Chess politics - Fischer Gets Initial OK for Citizenship

Author

Fischer Gets Initial OK for Citizenship

Liam Too

2005-03-18, 5:50 pm

By VALUR GUNNARSSON
Associated Press Writer

March 18, 2005, 12:47 PM EST

REYKJAVIK, Iceland -- American chess genius Bobby Fischer, detained in
Japan and awaiting deportation to the United States, cleared another
hurdle Friday in his bid for Icelandic citizenship after a
parliamentary committee granted initial approval.

The motion to grant Fischer citizenship will go before Iceland's
63-member parliament for final approval on Monday, said Gudrun
Oegmundsdottir, a member the General Committee.

Fischer, 62, has been detained in Japan awaiting deportation to the
United States, where he is wanted for violating economic sanctions
against the former Yugoslavia by playing a highly publicized chess
match there in 1992.

The Japanese government had no immediate official reaction. But one of
Fischer's supporters in Iceland claimed Japan had confirmed it would
allow him to go to Iceland if citizenship was granted.

"This is great news," said Fischer supporter Saemundur Palsson. "They
had been waiting on confirmation from Japan that Fischer would be let
go if he had Icelandic citizenship. This arrived to me this morning."

Mizuho Fukushima, leader of Japan's opposition Social Democratic Party,
also has said senior immigration officials told her that Fischer would
be allowed to go to Iceland if he gets citizenship.

There is widespread support for Fischer in Iceland, where he played the
Soviet Union's Boris Spassky in a world championship match in 1972.

Iceland's parliament voted last month against granting Fischer
citizenship, offering him a special foreigners' passport and residence
permit instead. But Japanese officials declined to release him.

Since being taken into custody in July for allegedly trying to leave
Japan on a revoked U.S. passport, Fischer has repeatedly denounced the
U.S. deportation order as politically motivated, demanded refugee
status, renounced his U.S. citizenship and said he wants to become a
German national instead.

He also has applied to marry Mikyoko Watai, head of the Japan Chess
Association.

"We are currently organizing a fund-raising for the party that will go
out to meet him," Fischer supporter Einar Einarsson said.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0,6441432.story

banana

2005-03-19, 3:49 am

In article <1111169350.154604.47080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Liam
Too <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> writes

quote:

>By VALUR GUNNARSSON
>Associated Press Writer
>
>March 18, 2005, 12:47 PM EST
>
>
>REYKJAVIK, Iceland -- American chess genius Bobby Fischer, detained in
>Japan and awaiting deportation to the United States, cleared another
>hurdle Friday in his bid for Icelandic citizenship after a
>parliamentary committee granted initial approval.
>
>The motion to grant Fischer citizenship will go before Iceland's
>63-member parliament for final approval on Monday, said Gudrun
>Oegmundsdottir, a member the General Committee.
>
>Fischer, 62, has been detained in Japan awaiting deportation to the
>United States, where he is wanted for violating economic sanctions
>against the former Yugoslavia by playing a highly publicized chess
>match there in 1992.
>
>The Japanese government had no immediate official reaction. But one of
>Fischer's supporters in Iceland claimed Japan had confirmed it would
>allow him to go to Iceland if citizenship was granted.

If no Japanese official has made an on-the-record statement to this
effect, this suggests that Japanese authorities may be waiting for
further US orders.

It is possible that US orders may involve pulling some trick or other
before the passport arrives. Provoke a fight, maybe - who knows? I hope
the Icelandic ambassador waits outside the prison until the result of
the Reykjavik vote, and then knocks on the door asking for Icelandic
citizen Bobby Fischer to be released immediately into his custody.

quote:

>"This is great news," said Fischer supporter Saemundur Palsson. "They
>had been waiting on confirmation from Japan that Fischer would be let
>go if he had Icelandic citizenship. This arrived to me this morning."

If anyone has got this in written form - or an audiotape or whatever -
they should PUBLISH it, with the NAME of the official involved.

quote:

>Mizuho Fukushima, leader of Japan's opposition Social Democratic Party,
>also has said senior immigration officials told her that Fischer would
>be allowed to go to Iceland if he gets citizenship.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)

Tyrone Slothrop

2005-03-19, 5:50 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> My best guess is that he will denounce the 7.6 Jews living in

Iceland,

quote:

> wear out his welcome before the next steam vent whooshes in that
> country, and be on his way to the Philippines or anywhere that won't
> extradite him.

The US and the Philippines have had an extradition treaty since
November 22, 1996. See:
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/us...-000-notes.html

In all likelihood, Fischer will eventually be indicted in the United
States on tax-related charges, which are, in general, subject to
extradiction (especially if the US can portray Fischer's crime as a tax
fraud vs. simple tax evasion). Fischer would do better in any of the 75
countries that at this time are not party to any extradition treaty to
which the US is also party.

Countries which do not have extradition treaties but do maintain
diplomatic relations with the US are Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bophuthatswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's
Republic of China), Ciskei, The Comors, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia,
Jordan, Korea (South), Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali,
Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Maldova, Mongolia,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Principe and San
Tome, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan,
Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zaire, and
Zimbabwe.

Countries which have neither diplomatic relations nor extradition
treaties with the US are Andorra, Angola, Bantu Homelands, Bhutan,
Bosnia, Cambodia, Ciskei, Cuba, Iran, Korea (North), Libya, Maldives,
Serbia, Somalia, Taiwan, Transkei, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.

If Fischer would like to be careful, he will not even wait for his
welcome to wear out, but would arrive in Iceland, thank his hosts
profusely, attend a few parties, make his apologies, and then zip off
to one of these other destinations. After the US starts an extradition
proceeding with Iceland, Fischer would again have reduced freedom of
movement. Taiwan might not be a bad choice.

banana

2005-03-19, 5:50 pm

In article <1111237525.578331.82760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Tyrone Slothrop <lttyroneslothrop@hotmail.com> writes

quote:

>parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>Iceland,
>
>The US and the Philippines have had an extradition treaty since
>November 22, 1996. See:
>http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/us...=Germany&url=/u
>scode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003181----000-notes.html
>
>In all likelihood, Fischer will eventually be indicted in the United
>States on tax-related charges, which are, in general, subject to
>extradiction (especially if the US can portray Fischer's crime as a tax
>fraud vs. simple tax evasion). Fischer would do better in any of the 75
>countries that at this time are not party to any extradition treaty to
>which the US is also party.
>
>Countries which do not have extradition treaties but do maintain
>diplomatic relations with the US are Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia,
>Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bophuthatswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
>Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's
>Republic of China), Ciskei, The Comors, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti,
>Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia,
>Jordan, Korea (South), Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali,
>Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Maldova, Mongolia,
>Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Principe and San
>Tome, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan,
>Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zaire, and
>Zimbabwe.
>
>Countries which have neither diplomatic relations nor extradition
>treaties with the US are Andorra, Angola, Bantu Homelands, Bhutan,
>Bosnia, Cambodia, Ciskei, Cuba, Iran, Korea (North), Libya, Maldives,
>Serbia, Somalia, Taiwan, Transkei, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.

Cuba might not be a bad idea given Fischer's having played chess there
including with Fidel Castro.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)

FiFiela

2005-03-19, 5:50 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> As GM Larry Evans pointed out, we all know Bobby will bite the hand
> that frees him. That is a given. Heck, Bobby knows it.
>
> Even now suspicion about Icelandic motives are percolating in his
> cranium. WHY did they save him? WHAT are they up to? HOW MUCH do they
> want?
>
> In fact, by the time he touches down in Reykjavik, he will be half
> ready to denounce Olafsson and the entire Icelandic people. He may
> barely constrain himself.
>
> My best guess is that he will denounce the 7.6 Jews living in

Iceland,

quote:

> wear out his welcome before the next steam vent whooshes in that
> country, and be on his way to the Philippines or anywhere that won't
> extradite him.
>
> I cheer Bobby escaping the anti-constitutional hyperstate. I do not
> cheer Bobby.

banana

2005-03-19, 5:50 pm

In article <1111259096.469783.277260@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
FiFiela <fifiela@sbcglobal.net> writes

quote:

><<<The point of extradition treaties isn't supposed to be to let the US
>government claim
>jurisdiction over all of its citizens wherever they are in the entire
>world.>>>
>
>The current US hyperstate claims jurisdiction over everyone anywhere
>all-the-time. Perhaps he'll kidnapped, flown on a CIA black airplane
>to the Middle East and tortured. Has happened to US & citizens.

