From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:29:49 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec28.052513.14461@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> 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:
>>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> This is really idiotic. Do you think that government having jurisdiction over
> its people mean that those people are its property?

God, are subtlties ever lost on you...

No, What I am saying is that by claiming to exercise absolute power over
a person when they are beyond its borders, a country ACTS like the citizen is
property of the State. Remember five, ten years ago? Russia forbidding its
citizens from leaving the country and working elsewhere? Remmeber how
we called them the "Evil Empire" because of this?

Well, bucko, we just adopted some if their tactics.
 
						     And do you think that a US
> citizen who kills somebody in another country would be immune of a trial by a
> US court?
> 
> You must be either kidding or totally ignorant.

I did not say that. But, it would be the foreign court(s) which hold
jurisdiction over the American citizen in that case. We might honor an
extradition treaty and ship the US citizzen back there for trial, but 
we would not try the person here.

Q. Why do you think whenever we find an old autoworker who lived in Germany 
during WWII we ship him to Israel for trial? 

A. Because we can't try him here!

> 
>>
>>Last time I checked, the U.S. constitution did NOT extend to Yugoslavia,
>>but maybe I have been studying the abridged version.
> 
> However, the UN Charter DOES extend to Yugoslavia, which signed it and thus
> gave the UN the right to enforce it. The same applies to the US, which, in this
> case, is playing by the rules.

Wrong. It looks good on paper, and is bound to fool people with no
understanding of the concept of federalism and of conflict of law doctrines.
(Which would explain why you are having such a hard time with all of this.)

See, the Federal Government has ONLY the powers which the States granted to it.
(Your Constitution.) If the state lacks the authority to do something, it can
not be given to the U.S. Government.

If the U.S. Goverment lacks the power to do something, it can not bind its
citizens into an action in that area. Therefore, it can not sign agreements
binding its private citizens in some areas. 

Corporations, yes. Corporations are 'fictional persons' (yes, that is the legal
phrasing!) which are 'creatures' of the state they are created in. They have
only limited rights under the Constitution, and everything else can be yanked
by the state in a heartbeat.

That was settled over a century ago. (Indeed, msot of the doctrine was in place
BEFORE the Cnstitution was dreamed up.)

The U.S. Governemtn can bind a corporation. No problem. However, unless Bobby
Fischer was playing for Bobby Fischer, Inc., the goverment has NO authority ove
rhis livlihood in another country.

Why do you think alll of those mercs who advertised in SOF stated in their ads
"Must be legal if in U.S." ???? It's because if it is outside of the U.S., you
can't be tried for it here.

The State Department KNOWS it is going to lose this claim against Fisher. Just
like local governments will pass laws they KNOW will be struck down. (The
Toledo City Councel passed an ordanance banning the playing of "Grandma Got Run
Over By A Reindeer" on Toledo radio. No, I am NOT kidding. Why did they pass
it? Some people were complaining, so to make the voters hapy, they passed the
law. Totally void law. Only the FFC can limit what is played on radio, and even
then the Constitution limits the FCC's powers.)

But, in the meantime, the administration can tell all of the people who think
the US Government is the World Police Force, "Well, we ARE taking this
seriously! We will not tolerate what is going on over there! Why, just look at
all the bad things that will happen to Bobby Fischer if he returns! By
God--there will be no U.S. citizens playing chess for money in Yugoslavia!!!"

And, you are buying it.

> 
> If you think the rules are stupid and should be abandoned, you must also think
> that the US had no jurisdiction over the Nazi WWII criminals, or no right to
> prevent nuclear missiles deployment in Cuba, or whatever... (I am not saying
> that those are exact analogies and any attempt to misinterpret them as such
> will be ignored).

Exact? I'd be happy if you came up with CLOSE!!! Or IN THE SAME BALLPARK!!!

WE HAVEN'T TRIED NAZI WAR CRIMINALS IN THE US!!! WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION!!!

The prevention of missle deployment was an act of OUR NATIONAL SURVIVAL!!!
We did NOT look to any man-made laws for our justification, we looked to what
would happen to us if we didn't stop the deployment. Castro was a crazy man who
WANTED to use nukes. He was so far gone even Kruschev backed away from him!
What we did was prevent a lunatic from acquiring control of nuke ICBM within 70
miles of our borders!!!

That was an act of National defense, whcih I am surprised even you could
compare to Bobyy Fischer playing chess. (Well, OK, I admit I am not too 
surprised.)

> 
> 	Sven

And, oh, yes. I am used to you ignoring the fallacies in your arguments when
they are pointed out. Nothing new there.


>