NYT: I.M.F. Chief May Claim Consensual Sex as a Defense

[steve2470]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/nyregion/strauss-kahn-may-claim-consensual-sex-as-defense.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

As Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, spent his first full day on Rikers Island, the hotel housekeeper who accused him of sexual assault was struggling with what her lawyer said was a life upended by the case.

The woman, 32, a widowed immigrant from Guinea who was granted asylum seven years ago, has not been publicly identified and has made no public statements about what prosecutors have charged was an attack by Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a 62-year-old Frenchman, as she prepared to clean his hotel room on Saturday.

But her lawyer said she had been unable to return to her job at the Sofitel New York or to her home, as both had attracted swarms of international news media.

And as she remained in seclusion, there were suggestions that Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a powerful, wealthy politician who was widely regarded as a strong candidate to run against the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, next year, would put forward a defense that any sex had been consensual.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. This is common as a defense

Which means it happened.

[seabeyond]

3. oh but really, we cant say anything, we must wait for conviction before accusing him of a pig. nt

[sabrina 1]

9. Wait for a conviction? What a novel idea. Some guys

back in the 18th Century had the same idea. A lot of people thought it was a great idea. Until George Bush came along and decided that an old piece of paper was just quaint, but not relevant to our cowboy society today.

Democracy, dying without even a whimper!

[sufrommich]

16. He'll get his day in court. Comments on the internet don't

have anything to do with his rights to a fair trial.

[sabrina 1]

26. Ask the Duke Lacrosse players

eg, how those internet discussions affected their lives. All of which can still be accessed.

I guess I would like to live in a less hysterical society, less Nancy Grace and more Thomas Jefferson, but it is what it is.

I will keep trying for a better, less tabloid reaction to these stories though, but I don't expect much success.

Having an object of rage appears to be intoxicating to some people.

[sufrommich]

41. Not all cases are created equal.The Lacrosse case was

suspect from the start,there were huge discrepancies , the players involved had credible alibis and the accuser did not claim she was raped until after she was arrested by police. This case is not shaping up the same way, the hotel maid can't even go home because of all the press attention, nobody brings that on for the hell of it.

[sabrina 1]

54. Yes, of course cases are not all the same. But it is wrong to say

there were not people who were absolutely certain of their guilt right from the start and who refused to listen to anyone pointing new information as it became available. Trust me, I was there. I remember trying to post links to the information about the alibi of one of the men, eg, and it was completely ignored, over and over again and I was accused of 'trashing the victim'. People believe what they want to believe. Although why anyone would WANT to believe she was raped, which apparently many did in that case and in this one, rather than hope she was not, is beyond me.

The Duke players could not go home either and had to leave school among other things.

Have you read the charges in this case? I have not so far, but have read that 'rape' is not among the six charges. I will check it later when I have time. If that is the case, it certainly won't matter to many people, he is guilty of rape as far as some are concerned and we don't need no trials or evidence! And it was the same during the Duke case.

This guy seems, from the press reports, to have been a womanizer. Arnold was a womanizer too, and JFK and a whole host of other prominent figures. But unpleasant as that is especially for the women and his family, it is not rape.

I would prefer to wait for the facts before screaming 'pig' etc. But that's just me I guess. Even then, I will be satisfied with whatever punishment is called for and sad for the woman and her family and hopeful that she will get whatever help she needs to get on with her life. And sad for his wife and children and all the others who will be hurt by this. I don't understand the sheer joy some people get from these tragic stories. A lot of people suffer when these things happen. In the end they are human tragedies and all I am saying is that considering that, it is vital to be sure the verdicts are correct before passing judgement.

[roguevalley]

75. he's a pig now. there are other women and this one? She's a very

very religious lady with a teenaged daughter. The fucker. I hope he rots. The evidence could be interesting. She slapped the shit out of him during this thing or so one outlet said.

[sabrina 1]

4. Which means what happened? n/t

[seabeyond]

5. which means he assaulted her unless you are suggesting she "asked" for it. nt

[sabrina 1]

7. It means he MAY be stating the sex was consensual.

I wasn't there of course, but you apparently were!

[seabeyond]

8. and what does that tell you. he MAY be saying it is consentual. we have to see if it flies, nt

[sabrina 1]

10. It tells me that this may be his claim. That is all.

I wasn't there, don't know any more than I read in the papers. People do have consensual sex and people do force themselves on others. What happened in this case, only those who were there know, so far. Except for you of course, because you were there! :eyes:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

45. Then I fully expect you to denounce those throwing out emotionally driven innuendos.

Such as, you know, "he can afford a hooker he has no reason to rape" or "some guy on twitter posted about the arrest 20 minutes after it happened" or "the NYPD originally reported 1PM but changed it to 12PM!" all "evidence" that the alleged victim was in making false claims.

I, personally? I have no problem holding an opinion on this matter. The guy is going to fry for 5 years, bank on it.

[seabeyond]

46. i so agree josh... nt

[sabrina 1]

56. Well, let's see. So many assumptions in your comment.

as always. First, I will comment on what I see. You assume I am reading every post here. But of the ones you list, the first one is a stupid statement, based on nothing but opinion.