Indeed, and to non-US citizens - including at least one president of a
foreign country.

What is this 'tax evasion' BTW, that US authorities are talking about?
Fischer has no duty whatsoever to pay US tax on the money he won in
Yugoslavia - and never had any duty even to tell the US authorities
about it. Since no other country in the world recognises US jurisdiction
over Yugoslavia, no other country 'should' extradite him either for
violation of the 'order', or for 'evading tax' on his winnings - or, for
that matter, for 'laundering' his winnings by paying his US legal bills.
What a complete heap of crap the US authorities' position is on all of
this - faithfully reported by various media outlets as though as it was
something other than the plain and simple persecution of, and attempt to
kidnap, someone who has 'dissed' the US authorities.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)

David Kane

2005-03-20, 3:49 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xu0n72sqy.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> That's a complicated subject and actually we probably have a real
> authority about it in the newsgroup (StanB). But yes, the US does
> claim to be able to tax foreign earnings, with a credit for taxes
> already paid to the foreign government. I don't know if the
> Yugoslavian government took any taxes out of Fischer's earnings.
> Also, I haven't heard that any of the earnings were ever repatriated
> to the US, which I think figures into the tax calculation. Finally,
> Fischer himself has not even been back in the US since the 1992 match.
> Locking up Fischer for 9 months and then coming up with nothing better
> than a 13-year-old tax infraction is pretty bogus. At this point they
> should just give up and dismiss everything.

I fault the US for not charging Fischer with tax evasion as soon as
he was detained by Japan, especially if it could be covered by
extradition. It was entirely predictable that there would
be some country somewhere willing to offer Fischer a bogus
passport. As much as I would love to see Japan blow off this
piece of Icelandic fraud, it is asking too much of Japan.

In the bigger picture, though, perfect justice is a long shot when
someone is out of the country. Given that, a few months in a
Japanese jail is better than nothing.

Tyrone Slothrop

2005-03-20, 5:52 pm

David Kane wrote:

quote:

> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7xu0n72sqy.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
about?[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
authorities[vbcol=seagreen]
repatriated[vbcol=seagreen]
Finally,[vbcol=seagreen]
match.[vbcol=seagreen]
better[vbcol=seagreen]
they[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I fault the US for not charging Fischer with tax evasion as soon as
> he was detained by Japan, especially if it could be covered by
> extradition.

The Grand jury is still working on it. Justice takes time. Otherwise
the US would be a banana republic. Although some might think that
would be better.

quote:

> It was entirely predictable that there would
> be some country somewhere willing to offer Fischer a bogus
> passport.

In what way is an Icelandic passport 'bogus'? Or is any non-US
passport to be considered bogus?

quote:

> As much as I would love to see Japan blow off this
> piece of Icelandic fraud, it is asking too much of Japan.

In what what have the Icelander's committed 'fraud'? Do you think they
have broken the laws of the US? Should the entire Althingi be indicted
by a US grand jury and extradited to the US?

quote:

>
> In the bigger picture, though, perfect justice is a long shot when
> someone is out of the country. Given that, a few months in a
> Japanese jail is better than nothing.

Fischer has not spent even a day in a Japanese jail.

David Kane

2005-03-20, 5:52 pm

"Tyrone Slothrop" <lttyroneslothrop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111331042.963979.255820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> David Kane wrote:
> about?
> in
> authorities
> repatriated
> Finally,
> match.
> better
> they
>
> The Grand jury is still working on it. Justice takes time. Otherwise
> the US would be a banana republic. Although some might think that
> would be better.

My point was that the possibility of a sham passport created
an urgency. If you are saying that they have acted as fast as
possible, then I retract my statement.

quote:

>
> In what way is an Icelandic passport 'bogus'? Or is any non-US
> passport to be considered bogus?

Its issuance was politically motivated to someone with
no ties to the country.

quote:

>
> In what what have the Icelander's committed 'fraud'?

By offering him "citizenship" whose sole purpose is to
undermine the ability of the US to bring him to justice.
In an ideal world, Japan would toss it in the trash can
and take its chances versus the Icelandic navy.

quote:

>Do you think they
> have broken the laws of the US?
>Should the entire Althingi be indicted
> by a US grand jury and extradited to the US?

No. But its unprincipled misdeeds should
be publicized. Out of curiosity, does anyone
know if Iceland defied UN sanctions against
the genocidal Serbian regime? If not, one
wonders why they would object to the US
efforts to comply with them.

quote:

>
> Fischer has not spent even a day in a Japanese jail.
>

Call it what you want, but Fischer and his apologists
are complaining about something. I am only pointing
out that a little justice is better than none.

Goran Tomic

2005-03-20, 5:52 pm

"Rusty" <Rusty@nym.alias.net>

quote:

> That's great. He'll have a place to live after he gets out of prison.
>
> --
> Rusty

Yes, it could be done very soon, probably till the end of the next week.
That's reality. After his liberation, he could choose the place for living.
There are several countries in which he would have nicely life. One of them
is mine. Do you know that the first match Spassky Fischer, should have been
played in Belgrade?

Regards,
Goran Tomic
Goran Tomic

David Kane

2005-03-21, 3:50 am

"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1111378133.079588.312850@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> As far as I know, Bobby Fischer has a legal passport that was
> issued by the government of Iceland, which is a sovereign state.
> Perhaps someday Iceland will be formally annexed into the American
> Empire; but, until then, would it be too much to expect a proud
> American such as David Kane to pretend, at least, to respect
> most of the laws of a democratic country such as Iceland?

Of course Iceland is a sovereign state, but it is not acting
responsibly. It has issued a sham passport for the sole purpose
of allowing a famous and wealthy fugitive to avoid legitimate
prosecution in another sovereign state. The wrongness
of that action is not contingent upon the US being perfect.

David Ames

2005-03-21, 5:52 pm

Paul Rubin wrote:

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> Legitimate according to who?

Since you think you needed to ask -- legitimate according to the laws
of a sovereign state. Of course the laws may be incorrect, but that is
a different matter.

David Ames

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-21, 5:52 pm

"Paul Rubin" wrote:

quote:

> And if Iran is sovereign but the law about Rushdie isn't legitimate,
> what's so special about the Bush41 order they're hassling Fischer
> about, that makes it automatically legitimate unlike the laws of other
> sovereign states like Iran? You might think it's legitimate, but
> obviously not everybody does.

In fact EO 12810 is not even legitimate according to American law!

This case has made it clear (to me) that a lot of Americans suffer from
blind faith in their leaders, a fatal disease resulting in loss of democracy
and terminally leading to dictatorship.

When Bush issues such an EO that is like the word of God and can not be
disputed.

These humble and obedient citizens do not even investigate if that EO is
legal. They do not read the laws of their own country and think for
themselves.

HansJ

David Kane

2005-03-21, 5:52 pm

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x4qf59r5o.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Ames" <worldrecord@juno.com> writes:
>
> Are all the laws of every sovereign state legitimate?

The EO which Fischer violated was basically the US
version of UN economic sanctions against a genocidal
regime. I don't know the details of how other countries
implement such things, but using an EO doesn't strike
me as extraordinary for the US system.

Members of an Icelandic parliament doing
something with international consequences, unlike
rgcp contributors, have a responsibility to be
informed. Their recklessness should be
exposed.

