister or wife. If you did or do, I can not fathom how you aren't appalled that Polanski hasn't paid for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.

And no, living in luxury in Europe isn't any kind of penance, nor is paying a settlement to your victim.

You'll also note my lack of quotes around the word victim - because a 13 year old girl who gets plied with a quaalude, alcohol and is then sodomized by an adult isn't a "victim," she's a victim.

Posted by: foxx2 | July 14, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Richard, if you haven't already, please watch this video: http://www.illdoctrine.com/2009/10/mini_doctrine_a_case_of_morals.html

It's an excellent breakdown of the Polanski case. I think watching it would do you some good.

Posted by: dubiouslygreat | July 14, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"He had already pleaded guilty to a reduced charge; he had already spent 42 days in Chino State Prison under psychiatric examination."


Yes, because all admitted child-rapists in America usually average about 42 days in the slammer. Certainly not much more.


"He ran from the prospect of a judge who was going to make his reputation at Polanski’s expense and send him to jail for a very long time. I would have done the same."


Note to American criminal justice system: if ever you have arrested Richard Cohen for a crime, do not offer him bail. He has zero faith in you, and will fly to Europe in a Parisian minute.

This is perhaps the most embarassing piece Richard Cohen has ever written. And that is saying a lot.

Posted by: willallison_2000 | July 15, 2010 1:55 AM | Report abuse

It's right that the extradition was refused - there are some issues here that should be extrapolated to all cases. I get uncomfortable any time an old case is prosecuted. Evidence and memory fade, prejudices ossify, witnesses disappear. "Justice delayed is justice denied" works against the chance that an old matter will be fairly dealt with. Increasingly, the trend is to prosecute ancient child sex offenses, 30, 40, even 50-years stale, sometimes on the flimsiest justification. That is not about "justice" - it's about mob mentality. Statutes of limitations (not relevant to Polanski's case) have been lengthened or abolished in many countries. Everyone has forgotten that these were put in place for good reasons - to maximize the chance of fairness. A case this old should be let go unless it's murder or genocide. This particular case (which was never tried) was messed up by the original judge. The bias in a free country should always be in favor of the accused, who has the whole system stacked against him/her. Sensible prosecutors should always drop cases where process has been messed up (as in Polanski) or where time has rendered evidence and testimony questionable. Better one gets away than the fairness and balance of the system be tarnished. The legal system is all we have between us and chaos or totalitarianism. Above all it must be fair. Justice, meaning punishment of the guilty, is overrated and less important than fairness.

Posted by: philxyz24 | July 15, 2010 3:37 AM | Report abuse

Mr Cohen,

IF it was your 13 year old daughter who was RAPED, perhaps you would want the criminal, who abused her, PUNISHED.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | July 16, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

This guy criticizes Mel Gibson for saying the "n" word when it wasn't even used in racist terms and was taken from a private conversation. Secondly, there are no more racist people on earth than jews. Especially fake ashkenazi jews. Yet not one word said. Then a fellow jew who doesn't even claim to be jewish, (isn't that supposed to be a "self-hating jew"?) you defend from here to kingdom come.

I think it's time for us "goyim cattle" as you love to call us to organize and boycott all Washington Post's advertisers. So starting in NY, NJ, Mn, Maryland, Cal, Arizona, Penn. and Michigan, we are beginning a boycott of anybody advertising in the Post until this hypocrite Richard Cohen is fired. We'll use pages out of your JDL/ADL playbook for once. See how you like it. Get rid of this useless racist trash that cares nothing about anyone but fellow jews.

Posted by: iggy066 | July 19, 2010 5:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company