However the second two depend on whether they are true or not. If someone did tweet about this alleged crime before it was reported, just 20 minutes after it supposedly happened, then that is not an emotional reaction, it would be a statement of fact. Something that should be easy to verify if someone is interested enough. And if it turned out to be true, knowing as I do, NYC cops, it would be very odd for news of a story that they had not even finished writing up, to get out on twitter. Strauss-Kahn's attorneys are going to want to know more about that. If a cop did it, he will be in big trouble so that's unlikely.

As for the third example, IF the police did change the time of the alleged crime, AFTER hearing the daughter's testimony, that is definitely going to come up in the trial, and is not an emotional response.

Lol, first you say you will have no problem holding your opinion, then state that he will fry for five years and we can bank on that!! :rofl:

So which is it?

He will fry if he is guilty, so I guess you're not holding your opinion.

[joshcryer]

70. No assumptions, if you want to use the "facts" of the slanders against her, then you *must*...

...accept the evidence against him. I know this is a bit hard to understand, but if you take as "fact" that he was part of a honey trap scam, you must take as fact that there is video evidence of him leaving the motel at 12:28 in a hurry. That he called the hotel looking for a potentially misplaced cell phone. That the victim called the police shortly after he left. That they caught him trying to leave the country despite that he had booked his hotel for two days (and was only one day in).

So, you apparently think it's OK to spout "facts" (that are immaterial, the media got it wrong the police were called shortly after the incident, for example). The tweeting has basically nothing to do with it since even the tweeter got it wrong (he was arrested on the airplane, not in the hotel). So basically, the "facts" that people are hinging the "evidence" on are spurious at best, and not hard factual evidence such as the victim getting DNA tests, and the fact that a high level politician in another country was arrested with a warrant (something which would've required the duly elected District Attorney to pass off on).

And yes, there's no contradiction, I hold my opinion firmly, that the evidence we have seen so far shows that he is guilty and the "evidence" that the victim was somehow tricking him is basically non-existent and conspiratorial. Watch and see, the guy will get a minimum of five years in prison. Frankly I hope he gets the max of 25 years due to his conduct trying to leave the country to France which is non-extraditionary.

[sabrina 1]

80. Since I have not said anything about the facts, as I don't believe

we know of any facts, none of this is relevant to me. All we have are press reports that appear to keep changing. I have spouted NO facts because I don't have any facts, and neither do you. I have said that it would be a problem for a NYC cop if he tweeted something like that before the investigation was even complete. That is speculation, not fact, and that if there was such a tweet, I didn't see it so I don't know what it said, but if there was, definitely Strauss-Khan's attorneys would want to see it and speak to the person who sent it. That again is speculation, because no one knows who sent it yet.

We have no evidence, we have constantly changing newspaper reports. So if your firm opinion is based on those reports, it is as likely to be wrong as right. We all thought we had 'evidence' in the Duke case also. In the end it turned out to be not so firm after all. I'm glad I did not decide they were guilty either although I was slammed for that also, not that it bothers me.

[joshcryer]

84. I presented you with facts.

Things like "he was arrested on the plane" is a fact. The reports that changed or were wrong are the only reports being used to marginalize the victim in this case. We have three instances, 1) the cell phone story 2) the police timeline (which was off by 30 minutes oh the horrors, huge conspiracy that one) and 3) the pathetic tweet that was half wrong and was, in my experience with inaccurate tweets, a marginally lucky guess, we knew DSK had an arrest warrant out for him, this was not news to us.

Those three reports are, instead of seen as inaccurate non-factual reports now that the picture is clearer, used to either debase the entire timeline, and indirectly, the victim. It is a fact that someone tweeted something, it is also a fact that what they tweeted was partially wrong. It is not a fact that said tweeter is part of a conspiracy to undermine DSK. It is a fact that the police misreported the timeline by 32 minutes. It is not a fact that this means the police are involved in some sort of conspiracy. It is a fact that the news reported on two cell phone stories (one, he actually left a phone, another he didn't). It is not a fact that that means the cell phone aspect of the story is untrue. It is a fact that the police found his location by telling a person on the phone to tell him they had his cell phone when they did not.

It is a fact that a maid alleges that he sexually assaulted her. It is a fact that he was booked into the hotel for 2 days and exited the hotel 1 day early in a hurry according to video footage. It is a fact that they found a keycard from said hotel on him. It is a fact that the alleged victim picked him out of a police line up.

You refuse to accept facts unless they suit your needs. And yes, calling people war criminals is no different than me calling DSK a sexual assaulter.

[sabrina 1]

94. Everything you presented is AFTER, a reaction to, the allleged crime.

Nothing about the crime itself, just reactions to an alleged crime. What we have regarding the Iraq war crimes, are eye-witnesses, photos, bodies, scars on torture victims along with their testimony. Statements from members of Congress who viewed the videos showing rape, sodomy, torture and MURDER. We have the Iraq War Logs with written verification of war crimes. We have SEEN video of a war crime in action. We have seen some of the videos from Abu Ghraib and heard the testimony of witnesses.