Tyrone Slothrop

2005-03-21, 5:52 pm

Hans J=F8rgen Lassen wrote:

quote:

> "Paul Rubin" wrote:
>
legitimate,[vbcol=seagreen]
other[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> In fact EO 12810 is not even legitimate according to American law!
>
> This case has made it clear (to me) that a lot of Americans suffer

from

quote:

> blind faith in their leaders, a fatal disease resulting in loss of

democracy

quote:

> and terminally leading to dictatorship.
>
> When Bush issues such an EO that is like the word of God and can not

quote:

> disputed.
>
> These humble and obedient citizens do not even investigate if that EO

quote:

> legal. They do not read the laws of their own country and think for
> themselves.
>
> HansJ

Actually, in America, when a law is made, if its 'processes of making'
follows the procedures which are created for it, then it is considered
legal until it is challenged and overturned. EO 12810 has never been
overturned by a proper court. Therefore, it may be legal or illegal,
but that is not really relevant. It is enforceable now. That is the
only thing that matters.

We have another principle in American justice. That is that the only
ones who can challenge the legality of a law are those with 'standing'
- who are affected by that law. This is why the opinion of someone in
Denmark on EO 12810 is worth less than nothing, in much the same way
that certain members of RGCP seem to view the USCF opinions of non-USCF
member Larry Parr.

In the case of EO 12810, the one with standing to challenge its
legality seems to be one Robert J. Fischer. And the ultimate authority
to determine legality of an EO is the US Supreme Court. However, the
Supreme Court determines legality on the basis of an internal logic
applied to the US Constitution, and those decisions are not necessarily
what a person sitting in Denmark would agree with. A particular
example which has never been vacated to this day is the Supreme Court's
December 1944 confirmation of EO 9066 - Roosevelt's order to intern US
citizens of Japanese ancestry.

So you see, it doesn't matter what you think about American laws.
Until and unless EO 12810 is overturned by the US Supreme Court, it can
be enforced whenever the authorities wish. And they obviously so wish
in the case of Fischer.

David Kane

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x8y4gplcs.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> Since nobody hassled Spassky, it looks like those sanctions didn't
> apply to chess matches.

That is an absurd statement.

quote:

>
> I can think of few things less moral than going to a place where money
> is being spent on guns and murder, and getting them to instead spend
> the money on a chess match.

A more cogent argument would be that Spassky and Fischer were
being paid to provide legitimacy for a regime at a time when the world
was rightly condemning its conduct.

quote:

>
> Thankfully the day is not here yet when a French citizen like Spassky
> has to care whether playing a chess match in Yugoslavia is against US law.

Misstating the law doesn't help your case. Chess matches
weren't against the law, but it was illegal for US citizens to
do business there. The grounds for outrage just don't exist.

Sam Sloan

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:55:57 -0800, "David Kane"
<davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:

quote:

>Misstating the law doesn't help your case. Chess matches
>weren't against the law, but it was illegal for US citizens to
>do business there. The grounds for outrage just don't exist.

Wrong. It was not against the law for US citizens to do business
there.

It may have been against the executive order for a US Citizen to do
business with the Government of Yugoslavia. However, Bobby did not do
that. The sponsor of the chess match was an opponent of the government
of Yugoslavia.

Sam Sloan

Paul Rubin

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

>
> That is an absurd statement.

Spassky did not break any laws whose jurisdiction he was under.

quote:

> A more cogent argument would be that Spassky and Fischer were
> being paid to provide legitimacy for a regime at a time when the world
> was rightly condemning its conduct.

The match sponsors might have thought they were paying for legitimacy,
but they didn't receive any from making the payment. The result was a
pretty good chess match, some nice paydays for the chessplayers, and
some sleazy sponsors ending up with less cash for weapons and no more
legitimacy than they had before. Sounds like a good deal all around,
and the US should have been happy about it. It's the next best thing
to stealing their underwear.

quote:

>
> Misstating the law doesn't help your case. Chess matches
> weren't against the law, but it was illegal for US citizens to
> do business there. The grounds for outrage just don't exist.

What I mean is that Spassky is not a US citizen and isn't in US
jurisdiction and he could care less about some crazy US laws might say.

David Kane

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:423f8eb8.29922281@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:55:57 -0800, "David Kane"
> <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Wrong. It was not against the law for US citizens to do business
> there.
>
> It may have been against the executive order for a US Citizen to do
> business with the Government of Yugoslavia. However, Bobby did not do
> that. The sponsor of the chess match was an opponent of the government
> of Yugoslavia.

This is incorrect. There were a number of executive orders, but the
one Fischer violated was designed to align US policy with
UN sanctions, and was not restricted to government dealings.

Even professional Fischer apologist, Hans, acknowledges
that the order was violated. Hence the "illegal-executive-
order" and "only-extraditable-crimes-are-real-crimes" theories.

Paul Rubin

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

> This is incorrect. There were a number of executive orders, but the
> one Fischer violated was designed to align US policy with
> UN sanctions, and was not restricted to government dealings.

Nonsense, the US order went beyond the UN sanctions or else Spassky
would have been busted.

David Kane

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xacows4l6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> Nonsense, the US order went beyond the UN sanctions or else Spassky
> would have been busted.

So you can determine the speed limit on a road by
watching the speed of traffic and concluding that
the speed limit is that of the fastest car not receiving
a ticket??? (Anyone traveling slower than that who does
get a ticket is being falsely charged, of course)

Look at the texts yourself if you don't believe me.

BTW, Russia has been notorious in its support for
Serbia (and along with China abstained from the
vote on UN sanctions) so they surely would not
have prosecuted Spassky. I'm not sure of what
authority France may have had, but, in any case,
it isn't evidence in any way shape or form
concerning the appropriateness of US action.

Sam Sloan

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:10:40 -0800, "David Kane"
<davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:

quote:

>
>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>news:423f8eb8.29922281@ca.news.verio.net...
>
>
>This is incorrect. There were a number of executive orders, but the
>one Fischer violated was designed to align US policy with
>UN sanctions, and was not restricted to government dealings.
>
>Even professional Fischer apologist, Hans, acknowledges
>that the order was violated. Hence the "illegal-executive-
>order" and "only-extraditable-crimes-are-real-crimes" theories.

Kindly quote the Executive Order that you feel that Fischer violated.

Sam Sloan

Paul Rubin

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

> BTW, Russia has been notorious in its support for Serbia (and along
> with China abstained from the vote on UN sanctions) so they surely
> would not have prosecuted Spassky. I'm not sure of what authority
> France may have had, but, in any case, it isn't evidence in any way
> shape or form concerning the appropriateness of US action.

What does Russia have to do with anything? Spassky is French.

And France is a sovereign country so of course it has authority to
pass stupid laws and enforce them, just like the US. The observable
fact is that it chose not to do so. Between the US and France, I see
not the slightest reason to believe that the US's action was the more
sensible of the two.

nospam

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xoedcl2n6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> What does Russia have to do with anything? Spassky is French.
>
> And France is a sovereign country so of course it has authority to
> pass stupid laws and enforce them, just like the US. The observable
> fact is that it chose not to do so. Between the US and France, I see
> not the slightest reason to believe that the US's action was the more
> sensible of the two.

From Politico 101 of American politics:
3 branches:
executive - to implement, execute law
legislative - make law
judicial - interpete if law is lawful and constitutional or not

EO not legislated by congress, not law by definition. And whether
constitutional or not is up to supreme court to determine. Very unlikely
however, because cabinet members traded arms with Iran and Yugoslavia, worse
than playing harmless chess for a living after 20 years in poverty.

David Kane

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xoedcl2n6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

>
> And France is a sovereign country so of course it has authority to
> pass stupid laws and enforce them, just like the US. The observable
> fact is that it chose not to do so. Between the US and France, I see
> not the slightest reason to believe that the US's action was the more
> sensible of the two.

I am not going to debate the merits of sanctions
or research France's action. (My guess is that
both Iceland and France at least on paper
complied with the UN sanctions, but I have
no idea how that is in fact done in those countries.)

The point is that the US actions by Bush Sr.(I've never
been close to voting for any Bush BTW) were perfectly
reasonable. He was implementing UN sanctions in a
routine, lawful, and, as far as I recall, non-controversial
way. Fischer willingly chose to violate them. It really is
as simple as that.

