A few random thoughts about the sudden arrest of Roman Polanski by Swiss authorities, and not by way of defending his statutory rape of a thirteen-year-old girl.

First, the international warrant on which Polanski was arrested was issued in 2005. The man has been on the lam since 1977. So why now? Why was he arrested while trying to enter Switzerland now? It’s not as if he’s been in hiding; he’s been traveling all over Europe for more than three decades.

The one thing that has changed recently is the relationship between Switzerland and the United States. After years of pressure, the Swiss recently caved to US demands to release the names associated with an unspecified number of its off-the-grid bank accounts. I say “unspecified” because not only is the number of names to be released not specified, nothing about the deal is. It’s been kept completely under wraps.

Then, a month later, the Swiss execute a stale old warrant for a man who’s been walking around with the same name, the same face all over Europe for years. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe this is an act of contrition by Switzerland in an attempt to cozy up to Washington after the bank-accounts scrap. Or maybe it’s even a part of the secret Swiss-US deal — some clause in there that mandates Switzerland strictly enforce US-issued warrants. The question that I’m asking is: To what extent is Roman Polanski now a political prisoner?

Secondly, I can’t help but wonder how Polanski’s film career would have gone had he not indulged his basest instincts that night in 1977. For three decades he’s been in exile from Hollywood. Major names like Harrison Ford and Johnny Depp have had to go to him, not the other way around.

“Exile is a natural movement, something that, in its own way, helps to abolish fate,” says a character in Bolano’s 2666 — by which he means that being in exile effectively robs you of your ability to get anything meaningful done. Yet, France is Polanski’s first home, and he has somehow thrived on the other side of the pond, making gems like Frantic and Death and the Maiden and The Pianist.

So imagine how his career would have gone if he wasn’t cut off from Hollywood. What would have followed Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown? How many seminal cultural masterpieces would he have directed in the decades since? I wonder if Polanski asks himself that question.

Lastly, his life story is remarkable. Born to Polish-Jewish parents, he lost his mother to the Holocaust; he lost his pregnant wife to Charles Manson’s murderous rampage in 1969. Then the underage-sex charges and three decades of exile; now this.

Europe seems to be rallying around Polanski; in law-and-order America, there’s little appetite for defending a kiddie-diddler. That debate will play out on both sides of the pond in the coming weeks and months. Polanski may or may not be a political prisoner, but his fight against extradition to the United States will almost certainly be political.

Matt Osborne has declared a new principle: Gibson’s Law, named in honor of William Gibson, who declared:

It is becoming unprecedentedly difficult for anyone, anyone at all, to keep a secret. In the age of the leak and the blog, of evidence extraction and link discovery, truths will either out or be outed, later if not sooner. This is something I would bring to the attention of every diplomat, politician and corporate leader: the future, eventually, will find you out. The future, wielding unimaginable tools of transparency, will have its way with you. In the end, you will be seen to have done that which you did.

The following is a scene from Fahrenheit 451. No, wait, I think it might be Brave New World, or Minority Report or Blade Runner.

No, actually it’s Pittsburgh last week.

My favorite part in this video is the disembodied, robotic voice coming from the sky: “To those who remain: By order of the City of Pittsburgh chief of police, I hereby declare this to be an unlawful assembly. I order all those assembled to immediately disperse. You must leave the immediate vicinity. If you do not disperse, you may be arrested and/or subject to other police action.”

And, as if it were the punch line to Robocop’s humorless joke, those words are immediately met with a volley of tear gas.

These people were doing nothing wrong. They weren’t being violent; they were assembling. Whatever happened to the First Amendment and the right to free assembly? Out the window, apparently, along with all the other principles on which democracy was built.

More than anything, this and similar crackdowns on protesters in London and elsewhere show how afraid Western governments have become in recent years of the people they govern.

And, given the level of incompetence in Western governments today … the outrageous handover of trillions of dollars to corrupt bankers … the militarization of the economy … the cowering of the population through fear-mongering propaganda … the shouting down of reasonable debate in favor hyperbolic lies … they may have good reason to be afraid.