PLease, to even try to compare these crimes is simply ridiculous. And there is another thing that is different about the one, massive crime involving untold numbers of victims, and this alleged crime, involving one. THIS one has resulted in an arrest and an investigation and lawyers and protection for the alleged victim.

But in the War Crimes case, there is not even an investigation, no charges. The woman, Noor, who was raped in Abu Ghraib, along with other women, has disappeared. No one even tried to get justice for her. I never saw you post a single thread on the women of Abu Ghraib, the children who were sodomized, the men who were tortured to death. Where was or is your outrage over those victims? Did you view the Wikileaks video of that crime in action? Did you view the follow-up documentary where reporters went to visit the two little children who shot that day? Whose father was murdered, ON VIDEO trying to save the life of one of the Reuters journalists who was murdered in cold blood on that video? Have your read the testimony of one of the US soldiers who rescued those two little children that day? HE calls it a war crime, and he was there.

You apparently know nothing about these crimes, but presume to use them to try to 'win' some insignificant debate on the internet. I have followed these events and the victims and the courageous reporters and lawyers who have struggled to get some justice for them, for many years. I have written about them, and tried to get attention for them. I supported Democrats thinking we could finally get some justice.

But the rape of the Iraq woman, Noor would never generate the number of threads this alleged crime has generated, would it? Why is that do you think? She may be dead by now, her note out of Abu Ghraib asked for the prison to be blown up so that she and the other women there could die. She did not want to live. She has not been found by reporters since the evidence of her rape was seen on tape.

You go have fun 'winning' on the internet. To me, this is a long, sad story for which there has never been justice. And it is one of the reasons why I will never support NATO troops occupying another Arab Country, and the reason THEY do not want it either. Because they treat Muslims 'like dogs' as General Miller said.

[joshcryer]

95. What? The crime itself is described in the court paperwork. I was giving you examples of people...

...discrediting the victim as you are trying to do here with your long pointless Bush junta screeds. It's simple, you're showing gross hypocrisy by prejudging the Bush junta without a trial and by ignoring the evidence we know of in the DSK rape case (yes, he raped her, oral penetration is rape, it's just that NY law considers that sodomy and it is classified under a lesser charge of criminal sexual assault). And by expecting others to not prejudge DSK. People have a right to form opinions, and so far there exist no legitimate opinion that actually provides any evidence whatsoever as to DSKs innocence. Kinda like how there's no evidence to prove Bush's innocence. But Bush committed a crime according to you, but DSK did not. It's gross.

BTW, it's clear where you're going with this. But you know I would never support NATO troops occupying another Arab country, either.

But I likewise am not quick to malign Arabs as terrorists, either. Nor am I blind to align myself with authoritarian leftists just because they claim to be anti-imperialists.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eddie Haskell]

58. Thanks for serving, sabrina 1.

I was beginning to think I was on the wrong site.

[sabrina 1]

109. I'm thinking, maybe we are!

Thank you btw :-)

[sufrommich]

17. People who have consensual sex don't usually report it to

the police.

[sabrina 1]

20. Sometimes they do.

Since we know nothing about this case, I cannot say anything about it one way or the other.

But women DO report things like consensual sex to the police. I have a friend who ended up reporting her girlfriend to the prosecutor for doing just that. She had an affair with a prominent politician in WV. When he tried to end the affair, she informed my friend that she would 'make him regret dumping her and would accuse him of sexual assault, which she did. The case was going forward and my friend was afraid to get involved, but after discussing it with her husband, she decided to tell the prosecutor what the woman had told her.

The case was eventually dropped, but his reputation never really recovered so I supposed she got what she wanted in a way.

[seabeyond]

36. now we have the .... she is lying, move. damn. nt

[sabrina 1]

52. No, actually, we don't. The only person who knows anything

about this incident apparently is you since you are the only one here, who was at the scene of the alleged crime.

Me, I don't know anything other than what has been reported in the press because I wasn't there.

What we have are facts. Women are as capable as men of cheating, lying, committing crimes, and falsely accusing people of things they did not do. Do you deny that?

Using your logic you seem to be saying that women are always the poor, weak, little victims. They are not equal to men so they need constant protection. Never in the history of the world has a woman ever, ever, done anything wrong. They are ALWAYS victims! And men, just because they are men, are always guilty once someone accuses them of something. They are pigs, brutes, filthy rotten scoundrels and should always be presumed to be guilty!

I don't live in that kind of world. In the world I live in, people are people, some are good, some not so good and some are criminals, both women and men.

And as a woman, I am no victim and absolutely abhor the notion that women are victims. Frankly I hope this women was not raped. Because it is such a horrible crime.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

57. Seabeyond, I am not playing at all. I take this very seriously

and I know we have not always agreed on things, but have on others. But to me, it is very disturbing to see people convicted in the press before they have a trial. Especially since all too often in this country people are falsely accused, but after trial by press, they never retrieve fully their lives as they once were.

Read the cases where after spending years in jail, the Innocence Project was able to overturn convictions of rape and murder. In many of those cases these people were judged guilty even before their trials and that affects the trial itself often.