It is also not in the US interest to let citizens flaunt
the law just because they are famous, wealthy
or happen to be good at something. So although
I won't be surprised or particularly upset if he
evades justice, US actions are perfectly
reasonable in this matter.

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> Even professional Fischer apologist, Hans, acknowledges
> that the order was violated. Hence the "illegal-executive-
> order" and "only-extraditable-crimes-are-real-crimes" theories.

I have yet to see your arguments against my "illegal-executive-order"
theory. Would you please demonstrate that EO 12810 fulfills the requirements
of American law?
Or do you just believe it is legal because your masters say so?
HansJ

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> The point is that the US actions by Bush Sr.(I've never
> been close to voting for any Bush BTW) were perfectly
> reasonable. He was implementing UN sanctions in a
> routine, lawful, and, as far as I recall, non-controversial
> way.

You recall wrongly. He issued an executive order. Try to read the law and
see what is necessary for an EO to be legally issued. A grave danger to the
US from some foreign source has to exist which was not the case.

The routine and lawful way would have been to let Congress decide whether to
pass a law on the embargo or not.

You dont seem to know the laws of you own country, and what is worse, you
dont even try to do anything about it! Read, man! The US Code is readily
available on the Internet.

HansJ

David Kane

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:423fb063$0$73789$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...

quote:

> "David Kane" wrote:
>
>
> I have yet to see your arguments against my "illegal-executive-order"
> theory. Would you please demonstrate that EO 12810 fulfills the

requirements

quote:

> of American law?

The burden of proof is on you. Are you saying that all EOs
are illegal or just this one? And why?

Whether the sanctions were put in place by EO, or by another
route having the sanction of chessplaying Danes, doesn't change
the fact that they were perfectly reasonable. The method
used was routine, uncontroversial and unchallenged. That's legal
enough for me.

Out of curiosity, could you tell us how Denmark implemented
UN sanctions in this case (or similar cases)? What procedures
are used and what language resulted?

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> The burden of proof is on you. Are you saying that all EOs
> are illegal or just this one? And why?

A number of EO's have been illegal. And why this particular one was illegal
I have demonstrated a dozen times, and no one so far have even tried to
refute my reasoning.

Here it goes:

The law, your law, not mine, says, and I quote: "an unusual and
extraordinary threat" (50 USC, Sec. 1701) must exist for an EO of this kind
to be issued.

Such a threat to the US did not exist in that situation. The Serbs did in no
way constitute a threat to the US.

So the conditions required by law were not fulfilled.

Any objections?

HansJ

Mike Murray

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:25:19 +0100, "Hans Jørgen Lassen"
<hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote:

quote:

>The law, your law, not mine, says, and I quote: "an unusual and
>extraordinary threat" (50 USC, Sec. 1701) must exist for an EO of this kind
>to be issued.

quote:

>Such a threat to the US did not exist in that situation. The Serbs did in no
>way constitute a threat to the US.

quote:

>So the conditions required by law were not fulfilled.

quote:

>Any objections?

You express plausible opinion as to why that EO might be invalidated
upon appeal to the courts. But, until that appeal has taken place and
been resolved, or the courts enjoin the feds from enforcing it, the EO
has the force of law, even if it appears intuitively obvious to many
people that it won't hold up.

This won't happen until Fischer, or someone else, has been charged and
fights it.

At least, that's how I understand U.S. law.

quote:

>HansJ
>

David Kane

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:423fba52$0$73737$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...

quote:

> "David Kane" wrote:
>
>
> A number of EO's have been illegal. And why this particular one was

illegal

quote:

> I have demonstrated a dozen times, and no one so far have even tried to
> refute my reasoning.
>
> Here it goes:
>
> The law, your law, not mine, says, and I quote: "an unusual and
> extraordinary threat" (50 USC, Sec. 1701) must exist for an EO of this

kind

quote:

> to be issued.
>
> Such a threat to the US did not exist in that situation. The Serbs did in

quote:

> way constitute a threat to the US.
>
> So the conditions required by law were not fulfilled.
>

So your 5-word excerpt invalidates the legality of
every sanction the US has ever implemented?

FYI, the language of the underlying UN resolution reads
"the situation in [FRY] constitutes a threat to international
peace and security" The UN itself was calling on us to act
to avert the threat to international peace. Is that usual or
ordinary?

But you still haven't told us how Denmark implemented
UN sanctions in this case. If the US method was so bad,
surely you can give us one example of a better way.
You (rightly, for the most part) accuse Americans of
not listening to foreigners. Well, I'm listening. How did
Denmark behave differently and why was it better?

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"Mike Murray" wrote:

quote:

> You express plausible opinion as to why that EO might be invalidated
> upon appeal to the courts. But, until that appeal has taken place and
> been resolved, or the courts enjoin the feds from enforcing it, the EO
> has the force of law, even if it appears intuitively obvious to many
> people that it won't hold up.
>
> This won't happen until Fischer, or someone else, has been charged and
> fights it.
>
> At least, that's how I understand U.S. law.

I think you understand correctly. Any EO stands until challenged. One or two
have been challenged and nullified. This one is next in line, if Fischer is
brought to trial on his violation of it.
HansJ

Paul Rubin

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

> But you still haven't told us how Denmark implemented UN sanctions
> in this case. If the US method was so bad, surely you can give us
> one example of a better way.

How about using France's method, i.e. prohibit selling arms to FRY
that they kill people with, but at the same time, don't hassle guys
earning a living by peacefully playing chess there. That sounds
better than the US method, which is to let presidential cabinet
members sell arms to FRY but hound the chess players.

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 3:53 am

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> So your 5-word excerpt invalidates the legality of
> every sanction the US has ever implemented?

1. Every sanction? I thought we were discussing the legal basis of EO 12810.
Not of any or every sanctions.
2. 5-word? I gave you an exact reference so you can read on if you wish to.

Do you think that a grave danger to the US as required by law for this EO
did in fact exist? Was Serbia a serious threat to the US?

quote:

> But you still haven't told us how Denmark implemented
> UN sanctions in this case.

I dont see the relevance. Lets stick to the topic: the legality of EO 12810.

HansJ

David Kane

2005-03-22, 6:53 am

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:423fce26$0$73733$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...

quote:

> "David Kane" wrote:
>
>
> 1. Every sanction? I thought we were discussing the legal basis of EO

12810.

quote:

> Not of any or every sanctions.
> 2. 5-word? I gave you an exact reference so you can read on if you wish

to.

EOs are how the US does sanctions. 12810 is just an example. Apparently
your sole objection is that the underlying legislation does not include
language that is accurate or precise enough for you. (Never mind
that no judge or anyone with legal training reaches that conclusion)

quote:

> Do you think that a grave danger to the US as required by law for this EO
> did in fact exist? Was Serbia a serious threat to the US?

If they were a threat to international peace (which the UN concluded)
that would easily cover the FRY situation, especially in the context
of there being an unchallenged tradition of using that legislation as the
authority for economic sanctions.

quote:

>
> I dont see the relevance. Lets stick to the topic: the legality of EO

12810.

quote:

>

It's highly relevant. You've criticized the US policy. If it's
bad, you should be able to show at least one example
of a country that did things better. So describe any
country's (superior) method of implementing sanctions,
and the (superior) terms of those sanctions. I didn't
mean to pick on Denmark but just assumed you'd
be familiar with it.

I'm not counting on an answer because US actions were
perfectly reasonable and in conformity with UN
resolutions. That's just a fact. Your illegality argument
amounts to nothing but a mere technicality and
demonstrates your extreme prejudice.

Paul Rubin

2005-03-22, 6:53 am

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

> It's highly relevant. You've criticized the US policy. If it's
> bad, you should be able to show at least one example
> of a country that did things better.

France. It didn't hassle Spassky.

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 6:53 am

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> Apparently
> your sole objection is that the underlying legislation does not include
> language that is accurate or precise enough for you.

