I neglected to title the poem I posted above. In English it should be called 'In Switzerland Today'. In what I hope is accurately translated French I have referred to it in tweets as 'En Suisse du Jour'.

Can someone (Ludwig?) help me out with the German equivalent? And/or correct my French if that is neccessary? An Italian and Romansche translation too would help, if anybody can.

(We're such a flaming monolingual lot! Who from choice would choose an island spot
to live? Hey, what? Yes, that's for you Yvon, in case you think its not.)

Further to the discussion that preceeds the poem, I post this link to illustrate just how, in the case of extradition being effected, little chance of the securing of a fair and unprejudiced hearing there would now be for Brian Howes. The link is to 'The Arizona Narcotic Officer - Winter 2007', which bills itself as the official publication of the Arizona Narcotic Officers Association. It is a 2.5Mb pdf document named 'red-dragon pdf'.

Operation Red Dragon was a US drug enforcement operation upon which the US extradition request for Brian Howes and his now wife Kerry was based. The article, at page 8 of the .pdf, describes in its second paragraph how the 'evidence' against the Howes' was first obtained. It alleges that Brian Howes had purchased a hand gun on the internet. What it neglects to mention is that that was a charge of which Howes was subsequently acquitted in the UK. It seems it was a replica incapable of being modified to fire ammunition. But read it for yourself: http://bit.ly/3FxZFO

If that does not immediately start to smell of a 'fit-up', I don't know what does. It was the basis for the search warrants that 'found' the computer-based 'evidence' that the Howes had been knowingly supplying methamphetamine precursor chemicals to US customers. The article, published before trial on a matter that is, or should be, sub-judice, is extremely prejudicial of the Howes' prospects of receiving any fair trial.

One may well ask what the Howes' extradition case in the UK has to do with the proposed extradition from Switzerland of Polanski.

It is claimed that the Howes' extradition is one of, if not the most, complex extradition cases in UK history. One very good reason for that is that supply of the chemicals, principally iodine and red phosphorus, that are regarded as precursor chemicals for crystal meth and therefore controlled substances in the US, is not an offence under UK law. Brian and Kerry Howes live in, and operated from, the UK.

By opportunistically re-activating the pursuit of the person branded as being a fugitive from US justice, Polanski, in circumstances of almost universal repugnance at what it is that has been imputed to, and is to an extent believable of, him, the US authorities perhaps intend to create, internationally, a climate of greater readiness to extradite whenever they ask. They may wish to have equated in the public mind any request for extradition as being an indication of certain guilt.

Just look at the expressed intention, in the face of all the indications of misconduct of procedings, and laxity of custodial oversight, at the time of the alleged offences, of the LA District Attorney shown here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2232546/?from=rss

The US authorities clearly wish to restart the clock on the entire Polanski matter, but this time from the start point of presumed, indeed 'established', guilt. That, in the face of all the seeming sloppiness in the administration of justice in this case, right up to the leaving of a valid passport in the hands of a person released from custody! Its no longer about justice, its about pride.

Plea bargaining itself is on trial, and the world is watching.

Plea bargaining has been one of the principal tools used for bullying the Howes' in that extradition case. "We'll drop the charges against Kerry if ....."

http://extradition.org.uk/2008/02/17/emails-that-show-the-us-extraditions-true-unfairness-from-brian-howes/

The US desperately needed a lay down misere with which to drive its demands in all other future extradition cases, and the Polanski case is it.

Breaking news: it is reported that the US has as of Thursday 22 October, now formally requested the extradition from Switzerland of Roman Polanski. That report is here:

http://bit.ly/1Mcsik

Its significant content is (if the report is correct) that the MAXIMUM sentence Polanski faces upon return to the US is two years upon only the charge to which he pled in the original plea bargain deal, that of unlawful sexual intercourse, to use the words of the news report.

This, if it is a sincere statement by the US government, is a huge backdown from the overwheening and bullying position put by LA District Attorney Stephen L. Cooley in this interview reported in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2232546/?from=rss

Note how Cooley is reported in that interview by Emily Bazelon as being unable to be 'shushed' by his deputy. These are the interviewer's words:

"I interviewed the district attorney last week in his office,
on another topic, and at the end of the hour, I brought up Polanski.
Cooley's deputy tried to shush him. He shrugged her off
and gave me an essential insight into the tough position
his office is likely to take if it succeeds
in bringing Polanski to the United States."

Essentially the position of the LA District Attorney's office was that of restarting the clock on the whole gamut of charges originally laid 32 years ago. The interviewer's words:

"The DA's office has another weapon against Polanski,
members of Cooley's staff made clear when I was in the office.
That's the other more serious charges against Polanski.
Because he skipped town (yes, that's the recurring theme here),
these other charges were never dismissed, as Rittenband had indicated,
pre flight, that they would be. They include rape, child molestation,
oral copulation, sodomy, and providing drugs to a minor."