It is very serious issue for me as many lives are affected by these cases and I know if my father were accused of something so vile, and I read some of the comments I've seen already even before conviction, about my father, I would probably want to die.

We have a judicial system, most of the time it works. All I am saying is why the rage before knowing for sure the man is guilty? There was similar rage, and they received death threats etc. against the Duke players and people were equally certain they were guilty. Vile things were said about that cannot be taken back and will be accessible on the INternet years from now.

But it is definitely not a game to me.

[seabeyond]

64. how many times have you yelled criminal per the wikileaks that have not gone to court

and had their day in court.

you have posted to me often about the criminal beaiors of people, and yet... it is merely a cable wikileaks produced. innocent until proven guilty, UNLESS it meets agenda. then all bets are off.

[joshcryer]

77. seabeyond, I know this has really riled you up today, and I'm proud of you.

I know we have our disagreements from time to time but that doesn't change my respect for you. :hi:

It'll die down in a few days as some other new drama comes out that the Trotskyites can wave as their new Emmanual Goldstein, so don't let it stress you out!

[seabeyond]

83. hey

backatcha...

but the reality, where i sit, i am so glad this came down as it did. for once, i believe, because no one realized who this man was, he was handled like any other man and he might actually be punished. if all had realized who he was, i am afraid they would have treated him with kid glove and then

then

i would have really been riled, lol

thanks....

[sabrina 1]

78. Wrong, what I have called for in those instances is PROSECUTION.

War crimes have clearly been revealed, but NO ONE is being prosecuted, are they? Only the messengers. And this government has declared that they will NOT be prosecuted, nor will there even be investigations. Thousands of innocent people tortured, untold numbers of people killed. We don't know who is responsible, but we do know crimes have been committed. I have called for investigations, charges and trials because SOMEONE is guilty of those crimes. It is an entirely different situation.

[joshcryer]

79. I take it you're behind the ICCs latest prosecutions. You never say "alleged war crimes..."

...btw, you always say "war crimes." That's as bad as me calling DSK out for sexual assault (which I happily do because I stand by my opinions). ;)

[sabrina 1]

86. They are not alleged, they are a fact. There are bodies, there are

torture victims, there are videos showing rapes and sodomy and killings and torture. Videos so bad that the US has gone to court numerous times to keep the public from seeing them. But we are told, even by Republicans like Lindsey Graham when he had a moment of courage and told Dick Cheney to 'let us do our job here, we are talking about murder, rape, torture'. That was after viewing the videos and after Dick Cheney told them not to hold hearings. Of course Graham lost his courage and there have been no hearings, not even an investigation. But the crimes are not in question, only who is responsible.

In the Strauss-Khan case no evidence has been seen by anyone yet. A crime has been alleged, there is a denial from the accused. At this point that crime IS an alleged crime.

There is simply no comparison between the two. None! Nice try though.

[joshcryer]

88. You've seen the videos? It's all alleged, until it goes into the court of law. *Your* metric.

Until the tapes are shown by a prosecutor everything you say is alleged, you know!

Of course, I don't actually believe that because I'm intellectually honest, I believe the Bush junta should be tried and summarily convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and I believe they are guilty of said crimes.

Just like you do by your repeated claims of war crimes against them, without prefacing said "war crimes" with "alleged." You've been caught.

The hypocrisy is sweet.

[sabrina 1]

90. The claims are not mine, the claims are from members of Congress

Talk to them about it. And yes, we did evidence on video of some of those crimes. Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib?? But the rest of those videos have been suppressed by the courts because they are, even according to Donald Rumsfeld, so bad they 'probably should not viewed by the public'.

We also have confessions from George Bush and Dick Cheney of crimes. We have so much evidence, including as I said, which you ignored, bodies, torture victims and eye-witnesses, we have, from the Iraq/Afghanistan War Logs, written confessions of war crimes, AND video.

So stop with your nonsense. There is more evidence of these crimes than any prosecutor could wish for. There is certainly enough to start an investigation. There are named victims, with photos and scars from the torture they were subjected to. And confessions from public officials that there was torture.

The only thing we do not have, are prosecutions, charges even. And there will not be, not for a long time. But justice sometimes takes time. I guess you wouldn't have believed there were crimes against humanity in South America either. For decades it was known there crimes, there was no doubt, just as there is no doubt of the Iraq War Crimes. In S.America now finally, those criminals are being brought to justice, forty years later.

But there never was any doubt that there were crimes.

When you have murdered bodies, you have a crime. Stop being ridiculous.

[joshcryer]

92. Yes, but, see, by your own standard they're all innocent until proven guilty in court.

Yet here you are throwing out Bush's confessions (which I am certainly not disagreeing with you about). Do I not then have a similar right to throw out the known evidence in DSKs case? DSK is still innocent until proven guilty in court.

[sabrina 1]

101. Before they are proven guilty, they have to be found. Where are the

'suspects' in the War Crimes? Is anyone even looking for them? And if they are found, they will be entitled to a trial and to the presumption of innocence. I will not automatically assume they are guilty unless they confess, as Bush did.