No, I do not object to neither content nor wording of this particular
section of US code. It is accurate and precise, and it was abused by Father
Bush. No grave threats to the US from Serbia existed, the law requires that
in such cases, and accordingly EO 12810 was not legitimate. It is as simple
as that.

quote:

>(Never mind
> that no judge or anyone with legal training reaches that conclusion)

If you do a search with Google you will see that you are wrong. I guess you
have not tried that. Is my guess correct?

In fact there has been and is a debate on the use of EO's. Too many of them
means that the president is usurping power from Congress and in that way
undermining democracy. I take it that you are ignorant of that discussion.
Am I right?

HansJ

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 6:53 am

"Paul Rubin" wrote:

quote:

> France. It didn't hassle Spassky.

Well said. I like your simple and clearcut points.
HansJ

David Kane

2005-03-22, 6:53 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xk6o0m4ie.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> France. It didn't hassle Spassky.

That answers nothing. HansJ doesn't like the way the US
implements sanctions. How did France implement them?
How were there sanctions worded? (I'm very curious as
to what language was used to implement a chessplayer
exemption)

David Kane

2005-03-22, 6:54 am

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:423fe1b6$0$73772$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...

quote:

> "David Kane" wrote:
>
>
> No, I do not object to neither content nor wording of this particular
> section of US code. It is accurate and precise, and it was abused by

Father

quote:

> Bush. No grave threats to the US from Serbia existed, the law requires

that

quote:

> in such cases, and accordingly EO 12810 was not legitimate. It is as

simple

quote:

> as that.

The US was being requested by the
UN to implement sanctions and did so in
the traditional way. Imagine that Bush
agreed with your opinion that conditions
in the underlying legislation might not be met
and therefore got Congress to change the
wording of the legislation to meet the
present requirement. Then he instituted
the exact same sanctions as per UN request.
Would that make the EO "legal" (according
to you), and eliminate your objection to
Fischer being punished for violating the
same law?

I'm still waiting to harvest the fruit from
all your reading. Surely you are about to
about to describe other countries'
(superior) method of implementing sanctions,
and the (superior) terms of those sanctions
in this instance?

There's reading and there's understanding.
Tangential arguments about executive power
would only divert your attention from where
it belongs.

Paul Rubin

2005-03-22, 6:54 am

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

>
> That answers nothing. HansJ doesn't like the way the US
> implements sanctions. How did France implement them?

For the purposes of this discussion, it answers everything.

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-22, 6:54 am

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> The US was being requested by the
> UN to implement sanctions and did so in
> the traditional way. Imagine that Bush
> agreed with your opinion that conditions
> in the underlying legislation might not be met
> and therefore got Congress to change the
> wording of the legislation to meet the
> present requirement.

It was not necessary to change any wording. Congress could pass a law making
all kinds of contact with Serbia illegal. That did not happen, however. The
president bypassed Congress in a situation where that was neither legal nor
required.

If Fischer is punished for violating that EO that will just be a means to
punish him for his anti-americanism. No one else have ever been punished for
violating that EO, and no one ever will be, even though their association
with the Serbs was more of a substantial support for the Serbian warfare
against their neighbours.

quote:

> I'm still waiting to harvest the fruit from
> all your reading.

You do not have to wait. I am sure that you are able to do do your own
reading. Just a little bit lazy, maybe?

HansJ

Chess One

2005-03-22, 5:51 pm

quote:

>
> A more cogent argument would be that Spassky and Fischer were
> being paid to provide legitimacy for a regime at a time when the world
> was rightly condemning its conduct.
>
>
> Misstating the law doesn't help your case. Chess matches
> weren't against the law, but it was illegal for US citizens to
> do business there. The grounds for outrage just don't exist.

Dear David,

Are these statements correct? USCF traded there, buying Informants. They
also got an exemption, or special permission, to do so. Both Fischer and
USCF did nothing other than chess stuff. I ask myself, "did either of them
really provide legitimacy for a regime"?

I thought about what was the //essential// difference in trading for chess
products with a Serb company based in Belgrade, and playing chess on a
coastal island?

I mean, if I put aside these issues of what other people decided about it,
and whether we are talking about a law, or an executive order or some 11th
commandment known only to initiates. What do I think about it now- and what
did I think then?

You know, I receive my copy of Informant in the mail on the same day that I
read a game report about the Fischer/Spassky match. I know both originate
from Yugoslavia. Did I think then, "one of these activities is providing
legitimacy for a regime!"

I can't answer for politicians or what other people could think, but that is
a question I can ask myself, and provide myself an answer.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Chess One

2005-03-22, 5:51 pm

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xacows4l6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> Nonsense, the US order went beyond the UN sanctions or else Spassky
> would have been busted.

Well yes. If they are UN sanctions, then Spassky would have broken them too.
Has the UN every made any comment on any party? Phil

FiFiela

2005-03-22, 5:51 pm

> > Of course Iceland is a sovereign state, but it is not acting[vbcol=seagreen]

So are all of the countless passports issued over the decades by the US
to Soviet, East Bloc and Cuban defectors "shams" and "politically
motivated"?

The US was may not be executing a full-court press on Iceland on this.
Allowing the Nut to slip off the Iceland may be an acceptable comprise
to the US. Having Bobby on US soil with a defense lawyer and access to
the press could be an embarassment to the US Hyper-State. For Bobby
being in Iceland 7/24/365 will soon wear thin.

One Question: Can anyoneone anywhere anytime name ONE other person who
was prosecuted under the Execuitive Order in question?

David Kane

2005-03-22, 5:51 pm

"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:KrU%d.15848$qN3.13317@trndny01...

quote:

>
>
> Dear David,
>
> Are these statements correct? USCF traded there, buying Informants. They
> also got an exemption, or special permission, to do so. Both Fischer and
> USCF did nothing other than chess stuff. I ask myself, "did either of them
> really provide legitimacy for a regime"?
>
> I thought about what was the //essential// difference in trading for chess
> products with a Serb company based in Belgrade, and playing chess on a
> coastal island?

You are opening up all kinds of arguments (value of
sanctions, consistency of enforcement) in which I have
zero interest in and which are tangential. (I regret taking
Paul Rubin's bait) My point is simply that the US
laws were perfectly ordinary and reasonable, and
Fischer clearly violated them.

Paul Rubin

2005-03-22, 5:51 pm

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

> My point is simply that the US laws were perfectly ordinary and
> reasonable,

Are you kidding? If that EO was perfectly ordinary and reasonable,
why was it enforced against nobody except Fischer? What is one other
country in the world that used a law like that against a chessplayer?

Chess One

2005-03-22, 5:51 pm

>> Dear David,

quote:

>
> You are opening up all kinds of arguments (value of
> sanctions, consistency of enforcement) in which I have
> zero interest in and which are tangential. (I regret taking
> Paul Rubin's bait) My point is simply that the US
> laws were perfectly ordinary and reasonable, and
> Fischer clearly violated them.

David, thank you.

In my country individual points of view are never by-the-way, and if ever
they are contrasted with other goals of the State, then there is a process
to determine who has harmed whom, if at all. This is our constitution, a bit
different than yours. You have a bill of rights we have a bill of wrongs.
But these are details, I mostly wanted to reply, this;

I did not follow your answer very well - since all of my post only had to do
with me, my sense of how these issues affected me at a personal level - and
I had read one of your posts earlier where you mentioned you came from your
church - so had thought you may have had your own view of things from a
religious or spiritual, or even a deep personal level, rather than only
repeating what the state has decreed.

I do not wish to press you on this issue, and thank you in any case for your
response.

Cordially, Phil Innes

David Kane

2005-03-22, 9:50 pm

"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1500e.12771$jt6.5415@trndny07...

quote:

> David, thank you.
>
> In my country individual points of view are never by-the-way, and if ever
> they are contrasted with other goals of the State, then there is a process
> to determine who has harmed whom, if at all. This is our constitution, a

bit

quote:

> different than yours. You have a bill of rights we have a bill of wrongs.
> But these are details, I mostly wanted to reply, this;
>
> I did not follow your answer very well - since all of my post only had to

quote:

> with me, my sense of how these issues affected me at a personal level -

and

quote:

> I had read one of your posts earlier where you mentioned you came from

your

quote:

> church - so had thought you may have had your own view of things from a
> religious or spiritual, or even a deep personal level, rather than only
> repeating what the state has decreed.

