31–40 of 561 posts
So is this a criminal president receiving justice, or a politically motivated prosecution?
Even if indeed guilty, things like jailing him "provisionally" despite his appeal are discretionary decisions of the court so also open to all interpretations despite the very black and white comments here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll have to read more into this, but it says he just "conspired" to do it, whatever that means. The solitary confinement part is quite harsh, I've never understood how that is supposed to rehabilitate someone. In France there's early release, parole, etc. so real time he spends behind bars might be as low as two years. Edit: The WP article is actually a very interesting read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_fin…
> The solitary confinement part is quite harsh, I've never understood how that is supposed to rehabilitate someone. In this case it's for his own wellbeing, because it's probably difficult for a former president to go along well with the rest of the prison population. I also read a statement that it would help prevent other inmates taking and publicly sharing pictures of him (since some inmates do manage to have phon…
Particularly for him who was very keen to be seen as tough on crime to get votes from the far right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> His case is going to appeal but the court decided to still jail him now "provisionally" (exécution provisoire), which sounds like a political play. No. That’s how it’s done, and he can thank himself because he introduced the process himself. It’s utterly disgusting to hear him bloviating about criminals in 2007 and now whining because he’s on the receiving end. Shameless. The law is the law. He’s been convicted eno…
[flagged]
In the absence of any element pointing to the partiality of the judges, one cannot assume this was politically motivated
So he used money from Libya to get elected and then later he bombed them?
I'll have to read more into this, but it says he just "conspired" to do it, whatever that means. The solitary confinement part is quite harsh, I've never understood how that is supposed to rehabilitate someone. In France there's early release, parole, etc. so real time he spends behind bars might be as low as two years. Edit: The WP article is actually a very interesting read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_fin…
I would be wary of going through the appeal court. The judges motivation make it quite clear they were _extremely_ lenient and chose to ignore how contradictory a lot of statement were, and the other cases linked to this. If he is convicted for "subordination de temoin" in the related case, it is likely that his sentence would be set to a longer time.
The fact that Sarkozy started the Lybian war was also outside of the scope of the trial, sadly.
So he used money from Libya to get elected and then later he bombed them?
I'll have to read more into this, but it says he just "conspired" to do it, whatever that means. The solitary confinement part is quite harsh, I've never understood how that is supposed to rehabilitate someone. In France there's early release, parole, etc. so real time he spends behind bars might be as low as two years. Edit: The WP article is actually a very interesting read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_fin…
It's about making sure crimes have consequences, however highly placed you and your friends are.
The French understand how to run a society.
Huh, this made me find this wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_and_gov...
Norman Saunders: Saunders was alleged by the US Drug Enforcement Administration to have accepted $30,000 from undercover agents to ensure safe passage of drugs by permitting safe stopover refuelling of drug flights from Colombia to the United States. Video evidence showed Saunders accepting $20,000 from an agent. Saunders was convicted in July 1985 of conspiracy, though he was acquitted of the charge of conspiring to import drugs into the United States. He was sentenced to eight years in prison and fined $50,000.
Then he went on to get re-elected. And then had an airport named in his honour. Nuts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> His case is going to appeal but the court decided to still jail him now "provisionally" (exécution provisoire), which sounds like a political play. No. That’s how it’s done, and he can thank himself because he introduced the process himself. It’s utterly disgusting to hear him bloviating about criminals in 2007 and now whining because he’s on the receiving end. Shameless. The law is the law. He’s been convicted eno…
[flagged]
I personally agree with you that shouldn’t be the case, but given Sarkozy made his entire political career about being tough on crime and harsher mandatory sentencing, I’d be appalled if he received any sort of special treatment.
So is this a criminal president receiving justice, or a politically motivated prosecution?
So is this a criminal president receiving justice, or a politically motivated prosecution?
Difficult to say. Even if indeed guilty, things like jailing him "provisionally" despite his appeal are discretionary decisions of the court so also open to all interpretations despite the very black and white comments here...
It really is not. Nobody is benefitting from this politically, and the facts are difficult to ignore.
> jailing him "provisionally" despite his appeal are discretionary decisions of the court so also open to all interpretations depiste the very black and white comments her
It’s just how it’s done in cases like this, and he can thank himself for having normalised it.
So is this a criminal president receiving justice, or a politically motivated prosecution?
He received money from Libya for his presidential campaign [0], he's just a criminal ex-president... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_financing_in_the_2007_F...
First, this is mostly about things that happened before his election.
The tribunal ruled he did not personally benefit, and he did not directly solicit money to finance his campaign either.
However, some of his closest allies (who would become his ministers later) did the latter. The tribunal could not find any direct proof he was involved but ruled there were enough "converging indications" that he knew and did nothing to stop it.