Bush DID confesss, in fact he boasted about his crimes. But nothing happened, no one arrested him, no one even asked him to come in for questioning. Lucky guy. Anyone else who made such statements, would have been taken in immediately wouldn't they? In fact, what happened was the law was changed, retroactively so that what he confessed to became no longer a crime.

You HAVE no known evidence in this case. You have charges and allegations made by the woman, who is at this point considered to be the only witness. You are also ignoring the fact that the accused has denied the allegations. And that is why there are trials. If the accused were to confess, a deal would be made and there would not be a trial. But when there is any doubt, and there is once the accused denies the allegations, we have to wait for a trial.

[joshcryer]

102. Oh so now you just throw out the fifth amendment?

Really, your respect for the "constitution" and "law" is just appalling. Bush is automatically guilty because he confessed, jury be damned. :rofl:

I got you, it was only a matter of time before you made such an admission.

This isn't about justice, this is about hating on the US.

[sabrina 1]

105. You should take a break. You are getting more and more confused.

Bush confessed to a crime publicly. Constitutional lawyers were stunned by his confession.

What happens when someone confesses to a crime normally? Do you even know?

He was never brought in for questioning. He was never charged even though there was plenty of evidence of the crime he confessed to.

He could not be convicted without a trial. So what are you talking about?

I have to go, arguing with you is like arguing with a child. Except children improve as time goes by ~

[joshcryer]

106. It's simple, you say we're wrong for finding guilt with DSK with the evidence presented...

...and I don't say you're wrong for finding guilt with Bush with the evidence presented. You refuse to accept any evidence given, and put your head in the sand. What else can I do? I think it's good when people put their feet down somewhere and actually stand for something, you know, like charging Bush with war crimes. Likewise I believe DSK should be charged with sexual assault among others (which he is being charged with).

Lookie there, I'm consistent, you're not.

[sabrina 1]

110. When I see evidence, I will accept it.

I see one side of the story so far. I have heard nothing from the other side.

I see the charges made by one person and the denial by the other. I see a timeline, even the one that has been adjusted back after it was established the first one would have exonerated the accused, that leaves a very narrow window of time for what has been alleged. But, there will be more evidence forthcoming, the electronic card eg, used by the woman to get in should establish a more accurate timeline and his card.

New evidence says the police did not know he was at the airport until HE called after realizing he left his phone behind. So, he is running away knowing the police will be at the hotel, but he calls the hotel and tells them he is at the airport. That doesn't sound like someone who is trying to avoid the police.

As I said, I will wait, being that there is no equivalent of a body, until there is evidence from both sides.

[seabeyond]

82. so you decide it is war crimes. you gathered the information and you came to the conclusion they ar...

war crimes without the incidents and people going in a court and the courts deciding. what happened to... innocent before proven guilty.

that is exactly the point.

i dont see it entirely different.

i see what has been gathered, the way police has proceeded, the mans history and the fact the maid and police didn't realize who the man was...

i gathered the info and drew my conclusion.

[sabrina 1]

89. I did not decide there are war crimes.

There is no doubt about that. We have bodies, we have torture victims, witnesses.

There are videos, some released by Wikileaks in the Iraq/Afghanistan War Logs. And some leaked in 2004 by a US soldier.

Those videos, shown to members of Congress are reported by them to show 'rapes, sodomy even of children, torture AND murder'.

These revelations were made by such members of Congress as Lindsey Graham and even Donald Rumsfeld. But, what we do not have are even investigations. No charges, no 'suspects' being questioned. But we do have law suits, by torture victims, and we have named perpetrators in foreign courts.

We also have testimony of Iraqi lawyers, and from reporters like Sy Hersch and Robert Fisk.

There is NO doubt that there are war crimes, but where are the suspects?

But in this case, all we have so far is an alleged crime. No eyewitnesses, no video, just allegations followed by charges, so far.

To compare these two cases is like comparing night to day.

For someone who is so concerned about women being victimized, how do you feel about the Iraqi women who were raped by US soldiers? I see thread after thread on this case, but NOTHING ever, on the raped women of Abu Ghraib. Fyi, one of those women was named even before the video evidence of the crime was seen. Her name was Noor. I never forgot her. There have been interviews with some of the other women, but no threads on DU about those women.

After the proof that Noor was raped in the video, reporters returned to Iraq to try to find her, but she and her family were gone. No one cares about her. No one ever tried to get justice for her. Not a single member of Congress after viewing that crime on tape, ever demanded justice for her.

While she was in Abu Ghraib she managed to pass a note out begging 'my brothers' to destroy the prison because what was happening to the women there, she said, was so bad she did not to live. The prison was bombed shortly after that. The story was reported by Robert Fisk in late fall of 2003. Iraqi lawyers tried to get into the prison to see her, but were unable to do so. And after the videos were released in 2004 and it was confirmed that she was there and she was raped, what happened? After Sy Hersch reported that CHILDREN were being sodomized and it was verified on those videos? Nothing!!

So please, don't talk to me about crime. And do not tell me there is any doubt that war crimes were committed. I have followed these stories with horror and despair for six years. And still, NO justice for those victims and a promise by the current administration that there will be none.