We are even, since I have no idea what you are
asking. To reiterate, though, I am simply countering
the ridiculous "Fischer-as-victim" theories that have
been circulated, which are untenable in view of the
fact that the US behavior has been perfectly ordinary
and reasonable.

The only principles which I am drawing on
are that I believe that a nation has the right to
regulate the economic activity of its citizens,
and that I don't believe that being rich or famous
should exempt someone from
consequences for breaking the law. No,
these views are not a product of state decree.

I was also dissappointed by Spassky's behavior,
and consider it immoral. That belief *does*
require further elements (revulsion at the Balkan
happenings, belief in sanctions) which are
certainly more controversial. They are completely
unnecessary to debunk the "persecuted Fischer"
garbage, though.

BTW, I think you are confusing me with someone
else, since I've never posted about coming from
church.

Chess One

2005-03-22, 9:50 pm

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lcidnaKg6e-IB93fRVn-2w@comcast.com...

quote:

> We are even, since I have no idea what you are
> asking.

I was not asking anything

quote:

> To reiterate, though, I am simply countering
> the ridiculous "Fischer-as-victim" theories that have
> been circulated, which are untenable in view of the
> fact that the US behavior has been perfectly ordinary
> and reasonable.

I was interested in personal reflections as they occured to me at the time,
rather than the behavior of nation-states. That's all I wrote about - my own
reactions. It was not a challenge or a competition.

quote:

> The only principles which I am drawing on
> are that I believe that a nation has the right to
> regulate the economic activity of its citizens,
> and that I don't believe that being rich or famous
> should exempt someone from
> consequences for breaking the law. No,
> these views are not a product of state decree.

I see.

quote:

> I was also dissappointed by Spassky's behavior,
> and consider it immoral. That belief *does*
> require further elements (revulsion at the Balkan
> happenings, belief in sanctions) which are
> certainly more controversial. They are completely
> unnecessary to debunk the "persecuted Fischer"
> garbage, though.

I wrote to him, you know. He is 'complex'.

quote:

> BTW, I think you are confusing me with someone
> else, since I've never posted about coming from
> church.

O, Sorry. Maybe I just needed an excuse to make my personal note. No offense
intended.

Cordially, Phil

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-23, 6:52 am

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> The only principles which I am drawing on
> are that I believe that a nation has the right to
> regulate the economic activity of its citizens,
> and that I don't believe that being rich or famous
> should exempt someone from
> consequences for breaking the law.

You are correct. Fischer is an exception: He is the only one ever being
indicted for his violation of EO 12810. And I agree with you, he shouldnt be
an exception. But the fact is that he is treated as one by the US state.
On your on principles regarding exceptions he should not have been indicted.
HansJ

Tyrone Slothrop

2005-03-23, 5:54 pm

David Kane wrote:

quote:

> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1500e.12771$jt6.5415@trndny07...
>
if ever[vbcol=seagreen]
process[vbcol=seagreen]
constitution, a[vbcol=seagreen]
> bit
wrongs.[vbcol=seagreen]
had to[vbcol=seagreen]
> do
level -[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
from[vbcol=seagreen]
> your
from a[vbcol=seagreen]
only[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> We are even, since I have no idea what you are
> asking. To reiterate, though, I am simply countering
> the ridiculous "Fischer-as-victim" theories that have
> been circulated, which are untenable in view of the
> fact that the US behavior has been perfectly ordinary
> and reasonable.
>
> The only principles which I am drawing on
> are that I believe that a nation has the right to
> regulate the economic activity of its citizens,
> and that I don't believe that being rich or famous
> should exempt someone from
> consequences for breaking the law. No,
> these views are not a product of state decree.

I also believe this. Which is why I argue with Hans Lassen's view that
EO 12810 is illegal. He asked if it is illegal and wants a yes / no
answer. This is impossible. The answer would be the same in Denmark.
It is legal "for now". All laws/rules are by definition legal until
they are overturned. In this way, EO 12810 is legal, even if perhaps
later, it may be declared (by a Federal court) to be illegal. Is an EO
a law then? It is a special kind of administrative rule. The US has
the right to construct any laws/rules to regulate the economic activity
of its citizens. Is Fischer a citizen of the US? By US laws/rules, he
is a citizen since he has never renounced his citizenship before a US
official. This is a US court-tested principle.

My objection to your statements does not concern the right of the US to
regulate economic activity. Fischer broke the law / rule. This law /
rule has never been overturned by a Federal court. Therefore, if
Fischer should return to the US, either under his own power or under
the power of a foreign power, the US has all the right to prosecute
him. Fischer himself has all the right to defend himself from the
charge and to seek a court decision that EO 12810 is illegal and in
conflict with existing legislative mandates. Then justice would be
served, whether the outcome was Fischer going to sit in a prison, or
Fischer being cleared of all charges and EO 12810 being declared
illegal.

My objection to your statements concerns the implied absolute right of
the US to recover Mr. Fischer from a foreign country and the labelling
of all other countries that impede that recovery as immoral or
unethical. Because even if the US makes all sorts of absurd laws that
govern behavior of its citizens, it doesn't mean that all other
countries should necessarily kowtow to the US in these matters. The US
has the right to employ whatever diplomatic measures it sees fit to
"persuade" other sovereign countries to its point of view, as
apparently happened in the case of Japan. However, should there be a
sovereign country that stands up and says, "Hey, I don't agree. What
Fischer did isn't a crime. In fact we think it would be immoral to let
him be dragged back to serve justice before a kangaroo court in the
US", then that point of view has legitimacy for that particular
country. It certainly is a different point of view than that of the US
in the matter, but it is no less legitimate outside the borders of the
US. So if that country then puts some weight behinds its opinion and
issues a passport or grants citizenship, has it behaved in a "bogus"
way? or in an immoral way? Of course not. Has that behavior impeded
the wheels of American justice? Certainly. But just as a country
impeding the wheels of Iranian justice, or North Korean justice or
Syrian justice or Libyan justice does not necessarily mean that country
is immoral/bogus (I intentionally chose these extreme examples for
effect), impeding the wheels of American justice should not
automatically cause a country or its behavior to be labelled
negatively. The bottomline is that nothing in the behavior of Iceland
has broken any laws in Iceland. While the US may see a high moral
purpose in prosecuting Fischer, other countries may, if they wish, see
a higher moral purpose in allowing him to escape persecution. It's all
a matter of perspective.

quote:

> I was also dissappointed by Spassky's behavior,
> and consider it immoral. That belief *does*
> require further elements (revulsion at the Balkan
> happenings, belief in sanctions) which are
> certainly more controversial. They are completely
> unnecessary to debunk the "persecuted Fischer"
> garbage, though.

I do not believe that Fischer was persecuted in the US, or by the US.
As a US citizen who could have renounced his citizenship at any time in
the last 35 years and did not, he is being pursued for violation of US
laws / rules. However, I do believe that the Japanese are persecuting
him. Because even though they could have deported him to a third
country by their own laws, they held out as long as they could to
deport him to the US. This speaks of some sort of collusion, even if
unspoken. And collusion to the detriment of Fischer.

quote:

> BTW, I think you are confusing me with someone
> else, since I've never posted about coming from
> church.

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-23, 5:54 pm

"Tyrone Slothrop" wrote:

quote:

> Which is why I argue with Hans Lassen's view that
> EO 12810 is illegal. He asked if it is illegal and wants a yes / no
> answer. This is impossible. The answer would be the same in Denmark.
> It is legal "for now". All laws/rules are by definition legal until
> they are overturned.

