Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@spendius,

What Firefly does not seem to understand is the word lawful does not mean moral or sane or fair it just mean lawful.

Arresting blacks for being on a whites only beach was lawful not that long ago in my current community IE in my lifespan.

Something can be lawful and at the time insulting to any sane and decent person.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

sensational language, but they basically report the same facts as the NY Times.

If true it does not reflect well on the NYT either however I can not see such headlines or statements in the times.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

What Firefly does not seem to understand is the word lawful does not mean moral or sane or fair it just mean lawful.

Arresting blacks for being on a whites only beach was lawful not that long ago in my current community.

Something can be lawful and at the time insulting to any sane and decent person.

That and that she has become a shill for the state. I already know the state's position, and have rejected it, her trying to sell the states position here is going to go nowhere with me. Also, A2K is a place for people to talk, to compare notes, this is where she should lay out what SHE thinks. A good starting point would be to define what consent means to her, so that we might know what rape is to her.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

and their experience and expertise in these matters far exceeds that of anyone posting in this thread.

What evidence do you have for that assertion except that your whole position is based upon it being true. And what exactly is the "expertise" referring to? Blowing a blow, alleged, into millions of dollars and cushy jobs and partially defusing women's frustration at their position in society.

Quote:

a jury will likely not hear testimony about his past behaviors.

You and your ilk will make damn sure that the jury has a head full up with the stuff before it is sworn in.

Quote:

That's not enough info to jump to any firm conclusions about him, or the police, or the D.A., or the alleged victim.

Which is why I have not jumped to any firm conclusion about what happened at the hotel. I don't think anybody else here has except those on your side. Which, as I have shown above, is a very suspect side from a real feminist viewpoint.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The difference between Americans and the French is this regard is that the French are honest about it, but we Americans look away and dont talk about it what is really happening, we keep to our PC scripts

No, I think the French are more dishonest about it because their privacy laws stifle journalists from writing about what their public figures are actually doing in their private lives, even when it affects issues the public should know about.

We are much more honest and open--our investigative journalists constantly dig up dirt about our political figures private lives. And this influences their political careers because voters know more about their character. The media, in fact The National Enquirer, outed John Edwards, and his affair and lovechild, and that revelation may now result in his indictment for misuse of campaign funds. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now undergoing the same kind of scrutiny--did he misuse taxpayer's money to support his mistress and lovechild?

It's the French who look away. I don't think we do.

They should not have looked the other way regarding reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault concerning DSK. Those things suggest he was crossing lines that should not have been crossed--even in France.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

A good starting point would be to define what consent means to her, so that we might know what rape is to her.

It would indeed be a good starting point. But she wouldn't dare hawk.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

their privacy laws stifle journalists from writing about what their public figures are actually doing in their private lives, even when it affects issues the public should know about.

Right we have a right to know what is going on in the bedrooms and sex lives of our leaders and perhaps we should even mandate that web cams be placed in their bedrooms.

It matter somehow that Clinton was using an odd method to keep his cigars fresh or the Roosevelt was sleeping with his wife secretary or JFK would lay any breathing female or Eisenhower had an affair with his driver during WW2 and was thinking of divorcing his wife to be with her.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Which is why I have not jumped to any firm conclusion about what happened at the hotel. I don't think anybody else here has except those on your side.

I really suggest you read my posts, rather than fabricating what they say.

I have reached no conclusions about what happened in that hotel suite, firm or otherwise. I have no vested interest in the outcome of this case--right now I don't care whether he's convicted or acquitted. Maybe by the time the trial ends I'll have reached an opinion, but right now, I really don't care either way. So, I don't know how you know what my "side" is--I've been saying all along I want to wait for the trial. The prosecution must still prove its case to a jury, and, even if DSK actually violated the law, they might not be able to demonstrate that to a jury's satisfaction. So, like many other people, I want to wait for the trial and see if they can prove the charges--that's when they'll either convince me or not.