[joshcryer]

93. Actually, by your own standard those war crimes cannot be considered so unless proven in court.

So you're still trapped arguing one side of the argument (indeed, your whole post interspread with guilt language for the Bush junta). It's amazing you cannot see how incoherent this thought process is.

Evidence for Bush's crimes = he should be prosecuted for those crimes.

Evidence for DSK's crime = he should have a fair trial for the alleged crimes in the meantime we can say whatever the fuck we want about the victim.

[sabrina 1]

96. You really do have problems understanding simple facts.

Here, I'll try to make it easy for you.

A body is found, shot to death. Was there a crime?

Someone claims they were abused. Was there a crime?

[joshcryer]

98. Easy.

A body is found, shot to death. Was it a suicide? Was it self-defense? Was it murder? If it was suicide or self-defense you can't argue a "crime was committed."

Someone claims they were abused. Were they or not? If they were a crime was committed.

Again, double standard, hypocrisy, I'm glad seabeyond caught it.

[sabrina 1]

104. Yes, those questions are asked. And once it is established

that a person cannot shoot themselves ten times in the back of the head with their hands tied behind their back, as has been the case in many of the bodies found in Iraq, AFTER the US sent in Negroponte, the death squad guy from the Reagan era, it is safe to say that they have been murdered.

So, after the body is examined and it is established it was murder, was there a crime?

And re the abuse claim:

At last: 'If they were, a crime was committed'. Exactly IF they were.

Lol, poor you, and as for seabeyond, she caught nothing, she tried but not failed, and that's fine. I like her anyhow, we often disagree, so it's no big deal, because we often agree also.

I see you are not a supporter of the victims of the war in Iraq. Yet you claim to care about the Arab Spring.

In Iraq over the past months, the Iraqi people have joined the Arab Spring. They have held unarmed, peaceful protests against the US installed puppet government.

Their demands include, STOPPING THE TORTURE of their fellow citizens. Stopping the killing of their civilians.

They are asking the occupiers to leave their country. You know, the ones you are supporting 'helping' the Libyan people. :eyes:

They are demanding that the Mercenaries, the CIA and all foreign agents LEAVE their soil.

For peacefully making these, and other demands, on the first day of demonstrations, 29 people were shot to death, hundreds more were rounded up and thrown in jail.

Protests were banned. The US when asked about their puppet government doing this to the Iraqi people in this 'democracy' they claimed they created, the only response came from the US Embassy which was 'well, this is not something he does often'.

And yes, the Iraqi people want justice for their murdered and tortured citizens. They especially want prosecutions of the mercenaries set loose on their country killing and abusing their citizens.

So while you may think there were no crimes, those whose loved ones were shot, bombed, beaten to death and tortured to death, KNOW there were crimes because they buried the bodies, and they know they were murderd, and they also know that no one has been held accountable.

[joshcryer]

107. This OP is about DSK. See post #106. Hypocrisy abounds.

Looks like a half dozen posts got deleted due to the slanders you levied at me. I have no reason to go into a circular argument.

[sabrina 1]

108. I have been far too tolerant of your personal attacks, I am glad

someone alerted on them. I should have. From now on, I will not respond to your insults.

[seabeyond]

113. so you have concluded these numbers of crimes and they hurt and disgust you. i hear ya.

i sit right there with you.

how do i feel about our military men raping anyone. our women or the iraqi women? really? tell me, how do you think i feel. we have had threads and generally they sink, beause what more is going to be said. it is hedious. they should all sit their asses in prisom

oh look, see, i did it again. i did not leave anything to presumption of innocence. fry their ass

there is no difference in this. the way the police handled it alone allows me a certain trust they are pretty confident that this woman was assaulted. the police do nt, generally, overreact when it comes to issue of women, like assault and rape. they do not go overboard, generally they are underwhelming. they have video. they have dna. his past history which i have accessable to me that courts may not allow. and we have the victims words. i CHOOSE to believe the victim. i listened to her, found no flaw in what she was saying, and i CHOOSE to believe her. as you chose to believe info that bushco are criminal. (which i believe also, and am hugely disappointed obama didnt prosecute)

that information can be interpreted different, but you draw a conclusion. as do i

no more. no less.

and thank you for expressing that though we often disagree, we often agree, and we can hande that. so impressed with people that are capable of that.

[joshcryer]

100. We know more than "nothing" about this case.

We know he put his penis in her mouth at least twice, for instance, and that she pointed him out in a police lineup.

[nenagh]

18. FYI... I haven't seen this mentioned yet on DU..

Eliot Spitzer, last night, interviewed a woman who had worked with the same NY police unit that worked on this case.

She mentioned that members of the team are also trained in supporting, emotionally I assume, the 'alleged' victims of 'assault'.

Which gives me some peace of mind ..

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Which is rare for law enforcement.