Yes, you are perfectly right, in a way. So let me reformulate: Is EO 12810
in accordance with American law? Yes or no? Was the requirements for an EO
fulfilled in this case? I would say, no, they were not.

I do not question the existence of EO 12810. EO 12810 is a fact, also a
legal fact at this or that time. But I do question its legality, and I
would be happy to prove the missing legality before any court.

But I am afraid that I have to agree with almost everything else in the rest
of your post. Sorry about that.

HansJ

David Kane

2005-03-23, 5:54 pm

"Tyrone Slothrop" <lttyroneslothrop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111577488.427877.181360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> My objection to your statements does not concern the right of the US to
> regulate economic activity. Fischer broke the law / rule. This law /
> rule has never been overturned by a Federal court. Therefore, if
> Fischer should return to the US, either under his own power or under
> the power of a foreign power, the US has all the right to prosecute
> him. Fischer himself has all the right to defend himself from the
> charge and to seek a court decision that EO 12810 is illegal and in
> conflict with existing legislative mandates. Then justice would be
> served, whether the outcome was Fischer going to sit in a prison, or
> Fischer being cleared of all charges and EO 12810 being declared
> illegal.
>
> My objection to your statements concerns the implied absolute right of
> the US to recover Mr. Fischer from a foreign country and the labelling
> of all other countries that impede that recovery as immoral or
> unethical. Because even if the US makes all sorts of absurd laws that
> govern behavior of its citizens, it doesn't mean that all other
> countries should necessarily kowtow to the US in these matters. The US
> has the right to employ whatever diplomatic measures it sees fit to
> "persuade" other sovereign countries to its point of view, as
> apparently happened in the case of Japan. However, should there be a
> sovereign country that stands up and says, "Hey, I don't agree. What
> Fischer did isn't a crime. In fact we think it would be immoral to let
> him be dragged back to serve justice before a kangaroo court in the
> US", then that point of view has legitimacy for that particular
> country.

First, I agree with most of what your post
says. I also accept that there could be very
good reasons for one country to try to hinder
the prosecution of another country, and would even
go so far as to say that includes US prosecutions.
But now to the specifics in this case. The US was
implementing UN sanctions, and Fischer clearly
violated them. While I have no problem with Fischer
trying anything he wants to in his own defense in
a US court, it is a mockery of justice for some
unknowledgable Icelanders to circumvent the
entire process. If Iceland as a matter of principle
repudiated the authority of the UN to impose
sanctions, you might have a point. But this appears
to be nothing more than massive prejudice at work.

I also disagree with respect to Japan's behavior.
I've seen no evidence that Japan has acted in a
way that is inconsistent with its own laws. Japan
should accord the absolute minimum of diplomatic
respect to Iceland given the irresponsibility of
Iceland's conduct.

Paul Rubin

2005-03-23, 5:54 pm

"Tyrone Slothrop" <lttyroneslothrop@hotmail.com> writes:

quote:

> EO 12810 is illegal. He asked if it is illegal and wants a yes / no
> answer. This is impossible. The answer would be the same in Denmark.
> It is legal "for now". All laws/rules are by definition legal until
> they are overturned.

Actually no, laws are either legal or they are not. And often two
laws conflict with each other, so at most one of them can be legal,
and the conflict makes it impossible to obey both of them
simultaneously until you find out which one (if either) is legal.

quote:

> In this way, EO 12810 is legal, even if perhaps
> later, it may be declared (by a Federal court) to be illegal.

No. If a court declares EO 12810 illegal, then it was always illegal,
any application of it that has taken place in the past was illegal,
and the law is supposed to then be as if EO 12810 never existed.

quote:

> The US has the right to construct any laws/rules to regulate the
> economic activity of its citizens.

Not an absolute right.

quote:

> Is Fischer a citizen of the US? By US laws/rules, he is a citizen
> since he has never renounced his citizenship before a US official.
> This is a US court-tested principle.

From Fischer's viewpoint, that notion is nuts. Fischer is an
Icelandic citizen who wants nothing to do with the US. The idea that
the US can keep him under its jurisdiction by forcing him to be a US
citizen against his will is bizarre. If they can do that to Fischer,
why not anyone else in the world? Heck, they could solve practically
every international problem that way, e.g. make Vladimir Putin a US
citizen and then threaten him with arrest if he doesn't do what he's
told. Sheesh.

quote:

> Fischer himself has all the right to defend himself from the charge
> and to seek a court decision that EO 12810 is illegal and in
> conflict with existing legislative mandates. Then justice would be
> served,

Nonsense, if EO 12810 is illegal, then Fischer has sat locked up for
the past 9 months illegally, which already is an irreversible
injustice. If on top of that he has to spend himself back into
poverty defending himself in a US court to get clear, that makes it
even worse. It's simpler for him to just stay away, just like slaves
before the US Civil War fled to Canada rather than try to get help
from the US courts. (The exception, of course, was Dred Scott, and we
know how THAT turned out).

quote:

> However, should there be a sovereign country that stands up and
> says, "Hey, I don't agree. What Fischer did isn't a crime. In fact
> we think it would be immoral to let him be dragged back to serve
> justice before a kangaroo court in the US", then that point of view
> has legitimacy for that particular country. It certainly is a
> different point of view than that of the US in the matter, but it is
> no less legitimate outside the borders of the US. So if that
> country then puts some weight behinds its opinion and issues a
> passport or grants citizenship, has it behaved in a "bogus" way? or
> in an immoral way? Of course not.

You're completely correct here.

quote:

> Has that behavior impeded the wheels of American justice?
> Certainly. But just as a country impeding the wheels of Iranian
> justice, or North Korean justice or Syrian justice or Libyan justice
> does not necessarily mean that country is immoral/bogus (I
> intentionally chose these extreme examples for effect), impeding the
> wheels of American justice should not automatically cause a country
> or its behavior to be labelled negatively. The bottomline is that
> nothing in the behavior of Iceland has broken any laws in Iceland.
> While the US may see a high moral purpose in prosecuting Fischer,
> other countries may, if they wish, see a higher moral purpose in
> allowing him to escape persecution. It's all a matter of perspective.

Also correct. Canada did the same thing, by allowing escaping US
slaves to take up residence there, in the Underground Railroad era.

quote:

> I do not believe that Fischer was persecuted in the US, or by the US.
> As a US citizen who could have renounced his citizenship at any time in
> the last 35 years and did not, he is being pursued for violation of US
> laws / rules.

Just because the US can find some law on its books to rationalize its
pursuit of someone, doesn't mean persecution isn't taking place.
Fischer is apparently the only person who has EVER been indicted under
EO 12810, even though US cabinet members were selling actual weapons
to FRY at the time that the EO was signed. So, that sounds to me like
persecution.

FiFiela

2005-03-24, 3:52 am

> So why wasn't Spassky arrested?
[vbcol=seagreen]

Not really. Spasski had greater personal freedom as citizen of France
that Bobby did as a subject of the US Hyper-State.

Doom & Gloom Dave

2005-03-24, 6:50 am

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> As GM Larry Evans pointed out, we all know Bobby will bite the hand
> that frees him. That is a given. Heck, Bobby knows it.
>
> Even now suspicion about Icelandic motives are percolating in his
> cranium. WHY did they save him? WHAT are they up to? HOW MUCH do they
> want?
>
> In fact, by the time he touches down in Reykjavik, he will be half
> ready to denounce Olafsson and the entire Icelandic people. He may
> barely constrain himself.
>
> My best guess is that he will denounce the 7.6 Jews living in
> Iceland, wear out his welcome before the next steam vent whooshes in
> that country, and be on his way to the Philippines or anywhere that
> won't extradite him.
>

On this I agree with you! I reckon Bobby doesn't even leave the airport
in Reykavik and is on the first plane to the Phillipines and venting to his
favorite d.j. upon arrival with some backhanded thanks to Iceland but a
nasty explanation that there's no way he'd live in such a place followed
with the laundry list of Icelandic flaws dating back to slights real or
imagined from 1972.