I have no idea what the "feminist viewpoint" on this case is, nor do I care. I'm not a feminist. I see feminism as irrelevant to the issue of whether DSK violated NYS criminal laws, regarding forcible sexual assault, in NYC.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

But she wouldn't dare hawk.

She is two years and a few thousand posts into the A2K debate on sex and the state, and so far she has not dared to show herself....

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

I have no idea what the "feminist viewpoint" on this case is, nor do I care. I'm not a feminist. I see feminism as irrelevant to the issue of whether DSK violated NYS criminal laws, regarding forcible sexual assault, in NYC

A position that only holds so long as you maintain your idiot claim that the feminists agenda was not the basis for the rape law reforms that have been put into place. Under the old laws DSk would never have been charged, the situation that we now find ourself in with DSK is fully on the head of the feminists.

4 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It would indeed be a good starting point. But she wouldn't dare hawk.

You and Hawkeye are free to Google the definition of "consent" which is given in the NYS sexual assault laws. It is simple and clear. I am sick of re-posting it simply because Hawkeye wants to play games. He can look it up himself--that is the definition I accept, and he knows that. That is the only valid definition applicable in the DSK legal case--that is the definition a jury would be given.
However, bear in mind that DSK is accused of acting without consent and with forcible compulsion.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

but right now, I really don't care either way. So, I don't know how you know what my "side" is--I've been saying all along I want to wait for the trial. The prosecution must still prove its case to a jury, and, even if DSK actually violated the law, they might not be able to demonstrate that to a jury's satisfaction. So, like many other people, I want to wait for the trial and see if they can prove the charges--that's when they'll either convince me or not.

Of course they had already destroy the man career and future usefulness on the world stage even if at this moment the charges are found to be groundless.

Arrest first and then investigated later had a high price not only to the individual and his family but to the society as a whole.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Under the old laws DSk would never have been charged,

I'm not being facetious, I really would like to know.
When you say "old" laws...
Was there a landmark ruling by the supreme court or were these laws changed individually by state supreme courts or by federal courts?

Quote:

the situation that we now find ourself in with DSK is fully on the head of the feminists.

you edited this statement. Good thing because what you originally wrote was a whistle in the dark.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Under the old laws DSk would never have been charged, the situation that we now find ourself in with DSK is fully on the head of the feminists

He is charged under the OLD LAWS. Laughing

The "old laws" are the ones that required force--those are the laws he is charged under--feminists did not change those laws. He is charged with sexual assault by forcible compulsion.

Now you really sound like your feminist paranoia has pushed you off the deep end. You no longer even know what the "old laws" are. Laughing

You just know they were better. Laughing

I repeat...
He is charged under the OLD LAWS. Laughing

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

A position that only holds so long as you maintain your idiot claim that the feminists agenda was not the basis for the rape law reforms that have been put into place. Under the old laws DSk would never have been charged, the situation that we now find ourself in with DSK is fully on the head of the feminists.

You are saying that if DSK did what he is accused of having done - physically assaulting a hotel maid, forcing her to provide oral sex and trying to tear off her clothing - that at some time that was not illegal?? If you are arguing date rape laws, you can make an argument that laws have changed over time, but I don't see how you can say that the sexual assault alleged in this case was not illegal in the recent past.

I'm surprised you are taking this position. Not that you haven't made your views on rape laws known on other threads, but usually there is some nuance to the case that makes for debate. CEO is tossed for sexual escapade or date rape case where the victim gave consent but was drunk, etc. This case is just straightforward sexual assault. We can speculate whether the accuser is lying, but if she isn't I don't see any argument that the law is being applied unfairly or that things have changes over the last thirty years. Other than the position of the accused, this case as charged is pretty similar to some thug attacking a woman walking home from work at night. I also understand the argument against the police tactics, but if DSK was accused of severely beating a taxi driver, he'd be getting the same treatment from police (though certainly the press would find that more boring.)

