From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:58:44 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <CUBAN.92Dec30154736@m4-035-12.mit.edu>, cuban@athena.mit.edu (Federico A Garcia) writes:
> 
> I don't really want to get into this flame war (though, for the
> record, I think Fischer should be prosecuted and jailed if he ever
> returns to the U.S.), but I can't help pointing one thing out in the
> middle of this constitutional debate.  I assumed Fischer used a U.S.
> passport issued by the State Department when he travelled.  If he did,
> then he agreed to abide by the regulations imposed by the State
> Department on U.S. passports.  How many of the participants in this
> debate actually have a U.S. passport?  I do.  If you have one, read it
> carefully.  It clearly states that it is a crime to conduct business
> or make purchases in various countries (my passport, issued in 1989,
> specifically mentions Cuba, Libya and North Korea), that similar rules
> may apply to other countries, and that you should check with the State
> Department about this before travelling abroad.  

No need to worry about a flame war. This was a rational post. But, if Fischer
never presented his passport in Yugoland, then technically he never used it
there.

Oh I can see it now. The prosecution attempting to prove that Bobby Fisher used
his passport while in Yugoland. What a hoot! Then, the defense proving that he
did use it, but not in connection with the match itself...

> 
> Now, Fischer received a letter from the Commerce Department
> specifically telling him that his actions were considered business
> (and don't bring up the comparisons to corporations, remember,
> corporations are essentially considered the same as individuals for
> purposes of commerce, and this is a centuries old legal tradition, not
> the whims of President Bush). 

Flat out wrong. There are a slew of Constitutional, Evidenciary, and Tax cases
which contradict this claim. Corporations have NO right to privacy, no right to
free speech, and no right against self-incrimination. Further, the corporation
is ALWAYS located in the state is incoporated in, even if no officers,
property, or other assets are there. (It may also be in other states, but that
is another matter.) Further, for contract or tort reasons, the corporation may
be abolished so that plaintiffs may attack the individuals behind it.
 

				Also, I have not heard anyone suggest
> yet that there is anything illegal about a presidential decree.  It
> has been used thousands of times by all of our 40 presidents for 200
> years, and are not the whims of just any one person, but of the duly
> elected representative of the people exercising a power which, whether
> you like it or not, he legally has 

Yes, but you are equating past legitimacy in various decrees with legitimacy in
this decree. Remember, while most presidential decrees are in fact valid, there
have been ones that have been struck down by either the Congress or the Supreme
Court.

EACH decree must stand on its own.

					(I also happen to believe that it
> was the proper decision and one which was carefully thought out, but
> this is a matter of opinion and there's no point in debating this to
> death).  Thus, Fischer did break a law and deserves the just
> punishment if he ever returns to a place where the U.S. has
> jurisdiction to arrest him or extradite him.

IF the decree was lawful, then Fischer did break a law.

> 
> Just out of curiosity, how many of those who are calling for Fischer
> to be pardoned think Bush did the right thing in pardoning the
> Iran-Contra defenders last week?  After all, you can argue that they
> broke a law which was the political whim (remember, the Boland
> amendment only passed and was signed by Reagan since it was one of
> those clauses added to, of all things, a budget bill, which would
> paralyze the government if the President vetoed it)  of one left-wing
> Congressman trying to interfere with Reagan's foreign policy, that
> they were acting out of love of country, and that the transactions all
> actually occured in a foreign country.  Personally, I think that they
> deserved whatever punishment was appropriate for breaking the law, and
> so does Fischer.

Yeah, but the law, as dictated by the powers granted to the President by
Congess, state that their punishment shall be no punishment as they have been
pardoned.

Do I like it? It doesn't matter. That's the way it is.

> 
> -Fred Garcia
> M.I.T.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess