Jacqueline Marcus: 9/11 Cover-up, Torture, Wiretapping, BUT Roman Polanski Is More Important to the U.S. Justice Department

This isn't a case of certain connected people get tried while certain others get to slide. Justice isn't supposed to only be color blind - it is also supposed to be politicially blind and economically blind. Anyone who commits or is suspected of a crime is to receive a day in court, not a get out of jail free card. It doesn't matter if you penetrate a 13-year-old girl or an oil-producing nation, rape is rape. Try them all, and let justice be done.

I don't get what Jacqueline Marcus doesn't get.  Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl.  Further due to his high profile this woman has to go thrugh this time-after-time-after-time.  She continues to be abused.  I'm ashamed of my progressive brothers and sisters who just don't seem to get the fact that Polanski committed a terrible crime.  He IS a criminal.  I know Whoopi Goldberg was quoted stating 'it wasn't rape rape.'  Back up Whoopie since when has anally penetrating a young girl not classified as rape? 

from Marcus does seem to complement the unsustainable message she presents.

One similarity between finally arresting Roman Polanski and the myriad crimes of the Bush administration is that Polanski's arrest shows that we're not letting "bygones be bygones." Polanski was accused of a bad crime and then fled before he faced the judicial music. Now he has finally been nabbed. The only question could be is why he was permitted to hide in plain sight all these years, living in Switzerland where he was finally arrested.

But it is hardly the case that Polanski has been arrested instead of Bush, Cheney and all the rest. That's still open business and we should attend to it ASAP.

Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA

If they nail this guy for what he did - just may be there is hope that we nail Bush and cohorts 32 years from now. Welcome to the 21st century and to Terrrorist Country #2. What has happened to my pride?

for their evident, egregious crimes is the lack of precedent. The only even remotely related incident would be the Nixon resignation. And they pardoned the fucker, without his ever having even to acknopwledge his crimes. And compared to the Busheviks, or even the Raygunsels, Nixon was a piker.

So now, when there is again evidence of malfeasance, there is no previous law to which to appeal for the authority to pursue justice against the Bush/Cheney regime.

There is another reason why "thePrez" is hesitant to go after the Busheviks, and that is that if he does, he has absolutely guaranteed he himslef will be hauled up on charges--no matter how petty, as the Clenis proved--and subjected to the same treatment, no matter how spurious the charges. The "press" will never again be anything but the megaphone for CorpoRat interests, and can be confidently predicted to jump on any GOPuke-sponsored lynching of Obama when his term is done.

And finally, there is a third reason there will be no prosecutions of the Busheviks, no matter their crimes. All any accused Bushevik has to do is to claim they were "protecting the Nation," and a quarter to a third of ANY jury anywhere would act to nullify the charges. A subset of this jury issue is the fact that 46% OF THE ELECTORATE VOTED AGAINST OBAMA. So there is a close to 50% chance that half the jurors will be political supporters of the war Party and predisposed to acquit out of either loyalty to the Busheviks or in SPITE of Obama and the Dims who'd have the temeriuty to try a white man for treason.

So, I fearlessly predict, again, for perhaps the 100th time, there will be NO prosecutions of major figures of the Bushevik regime, and no successful prosecutions of any minor figures above the rank of MSgt/GS7...And no "contractors" either...There will be no what is charmingly called "accountability." They had that moment in 2004, as the Chimp smilingly reminded us...

It's too late now. It should have happened in '06, when the Dims took back the House. It should have started then. But that gutless, wide-eyed, smarmy clothes-horse Pelosi took it "off the table." At that moment, as anyone with the cognitive acuity of a banana slug knew immediately, there were going to be NO consequences...

It doesn't really make sense why Holder's Justice Department is pursuing Polanski for a 32 year old crime, especially when considering there are far bigger fish to catch and fry. The department certainly chose a politically correct target for some global muscle flexing. I haven't heard any explanation as to why extradition was sought after 32 years, other than a female prosecutor's detailed and near hysterical account of the act on Chris Mathews. I'm glad I'm not the only one with some cognitive dissonance on the lack of an explanation, which is certainly owed given the trouble and tax payer dollars to prosecute over three decades later.  And yes, it's incredibly ironic that heavy handed tactics are used on Polanski while Holder is like pretzel dough towards torture, using the twisted logic of Gonzales, Bybee et al as the legal parameters for his investigation on the grunts far below who administered it.