The SVU is not fiction

[nenagh]

43. I would think it would be rare... sadly..

great to see you back here at DU.. :)

[seabeyond]

2. working her ass off cleaning other peoples toilets, walks into his room, falls on her knees and begs

to be able to suck his dick

what a dirty filthy pig of a man he is and anyone wants to tell me wait until trial..... fuck that shit. the man has admitted to it. now the only defense is she wanted it. she asked for it

fucking dirty rotten pig

[sabrina 1]

6. Wow!

[Eddie Haskell]

60. Wow is right!!

This thread reminds me of a scene from the Holy Grail. He's a witch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

[meow mix]

27. +rec and she asked to be beaten of course...

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

38. i cannot believe the number of apologists. and they are always the same.

[Eddie Haskell]

61. Then you say he's guilty as charged?

No need for a trial ... let's sentence him now.

[seabeyond]

62. i am not sittin on a jury... am i. i bet you dont accuse cheney/ bush of breaking the law either

do you?

[joshcryer]

85. Nope, and if she or I were sitting in the jury selection process they'd catch us quick.

Helps that I'm not an anonymous poster who just shit stirs. They'd probably google my name and DSK and know not even to waste their time.

[Prometheus Bound]

55. Agree

[customerserviceguy]

73. You've got this right

Comparing this full-of-himself assclown to the Duke lacrosse players is nonsense. Yes, they might have been children of privilege, but they were nothing compared to some jet-setting IMF muckety-muck who, it turns out, has a history of this kind of despicable behavior.

I do want him to have his day in court, but hopefully, the courage this maid had that others did not will encourage all those before to come forth and show the world what an asshole he is. I'd call him a pig, but that's unfair to swine.

[inna]

97. dude. look up "presumption of innocence" one of these days.

[seabeyond]

112. gathered my information. came to my conclusion. as you do the same

when you declare vushco criminals. no more or less. i am not sittin on the jury. thankfully, we have a system where we allow presumption of innoncence, but that is for court, not public opinion.

you too can jump in with the rest of the hypocritical comments saying but bush being guilty is not the same.

i say it is the same.

[msanthrope]

11. Wow--when I posted this from the New York Post, I was castigated.....

So, his defense is--"I didn't do it. And if I did do it, she wanted it...."

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. Speculation by unknown persons who officially speak for nobody

It is the exact same story, to say it isn't a story.

[JI7]

12. so why make up some shit about how he wasn't there and had an aliibi

i knew the alibi thing was lies when it first came out since they would have checked it out when it was first reported and investigated . and if he really did have that alibi we wouldn't be where we are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Again common in these cases

But once the cops find holes things tend to move in certain, ahem less pleasant, directions for the accused. Why it is best to shut up if you are ever arrested.

[DCBob]

19. only common if the person is trying to hide something.

imo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Well that goes without saying

:-)

Perhaps, having spent some years around cops, I got used to seeing how people tried to get off...

[sabrina 1]

32. You mean 'if' the cops find holes. And we do not know whether

he spoke to the cops or not. At least I do not.

[joshcryer]

42. No way he didn't lawyer up immediately.

Big whigs aren't plebs, they know to lawyer up and never say shit to cops.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

28. Show me a source that says that doesn't remain THEIR story

Somehow persons unknown speculating about a possible defence strategy has morphed into a confession?

[jberryhill]

39. Their initial timeline had the event at 1 pm, when he was at lunch

I'm giving up on reading skills at DU. Neither DKS nor an identified attorney has floated a defense.

[Ghost Dog]

48. Reading skills and basic logic often appear to be lacking, yes.

[WinkyDink]

21. He can claim anything he wants.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. He isn't claiming this, an anonymous source is speculating it could be a defense

There is no story here, if the lawyers actually said that in court yesterday that would have been the news yesterday, this is an interpretation of persons unknown that has fallen into an echo chamber.

[WinkyDink]

35. I think "can" accounts for speculation.

[Taverner]

23. Sounds like hedidit!

No idea why (1) he wouldn't just go out and get a hooker or (2) his parents named him Dominique

[LisaL]

25. Looks like there goes the story that he wasn't even in the hotel,

that he checked out, that he had lunch with his daughter.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

30. Show me a statement in which his council are claiming consensual sex.

There are no new developments, this "story" is a statement from yesterday out of context and a source who may or may not exist speculating about a possible defence.

[LisaL]

34. That's why I said "looks like." Assuming what published in NYT is correct.

[lanlady]

29. so he had consensual sex with the maid while lunching with his daughter?

This morning, his lawyers were saying he was at lunch with his daughter when the alleged incident occurred...

The police must have produced DNA evidence up the yazoo for them to change the story so dramatically.

[sabrina 1]

37. Did you read the article? This is speculation. It is from an

anonymous source simply speculating on what he might do. I have seen nothing from his attorneys other than their original statements.

It's fascinating to read this thread. Even when someone attempts to point out that this story is not referring to his actual case as stated by his attorneys, it doesn't stop the moving train ~ :eyes:

[inna]

103. a bit *morbidly* fascinating, if anything. apparently, some people have conducted kangaroo courts

in their own heads and have concluded that "the socialist french dude" was guilty, no matter what.

