Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Not allow him to get clothes from family so that he can look fresh for court (he has been wearing the same clothes for days)

not allow him to shave

Most likely not allow him to shower for days

Second the news also had reported claims that he had attack other women in the past at that hotel with as far I can tell there is zero foundation for

I just cannot understand why you think this man deserves any different treatment than anyone else arrested in NYC for similar crimes

And, before you start harping that the woman's past behaviors can't be brought up, it is only her past sexual behaviors that would be considered off limits--her past sexual behaviors are irrelevant in considering whether he has violated the law in the present case--and he is the only one accused of violating the law. Other non-sexual past behaviors on her part can be brought up, and likely will be brought up, since his defense team will try to destroy her credibility.

And it is very clear over several threads and that run thousands of posts that no matter what injustice, unfairness, fantasy or stupidity that is embraced by the law currently you will come back with "it is the LAW!"

As long as laws are on the books, the state has a legitimate right to enforce those laws. Strauss-Kahn is charged with violating laws which are generally agreed to be necessary and valid. I have heard no one, including you, suggesting that we repeal the laws against forcible, non consensual sexual assaults.

barbaric treatment of the accused

Rikers is a jail, not a prison, and it's a very well run jail.

04/12/2011 11:24 PM
Rikers Island is a part of the city that few New Yorkers see, and few even think about. Rikers, located just a few hundred feet from the runways at LaGuardia Airport, is a 400-acre city-within-a-city.


But out of sight is not out of mind, and a wave of startlingly bad news has been buffeting the city's Corrections Department lately. City statistics revealed double-digit percentage increases last year in fights, stabbings and slashing by inmates, and newspaper reports suggest that gang members still in custody may be using beatings and death threats to silence witnesses.
In an exclusive interview, city’s Corrections commissioner Dora Schriro told NY1 that the department is determined to rescue its reputation and is making progress at keeping order in the jails.

“We are aggressively pursuing the arrest of anyone who violates the law, and so whether it’s an inmate or visitor or in the rare occasion that it may be an officer, that we are vigorously enforcing the law,” said Schriro.

Beyond the issues of jailhouse violence, the Corrections Department is coping with tight budgets at a time when many jail buildings are old, crumbling and obviously in need of repair.

how could anyone give any credence to a person of so called "high standing", i would never give them the benefit of the doubt, the man is a banker and politician, he should get the death penalty, just for those crimes alone

People tend to forget that ALL hotels, especially expensive ones, have hidden cameras so it is likely based on the camera evidence that the police are after the IMF banker. Of course, the hotel wouldn't want to publicize this. How do you think all those celebrity hotel scandals got started?

It's hard, nowadays, to begrudge anyone his or her constitutional nihilism. Even before oral arguments started last week over the constitutionality of President Obama's health care reform law at the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., some conservatives were complaining that the result was preordained because the three-judge panel consisted of two Obama appointees and a Clinton appointee. And if liberals want to get a head start on their own freak-outs over the lawsuits, they might well note that the just-announced panel for the June 1 hearings on the Affordable Care Act at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati include a George W. Bush appointee, a Reagan appointee, and a Carter appointee.

So we can already start writing that 2-1 decision.
It's not necessarily illogical to make jurisprudential predictions based on judicial politics when it comes to the health reform appeals. The results in every one of the cases about the law have, thus far, perfectly tracked ideology. Three lower courts have upheld the law as constitutionally valid, while two have struck down all or parts of it. No judge appointed by a Democratic president has had a problem with it, while no Republican appointee has voted to uphold it. Based on the recent 4th Circuit hearing, that pattern looks likely to hold, at least in the near term. If there is an enduring political lesson to be learned from all this, it's that Congress should fight over judicial appointments from now until forever.
.
.
.
Waldron's argument against judicial review should rise or fall on its merits, not your view of the constitutionality of the ACA. We are in a strange holding pattern right now, collectively waiting for the first judge to cross party lines in a health care case. Maybe once that happens, we can all go back to believing in the integrity and infallibility of the judicial branch. Until then, perhaps it's an apt moment to re-examine first principles and think about why we believe in the judicial branch in the first place

-our journalists, apparently unlike those in France, do not conspire to keep things hidden from the public when they involve politically powerful figures,