Doom & Gloom Dave

2005-03-24, 6:50 am

banana wrote:

quote:

> In article <1111237525.578331.82760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Tyrone Slothrop <lttyroneslothrop@hotmail.com> writes
>
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/us...=Germany&url=/u[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I doubt that they extradite for alleged 'crimes' that aren't against
> the
> law in the Philippines.
>
> Japan has an extradition treaty with the US too, but the US
> authorities
> have not applied for an extradition order because playing chess in
> Yugoslavia has never been against the law in Japan, and is therefore
> not extraditable.
>
>
> If he hasn't filled in a tax return since the 1970s, they'd have a
> hard
> time proving fraud.
>
> According to the Icelandic government of course, Fischer isn't a US
> citizen, and there is no legal reason why any government in the world
> should automatically accept what the US government says about this
> rather than the Icelandic government. Both are supposed to be 'equally
> sovereign'.
>

Renouncing citizenship is not a get out of jail free card for the crimes
one committed in the past. If it were, there would be no criminals.

David Kane

2005-03-24, 9:53 pm

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x4qf59r5o.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Ames" <worldrecord@juno.com> writes:
>
> Are all the laws of every sovereign state legitimate?

Nick

2005-03-25, 6:51 am

Tyrone Slothrop wrote:

quote:

> Nick wrote:

I note that Tyrone Slothrop puts Ciskei in his first list.
[vbcol=seagreen]

I note that Tyrone Slothrop also puts Ciskei in his second list.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Revisions are welcome. Thank you.

I appreciate it that Tyrone Slothrop has in a civil way
accepted my factual corrections of what he has written.

Unfortunately, some trolls here have 'responded' to my factual
corrections of what they have written by dishonestly distorting
what I have written, lying about me, and/or initiating abusive
personal attacks against me.

quote:

>
> The US and Vietnam are not party to the same extradition treaty.

Tyrone Slothrop wrote earlier that Vietnam has 'neither
diplomatic relations nor extradition treaties with the US'.
I wrote a comment on the current status of 'diplomatic relations',
*not* on 'extradition treaties', between those countries.

quote:

> This may be confirmed by checking Title 18, Part II, Chapter 209,
> =A7 3181 of the US Code. Being a member of ASEAN does not
> automatically imply that Vietnam has normal diplomatic
> relations with the US.

I did *not attempt* to make that 'automatic implication'.

quote:

> You haven't shown causality.

Tyrone Slothrop has clearly misunderstood what I wrote.
I did *not intend* to 'show causality' that 1) 'Being a member of
ASEAN' implies 2) Having 'normal diplomatic relations with the US'.

Please read *more carefully* what I wrote (above):
1) I wrote that 'the United States and Vietnam
established normal diplomatic relations in 1995'.
2) Then I wrote: 'Vietnam *also* has become a member of (ASEAN)'.

Why on earth would Tyrone Slothrop have concluded
that I was attempting to write that (2) implies (1)?

Indeed, I mentioned Vietnam's membership in ASEAN *only*
as an interesting historical note in the spirit of 'look
how times have changed'.

quote:

> However, you are clearly right on the embassy opening and
> Vietnam and the US do have normal relations now, if not an
> extradition treaty. Let's consider Vietnam moved from the
> second list to the first list then.

OK.

quote:

>
> Thank you for the correction. I see that they stopped existing
> in 1994. In addition, Ciskei should be struck from the list
> for the same reason.

'Ciskei should be struck from *the* list'?

As I have noted (above), Tyrone Slothrop included Ciskei in
*both* of his lists (above). I could have mentioned Ciskei
earlier, but I supposed that Tyrone Slothrop was just confused
about Ciskei in the first place, and so I decided to let it go.

quote:

>
> No idea. Is this related to extradition treaties
> or diplomatic relations with the US?

No, it's just an 'inside joke'.

quote:

>
> I welcome your further updates of this information.

Again, I appreciate it that Tyrone Slothrop, though he has
misunderstood some of what I have written, has in a civil
way accepted my factual corrections of what he has written.

As far as I can tell, Tyrone Slothrop was citing some
source(s) of 'facts' that are more than ten years old.
I sincerely hope that Tyrone Slothrop will be able to
improve his research skills. I would suggest that he
*not* trust much of what's written on the internet.

--Nick

Paul Rubin

2005-03-26, 5:53 pm

"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:

quote:

> The EO which Fischer violated was basically the US
> version of UN economic sanctions against a genocidal
> regime.

So why wasn't Spassky arrested?

David Kane

2005-03-27, 3:52 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xll8gohn5.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> The answer is that the UN had an arms embargo, not a chess embargo.
> The only country that tried to interfere with chess players was the US.

There were a number of UN sanctions against the former
Yugoslavia at various times, including general economic
sanctions. Spassky's behavior was definitely immoral,
but it wasn't against US law.

David Kane

2005-03-28, 6:51 am

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:423fce26$0$73733$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...

quote:

> "David Kane" wrote:
>
>
> 1. Every sanction? I thought we were discussing the legal basis of EO

12810.

quote:

> Not of any or every sanctions.
> 2. 5-word? I gave you an exact reference so you can read on if you wish

quote:

> Do you think that a grave danger to the US as required by law for this EO
> did in fact exist? Was Serbia a serious threat to the US?

quote:

>
> I dont see the relevance. Lets stick to the topic: the legality of EO

12810.

quote:

>

Chess One

2005-03-28, 6:51 am

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xacows4l6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

quote:

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> writes:
>
> Nonsense, the US order went beyond the UN sanctions or else Spassky
> would have been busted.

Well yes. If they are UN sanctions, then Spassky would have broken them too.
Has the UN every made any comment on any party? Phil

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-28, 5:57 pm

"Tyrone Slothrop" wrote:

quote:

> Which is why I argue with Hans Lassen's view that
> EO 12810 is illegal. He asked if it is illegal and wants a yes / no
> answer. This is impossible. The answer would be the same in Denmark.
> It is legal "for now". All laws/rules are by definition legal until
> they are overturned.

FiFiela

2005-03-28, 5:57 pm

Paul Rubin

2005-03-28, 9:53 pm

sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:

quote:

> Strangely I have not been able to find the exact text of Executive
> Order 12810 anywhere. There are numerous references to it, but the
> exact words do not seem to be available anywhere.

It's in the federal register. Specifics are at:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_reg...1992.html#12810

Sam Sloan

2005-03-28, 9:53 pm

On 28 Mar 2005 16:36:19 -0800, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

quote:

>sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
>
>It's in the federal register. Specifics are at:
>
>http://www.archives.gov/federal_reg...1992.html#12810

I had already seen that but this website only tells where the
executive order has been published. It does not provide the text of
the order.

It is unlikely that any order would flatly prohibit any person with US
Citizenship from engaging in any transaction with any person with
Yugoslav citizenship.

Sam Sloan

Paul Rubin

2005-03-28, 9:53 pm

sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:

quote:

>
> I had already seen that but this website only tells where the
> executive order has been published. It does not provide the text of
> the order.

As explained, the order has been published in the federal register.
The exact words are there. You can find the federal register at the
library. More recent issues are online:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html

but only back to 1994.

Paul Rubin

2005-03-28, 9:53 pm

Date: 28 Mar 2005 17:14:08 -0800
Message-ID: <7xsm2fi78f.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Organization: Nightsong/Fort GNOX
Lines: 18
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com
X-Trace: news.spies.com 1112058849 64.62.206.2 (28 Mar 2005 17:14:09 -0800)
Path: vm.sas.com!foggy!attws1!ip.att.net!news101.his.com!news.lightlink.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!news.spies.com!not-for-mail
Xref: foggy misc.legal:449191

sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:

quote:

>
> I had already seen that but this website only tells where the
> executive order has been published. It does not provide the text of
> the order.

Serena

2005-03-29, 3:56 am

"Sam Sloan" <There are also questions as to whether a chess

quote:

> match constitutes "trade" and whether by playing the chess games Bobby

Fischer created an "unusual and extraordinary" threat to US National
Security. <