If the breaking news is true, the contrasts bring to mind the situation that once existed between General Douglass MacArthur and President Truman at the time of the Korean War.

Should we all be expecting a female DA soon for LA?

Here I will point out some points in the extradition treaty with Sweden and the USA.

Article 3(1) states generally that extradition shall not be
granted for political offenses or if the request appears to be politically
motivated.

Article 5 mandates the denial of extradition if prosecution is
barred by the lapse of time under the law of the Requesting State.

The Article 5 point may be mute as proceedings had already started.

Article 16 is the rule of speciality for this treaty. It provides, subject
to specific exceptions, that a person extradited under the Treaty
may not be detained, tried, or punished for an offense other than
that for which extradition has been granted, unless a waiver of the
rule is granted by the authorities of the Requested State or unless
the person extradited fails to leave the Requesting State within 45
days of being free to do so or, having left the Requesting State, returnsto it.

Provision is made for preventing any lapse of time resulting
from the application of the rule of specialty, for modifying
charges that were the basis for extradition, and for obtaining consent
to prosecution by the individual concerned.

US law sates that the US prosecutor must in all cases when they know where a person (Fugitive) is, start proceeding against that person in order to facilitate the right to a speedy trial.

The treaty also has a clause for "passage of time" that could allow discharge. If 32 years does not invoke the passage of time argument then it might as well of been left out the treaty.

Polanski will also face charges of fleeing the US which is up to 5 years imprisonment. The judge does not now have to accept the plea bargain and Polanski could be facing all the original charges from 32 years ago

The USA consistently breach their international extradition treaties and drop indictments and supersede them with others that the person was not being extradited for.

"Roman Polanski faces 2 years in prison if returned to L.A., Swiss officials say"
http://sentencing.typepad.com

In a flurry of legal paper in the Roman Polanski extradition case on Friday, one thing became clear:

The Obama administration doesn’t intend to adopt Mr. Polanski’s considerable public relations problem as its own. Late Thursday, according to Swiss authorities, the U.S. government delivered its formal request that Mr. Polanski be returned to the United States to face sentencing on a 32-year-old charge of having sex with a minor.

That means the Polanski team failed to persuade the Justice Department to terminate the extradition­ — a step that would almost certainly have stirred a heavy backlash from those who want to see Mr. Polanski face the courts.

Mr. Polanski’s lawyers, including the Washington power player Reid Weingarten, a close friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, had been arguing that the extradition request should not be sent. They contended that their client, who already served 42 days in a California prison, was never going to serve more than an 48 additional days, hence was not a proper candidate for extradition under the treaty with Switzerland.

The Polanski representatives had presented their case both in a meeting with a justice department official, and in a memorandum — but to no avail. The extradition request was filed, and the possible outcomes are now whittled down.

On Friday, both Mr. Polanski’s lawyers and the Los Angeles County district attorney Steve Cooley gave the appeals court another round of briefs on the matter. The justices may rule at any time. A decision in Mr. Polanski’s favor could clear the way for possible dismissal of his case, without his presence. Or the justices could simply stand aside and let the extradition battle proceed.

http://brianhowes.typepad.com/uk-us-unfair-extradition/2009/10/the-polanski-case-taking-stock-after-the-extradition-request.html

It has been reported in recent days that Roman Polanski has been removed from the Swiss prison where he has been being held pending the resolution of the US request for his extradition , to a hospital facility. The reports were not specific as to the nature of the medical condition requiring treatment.

It would not be difficult to foresee a person of his age being diagnosed with any one of a number of medical conditions, any one of which could make it extremely prejudicial to his life for him to be flown anywhere.

It would also not be difficult to foresee the most appropriate treatment for any such medical condition being best, maybe even only, obtainable in France.

It would be interesting to know how the Swiss government would see its responsibilities in relation to both Polanski, and diplomatic relations with its neighbour, France, in such circumstances, with Polanski being a French citizen and all.

Transport by land to France in a manner not prejudicial to Polanski's health, indeed life, could relatively easily be achieved. The Swiss may well see their situation with respect to the extradition request from the US as being akin to that of extraditing someone to a jurisdiction where the death penalty applies to the offence for which extradition may be sought. I am not certain as to whether Swiss law forbids extradition in such circumstances, but it would not surprise me if such was the case.

The Swiss may well in such new circumstances see themselves under obligation to convey Roman Polanski to France for treatment, other extradition treaty obligations notwithstanding.