Enjoy the show.

Laws have become so convoluted, and technological change so rapid and unpredictable, that most of us unknowingly commit an average of three felonies per day, says civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate:

By design, the law is built up over time by court decisions, statutes and regulations. Sometimes even criminal laws are left vague, to be defined case by case. Technology exacerbates the problem of laws so open and vague that they are hard to abide by, to the point that we have all become potential criminals.

Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book “Three Felonies a Day,” referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.

Someone posted to Reddit this picture taken in Prague’s Torture Museum. Looks vaguely familiar…

Only one tiny little problem with this Peace Day celebration in Kabul. One of the doves released was, well, not in the best of health.

After dissing Michael Ignatieff for months for being a) a neo-con dressed in liberal clothing, and b) spineless, I find myself having to re-evaluate the man.

Today, we found out that — thank God — Canadians won’t be going to the polls to vote in yet another federal election (at least for now), as Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now being propped up by the “socialists” and “separatists” he so thoroughly despises — and it’s all thanks to a brilliant bit of political brinkmanship by Ignatieff, the politician I love to hate.

Ignatieff’s popular support dropped five points overnight when he announced at the end of last month that the Liberal Party would no longer support the Conservative minority government. It looked, prima facie, like a terrible strategic mistake on Ignatieff’s part. Canadians didn’t want to vote in an election that would have been the fifth federal vote in nine years. But it wasn’t a mistake, and here’s why.

Ignatieff had been backed into a corner by the strategies of Harper and the opposition parties. Harper’s tactic of making every piece of legislation a confidence vote was smart thinking, as it forced the opposition to ante up every time there was a vote: Support government legislation, or face another election. Meanwhile, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP had taken to announcing their intention to vote against government legislation the moment it was announced, thus forcing Ignatieff’s Liberals to be the ones to take the fall and support the government.

Over time, Ignatieff came to look weak and spineless. He was seen as talking tough and then hypocritically rolling over for the Conservatives. So when he announced that his party would no longer vote for any Conservative initiative, the aim was to break that cycle.

And it worked. From here on in, the fact that the Liberals will always vote against Conservative legislation will be a part of the political background in Ottawa, a given. And whenever there is legislation before the House, all eyes will be on the NDP and the Bloc, to see if they support it or force another election. Ignatieff has successfully turned the tables, maneuvered himself out of the corner, and is now free to criticize the government all he wants without looking like a hypocrite. It’s the Bloc’s and the NDP’s turn to look weak and spineless.

Essentially, Ignatieff played a huge game of chicken with the other opposition parties, and won. It was a big risk, but it worked.

Was the risk worth it? Yes. From Ignatieff’s position, even if he had lost the game of chicken and another election were called, he would have been in a decent position. Ignatieff understood that, as time went on and he was seen supporting the Conservatives more and more, his credibility as an opposition leader would fade. From his perspective, better to have an election now than later. Not to mention that polls show only the Liberals with higher support today than during last year’s election. The most likely outcome of an election today would be a reduced Conservative minority government, a reduced NDP and Bloc presence in Parliament, and a robust new Liberal caucus. That’s why he was willing to play chicken. As much as he didn’t want an election, he knew everyone else wanted one less.

But the outcome Ignatieff really wanted is what happened today — the Conservative government surviving thanks to the support of the “socialists” and “separatists.” Harper’s ads have been slamming Ignatieff for contemplating a possible coalition government with the NDP and Bloc last year. Now it’s Harper himself who is doing business with the socialists and separatists. The Conservatives’ strongest talking point has been severely damaged.

And Ignatieff has bought himself much-needed time to rebuild his reputation as a credible alternative to Harper. Freed from his corner, he will now go on the attack against everything the Conservatives do. If and when an election comes, the NDP and the Bloc will be blamed, and Ignatieff will emerge looking strong and decisive.

Well done, Mr. Ignatieff. Well done.