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You and Hawkeye are free to Google the definition of "consent" which is given in the NYS sexual assault laws. It is simple and clear. I am sick of re-posting it simply because Hawkeye wants to play games. He can look it up himself--that is the definition I accept, and he knows that. That is the only valid definition applicable in the DSK legal case--that is the definition a jury would be given.
However, bear in mind that DSK is accused of acting without consent and with forcible compulsion.

I can read a law book to see what the statute says, I can talk to people in the law to see how the law is currently used and interpreted, but when I point to the law I am pointing to the law, I am not taking a position on it.

If you want to take the position that the NY law is the most proper law around then you need to talk about why it is the most right. Of course you dont say that, you say that the laws need to be followed regardless of what they are, and other than that you have no opinion, which is a blatant lie. It is not possible to be as invested in the question of state regulation of sexuality as you are without having some strong opinions about what the proper sexual regulation scheme is. You show through out your posting on the subject that you have some strong opinion on the matter. Your refusal to come clean on what you believe shows a character flaw in you, it shows a profound lack of respect for the rest of us in the debate, because your refusal to state your position and beliefs is at its core a demonstration of dishonesty.

1 Reply

@panzade,

The original sexual assault laws, that required force, Hawkeye's "old laws", are still in effect in every state.

The newer additions to the laws were the "date rape" laws--the"No means no" laws, which do not require force as an element of the crime. Those are also in effect in every state.

DSK is charged under the original "old" laws--that include force as an element of the crime.

0 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

I'm not being facetious, I really would like to know.
When you say "old" laws...
Was there a landmark ruling by the supreme court or were these laws changed individually by state supreme courts or by federal courts?

Rape law is a matter for the states so SCOTUS could not do that. What happened in that their was a feminist driven rape law reform movement during the 80's, pressed by DOJ, during which all of the state laws were rewritten. Consent was changed from the alleged victim needing to demonstrate non consent to demonstrating consent, the burden of proof was changed from the state needing to prove that the victim did not consent to the defendant needing to prove that she did, and force was changed from phsyical force to the woman feeling any kind of force to include mental......force was changed from something that the defendant did to often something that the alleged victim claims that she felt.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

If you want to take the position that the NY law is the most proper law around then you need to talk about why it is the most right

Because the crime was committed in NYS!

He is charged with violating very specific NYS criminal sexual assault laws. And it must be proved that he violated those laws exactly as they are worded.

You may feel you can just make up your own laws and your own definitions. In real life, states charge people only with violations of specific state laws. DSK has been charged under NYS law.

Your knowledge of law is so dim you shouldn't even be in this discussion.

You are inaccurate regarding both the definitions of "consent" and "force" in NYS. You really should look up the laws before you criticize them.

DSK is charged with using physical force. That's what makes it a first degree felony. That's the "old law".

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

No, I think the French are more dishonest about it because their privacy laws stifle journalists from writing about what their public figures are actually doing in their private lives, even when it affects issues the public should know about.

There are, rightly or wrongly, laws which stifle those journalists, FF. There is nothing, absolutely nothing to prevent American journalists from discussing the numerous war crimes and terrorist actions of the US government and yet they so rarely do.

Isn't it something much more than hypocritical for you to describe others as dishonest when this sort of thing is the norm for the US, when it's actually the norm for you too?

Quote:

The Death of a Terrorist… No, Not That One.
3rd May 2011

Two of the world’s most notorious and wanted terrorists died last week. But while one of them grabbed all the world’s attention and headlines, the other passed quietly, without headlines (at least not in the US), without flag-waving, USA-chanting crowds partying in the streets. You know who the first guy is. I’ll give you a hint as to who the second one is: he died a hero in Miami.

I’m talking about Orlando Bosch, who after Osama bin Laden is the world’s most wanted terrorist. And one you’ve probably never even heard of. Allow me to introduce you.

http://morallowground.com/2011/05/03/the-death-of-a-terrorist-no-not-that-one/

4 Replies

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know