[sabrina 1]

111. Yes, seems that way ~ I think it was the 'socialist' part got him

convicted though :-)

[frazzled]

31. Here's how I see it

Neither the New York City police nor the Criminal Court are going to apprehend a known foreign dignitary of such high stature, refuse bail, handcuff him and send him off to Riker's Island, unless there is some very strong reason to believe he will be indicted and convicted. It's serious. This is not something they would dream of doing unless they are pretty damned sure a crime has been committed. It could cause an international incident. The State Department might intervene.

It doesn't look good for Mr. Strauss-Kahn. He must be a very sick man. And I feel nothing but empathy for this poor woman.

I'll await the indictment and potential trial. But if he's not guilty, I'd say the New York criminal justice system is in a heap o' trouble. Personally, I don't think they'd take that risk.

[bettyellen]

40. exactly, they would have not gone through this dramatic arrest unless she had been very credible

they are very experienced at this kind of thing. They would not go this far if the story didn;t gel or if they had a prior relationship that would cast doubt on his story.

[Distant Observer]

68. The facts of thousands of innocents charged and jailed all the time GOES AGAINST YOU

[bettyellen]

76. so gosh I guess you think no one should be arrested them? WTF - what foolishness are you suggesting

here? You have no clue how the NYPD operates in a high profile case like this. None. This ain;t Wasilla, where you have the major calling out the troopers to harass her brother in law. Grow up. Some people should be rrrested, and this would appear to be such a case.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

47. you are right on and it is such an obvious, why i am amazed at some of the posts. nt

[Ghost Dog]

50. True enough.

Let due process throw more light on this matter.

[blondeatlast]

72. That's what I've been thinking. Hell, even a cursory glance at an occasional

Law & Order episode demonstrates that they don't take the arrest of bigwigs lightly; they KNOW the consequences of the blowback.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. What a weird story.

And straight from a $4,000/night hotel room to Riker's Island... Maaan. Talk about a cold splash of water to the face.

[steve2470]

59. Maid's world turned upside down over Dominique Strauss-Kahn's alleged sex assault

http://www.smh.com.au/world/maids-world-turned-upside-down-over-dominique-strausskahns-alleged-sex-assault-20110518-1es5s.html


A sign on the door next to the apartment allegedly belonging to the maid accusing International Monetary Fund leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. Photo: AFP

The New York hotel maid allegedly sexually assaulted by the world's top banker is under "extraordinary" trauma and has had her "world turned upside down", her lawyer says.

The 32-year-old maid, who has not been named for legal reasons, accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, of attacking her in a $US3000-a-night room at the Sofitel Hotel in Manhattan on Saturday.

Her lawyer, Jeff Shapiro, told US television network CNN the trauma the 32-year-old woman experienced was "extraordinary".

"This is a person who is a hardworking person who is a single mother and supporting a 15-year-old young woman, and they live together, and she was grateful to have a job, for which she could provide food and shelter for the two of them," Mr Shapiro told CNN.

[steve2470]

66. OK this is horrible, the French press is publishing her NAME.....

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43069013/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

<snip>

Her identity has been withheld in U.S. media publications, in accordance with standard journalistic practice. But media outlets in France, where Strauss-Kahn is from, began reporting her name Tuesday.

Among the outlets to identify the woman by name are Paris Match, radio station RMC, Swiss newspaper Tribune de Genève and Slate.fr, according to Slate.com. (Slate.fr is a French website that is editorially independent from Slate, although Slate does own 15 percent of it.)

<snip>

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. But they are outraged of the perp walk

that is quite ilegal there, but legal here...

Let the spinning and sliming begin

[steve2470]

69. I feel very bad for that woman. Her life will be a mess short term, perhaps forever.

I hope she gets as much support as possible. I'm glad she has a lawyer to speak for her rights.

[blondeatlast]

74. DSK probably has more peace in Riker's Island than the victim and her neighbors

and friends do at home.

[Distant Observer]

63. IMF Chief May Claim Insanity. IT IS ALL SPECULATION, but obviously sells

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Actually, while you pose it as a joke,

it's been done in the past.

[Nye Bevan]

71. YES. Every hotel maid fantasizes about oral sex with fat old men!

It might just work!

[Lil Missy]

87. First he denied they had sex. Now that they have DNA, he admits to sex, but consentual.

So he lied, at least once.

Sounds like a repeat of the Kobe rape. (First he denied any sex, then when DNA produced, he said it was consentual)

I get the picture. He's a PIG! What a way to ruin a career. Power went to his head.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

91. He has not admited to sex, he has not changed his story

Somehow in our magical modern media persons unknown, who may or may not exist saying that claiming sex was consensual is a potential defense to a rape accusation - which it is has been projected upon the accused and his lawyers.

I don't know what happened - but I am not going to hang this guy based on nonsensical and contradictory media reports. I was involved in a celebrity bankruptcy where after explaining the bankruptcy code to a reporter he asked me if an adversarial proceeding meant the debtor was being accused of fraud and could he quote me on that. I said absolutely not, he asked me to explain the process in general and he made that leap himself. The reporter then ran the story attributing the line I refused to be quoted on to an anonymous expert. A total fabrication - but the reporter had his scoop while everyone else was running a list of all the celebrities shit they owed money on.