From: fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088})
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:56:36 GMT
Organization: Computervision, A Prime Computer Company, Bedford, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec22.011249.594@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
|> In article <4471@cvbnetPrime.COM>, fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
|> > In article <1992Dec19.165648.569@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.ed|> So what you are saying is that by being a citizen of the US, you are
|> > |> are basically its property and must abide by its whims even in areas where
|> > |> it has no jurisdiction whatsoever??? You believe that simply by having lived
|> > |> in the US you are subject to ALL of the wishes of a few political leaders
|> > |> even when you leave the borders and fly to another country? 
|> > |> 
|> > 
|> > I believe no one has indicated Bobby Fischer is the property of the US
|> > goverment.
|> 
|> Then how do they exercise jurisdiction over him when he is NOT within US
|> borders? What claim do they have to control his actions?
|> 
|> If he was within the US, sure.
|> If he had some kind of extra relationship (worked for the CIA prsuant to a
|>        contract) with the US, no problem.
|> If he was owned by the US, well, the master can dictate edict to the servant.
	Again no one, including the US government, claims that Fischer is
property. He is however a citizen with the rights and responsibilities that
entails. He does not have infinite freedoms as you seem to want to give him.

|> 
|> Barring that, by what right does the US attempt to exercise jurisdiction?
|> 

  By the US constitution, the right to regulate commerce with foriegn 
countries.

|> > 
|> > In the counterexamples above, I seriously doubt that the laws as written,
|> > attempt to make it illegal, for a US citizen, to commit those acts in other 
|> > countries. So as couterexamples they do not wash. 
|> 
|> And you fail to address the issues contained within those examples. One year
|> ago for Fischer to travel to Yugoland and play chess would have been
|> peachy-keen. Today, by the whim of the US government, it is illegal.
|> 
 
   They are not the issue at hand. They are not illegal. No one is this
thread suggests they should be illegal. The Constitution does not cover
private acts in foreign countries. It does cover commerce and business. 
Fischer is pursuing business aims. Even though he is a one person business
it does not change anything.


|> One year from now, when all of those counterexamples are illegal, how will you
|> feel about it. Will you think that the US is playing Big Brother too much?
|> 
|> And if you would, what is the difference here?
|> 
|> Christ man, if all you can ever look at is the way things are today, the harsh
|> reality of tomorrow is going be a real fun time. You must extrapolate and
|> compare BEYOND the current to similar events. Analogy is the only way to ever
|> understand anything.
|> 

  It is quite funny that you want to extrapolate to your "convienent examples",
telling us that if we do not defend Fischer "rights" then look at what will be
lost. Well what do you think is the crisis in Yugoslavia is all about. The 
rights of thousands, millions of men and woman and children are endangered,
and you want us to sympathize with one bigot. Fischer is not more important 
than the peoples of Yugoslavia. 

We can't treat him any differently than any other violaters of the Bans on
commerce with Serbia(Yugoslovia). If Fischer is not prosecuted along with
the arms merchants, et., is that even application of the law? Do you not then
give the other violaters the ability to appeal on basis of the uneven 
application of the law???


|> 
|> 				Does not the US constitution give the Federal gover-
|> > ment the mandate to regulate such commerce? 
|> 
|> Within the U.S. and its territories, yes. 
|> 

  That is not true. It does not need to explicitly state which country.

|> Are the reasons for this because
|> > commerce with foreign countries affect us all, in small ways and sometimes
|> > great and grave? Do we regulate commerce with foreign countries as not to
|> > aid and abet.
|> 
|> Yes, but, Bobby FIscher is not a corporation, and, we are not at war with
|> Yugoslavia. (Of course, maybe Congress snuck in a declaration of war in their
|> last minute sessions...)
|> 

   See above, he is acting as a business, one man or otherwise.


|> 
|> 		The resultant actions by the US goverment( and the UN)  is not 
|> > merely the whim and the wishs of a "few political leaders". 
|> Last time I checked, the presidential order which the US claims Fischer
|> violated was signed by one man--President Busch. Had he not wanted it, it could
|> not have been enacted.
|> 
|> That means he violated a law which was the result of one man.

  Nonsense. The process of arriving at the ban was highly visible, discussed,
debated, inside and out of the US. It parallels actions being taken at the
UN.


  Frankly, I don't which you are arguing for.
- The rights of all individuals
- Some argument to justify Fischer is a "hero" regardless of what he does

Frank Deming  
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess