I wrote this in response to an article [http://socialistworker.org/2011/07/12/different-law-for-imf-presidents] which I found objectionable for a number of reasons. If SW responds, I will reproduce it here.
With all due respect, it seems SW has really been snookered by this DSK affair. This article is rather tendentious, and that's something that a paper with an agenda like yours has to be vigilant about. Credibility is everything.
"But Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. seems like he wants to make the whole case go away. After initially agreeing to $1 million bail and house arrest, Vance arranged for Strauss-Kahn to be released without any bail. According to press accounts, prosecutors and Strauss-Kahn's lawyers have met about a deal in which the case would be dropped."
Are the authors really suggesting that the prosecutor is letting this case go cuz DSK is rich and/or important? Particularly after they smeared this guy relentlessly? This is a profound humiliation for the prosecutor. It's no wonder he wants the case to go away. If he could secure a conviction in this case it would be great for his career. Obviously, he can't.
"The housekeeper stands by her charges."
She has to, doesn't she? What do you expect, she's going to come forward and say she lied? Whether she's telling the truth or, as now seems likely, she was part of a conspiracy to oust DSK from the IMF, either way SHE'S GOING TO SAY SHE'S TELLING THE TRUTH. SO THAT SHE DOES IS OF ZERO PROBATIVE VALUE.
"But now her credibility has been called into question--by prosecutors and the media alike. The housekeeper is alleged to have had a conversation with someone in an immigration detention center about the possible financial benefits of accusing a wealthy man. Other charges against her include claims that she lied on her political asylum application and that she had a bank account with irregular cash deposits--though such things are hardly unknown among the immigrant working poor.
"Even if everything is true--and the housekeeper, through her lawyer, has strenuously denied the allegations that she was lying or seeking money--there is no reason not to bring Strauss-Kahn to trial. There is abundant evidence to substantiate the accusations made by the housekeeper."
Indeed her credibility is called into question, and for many more reasons than the authors list above. According to reports, she has admitted to being "involved" with a drug runners, and for a poor immigrant housekeeper she sure knows a number of Western intelligence people.
Strenuously? Come on!
Abundant evidence? What would that be pray tell? There is evidence of sex, not necessarily rape! There were a few initial reports of "vaginal bruising" but that's consistent with either interpretation. The absence of other contusions/lacerations doesn't prove the sex was consensual, but it sure does raise doubts.
Multiple "ex" police work at the hotel? That's profoundly suspicious. Many people, myself included, believe DSK was set up, this info melds quite neatly with this theory.
She's upset? Again, please, a little contemplation is required here. She was either raped or made a false accusation of rape, being distressed or appearing to be is consistent with either theory. And hence is uninstructive.
"BUT ALL this has disappeared in a media circus where the accuser has had every detail of her life thrown open to public scrutiny. As usual, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post stooped to the lowest point with a front-page headline attacking the woman as a "hooker"--claiming she had traded sex for money."
The fact that Murdoch's paper acted reprehensibly is meaningless, it always does.
"The French press, not to be outdone, published the woman's name and photos. Paris Match, a French society magazine, reported that Strauss-Kahn's lawyers regarded the accuser as "not very alluring" ("tres peu seduisante"), before going on to relate details of the woman's supposed physique--as if this were evidence of Strauss-Kahn's innocence.
Sure as hell isn't evidence of his guilt either.
"Meanwhile, a number of women have come forward in the wake of Strauss-Kahn's arrest to say that they were sexually harassed by him. French writer Tristane Banon, the daughter of a Socialist Party officeholder, has accused Strauss-Kahn of attempting to rape her in 2002."
Where were they before? Again, the DSK-innocent contingent is arguing that he was set up. The simultaneous flood of accusers brought forth by the media would be consonant with that position. It might be true that DSK is a serial rapist, or that he was a victim of a set-up, or, quite possibly, both. The avalanche of alleged victims works either way. Although that these charges had never been made before is disconcerting....
"The media frenzy surrounding the Strauss-Kahn case sends a disturbing, if familiar, message to women: If you are going to come forward to report a sexual assault, you better be sure there's nothing in your past or current behavior that could be used against you. If you are not a "perfect victim," don't bother seeking justice"
Superb point, and well made, but irrelevant vis-a-vis DSK's guilt or innocence.
'The dynamics of race and class are also crystal clear in this case--as people from New York's African American community who rallied last week to demand that Strauss-Kahn be brought to trial pointed out. "This is a very powerful white man--this is a very poor African woman," said state Sen. Bill Perkins. "For us to ignore race would not really be looking at reality."'
Whoever devised this plot against DSK knew well that the above would be said. That this incident plays directly to the above sentiments is part of the calculation.
"Even Strauss-Kahn is entitled to be presumed innocent until a jury finds him guilty--this is a constitutional protection that ordinary working people need far more than wealthy international bankers. But this doesn't entitle him to avoid going on trial for rape.
Even???????????????? What the hell does that mean? Bankers deserve justice less than ordinary people? There is not a living soul on this planet that despises capitalism more than I do, NOBODY. And I would nationalize every bank tomorrow, but shame on the authors and SW for printing that. It is just filthy!
"Strauss-Kahn has the best attorneys money can buy. William Taylor III is a senior partner in the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder, which is ranked as the top white-collar crime firm in Washington, D.C., according to Chambers USA, which researches and ranks U.S. firms. Benjamin Brafman is one of New York City's most prominent--and no doubt most expensive--defense attorneys."
Doesn't mean he's guilty.
"None of this proves that Strauss-Kahn is a rapist. But it does illustrate the very different way that the law works for the wealthy and influential--compared to ordinary working people."
Amen, thanks for acknowledging the truth, both of them. And if this had been the tone of everything that came before I wouldn't be writing this. But it sure wasn't! You have made the case that DSK was guilty, and this little disclaimer at the end doesn't mitigate that. It just makes the piece all the more foul.
"Strauss-Kahn is a leader of the Socialist Party in France. If the charges are dropped, he may return home and run against right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy for the country's presidency, as he was expected to before his arrest."
That was a joke? Right? A joke?
I believe that DSK was the victim of a black-op. They wanted him out at the IMF and didn't have the votes to do it, so they raped him. We had an endless stream of media reports vilifying him, then he was gone from the Fund, and it all stopped. He almost disappeared from the headlines overnight, and it now appears that charges will be dropped.
Indeed there is a different set of laws for IMF presidents.
The people who concoct these black-ops are clever, cleverer, obviously, than the people who wrote this article.