From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.history
Subject: Re: A first for ...
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:05:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug19.140506.14890
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <01GNRGB4TB8O8WW5N0@VAX1.UMKC.EDU> 
"talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.iupui.edu> writes:

>Date: 16 Aug 1992 01:30:12 +0000 (GMT)
>From: Michael Zeleny <zeleny%HUSC9.HARVARD.EDU@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
>Subject: Standing Trial (was re: a question)

>>In article <9208151820.AA22548@feds66.Prime.COM> 
>>"talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.iupui.edu> writes:

>>a nameless ignoramus writes:

X:
>>>>Ukrainians lived with Jews if not quite peacefully,
>>>>but without holocausts

DL:
>>>Especially in Bohdan Khmelnitsky's times.

MZ:
>>The first Hetman was nothing compared to the last one (one hopes!);
>>from 1917 to 1920 over 100,000 Jews were murdered during pogroms,
>>most of which were conducted by uniformed members of the Ukrainian
>>army.  Of my own immediate family, at least two men were killed and
>>one woman raped by Petliura's troops.  I note that Shalom
>>Schwartzbard, who assasinated Simon Petliura in Paris on May 25,
>>1926, was acquitted by the French court, to whose judgment he
>>voluntarily submitted himself.  A similar judgment was rendered in
>>1921 by the Weimar Republic court in Berlin in the case of the
>>Armenian assassin Tehlirian, who put an end to the life of the
>>genocidal Turkish murderer Talaat Bey, likewise insisting on standing
>>trial for his act.  There is a lesson here for our gutless, anomic
>>times; I hope that it won't be lost on my audience.

VNS:
>This is the first direct incitement to assassination (though the
>targets are unclear) I've read on the nets in three years. Your
>"lesson" is indeed NOT "lost" on this reader, I think there HAS to be
>a better solution to men like Petliura than murder. Your citing of
>the bankrupt, rightist-leaning Weimar courts does not give credence
>to your "argument," or so it would seem to this writer. I DO feel
>that you have a right to bitterness for the murders and rapes done to
>your family, but two wrongs do NOT make a right - assassinating the
>obnoxious leaders of regions or countries will stop the barbarities
>they set in motion, whether that be George Bush, D. Dudayev, Saddam
>Hussein, Moammar Quaddaffi, or the late Petliura. Killing is not a
>credible solution to the worst situation, for solving problems in
>such a manner steps the would-be murderer right down in the mud with
>those they would kill. No specific criticism of the writer is
>intended, but of the idea that "justified homicide" ought to be
>acceptable. Who decides?

The court decided in each case, -- the court, in whose ruling I have far
more confidence than in your vacuous pronouncements.  Kindly note that both
Schwartsbard and Tehlirian voluntarily submitted themselves to justice.
Also note that my argument has nothing to do with personal bitterness.  I
cited the cases of my relatives solely to indicate that I have a personal
knowledge of, rather than personal interest in this matter.  (By contrast,
you courageously deploy your rhetoric while remaining hidden behind a
pseudonym.)  This, however, is not at issue here; the relevant part is that
in each case the assasination was ruled as justified by the law of the
land, which certainly legitimized the actions of the assasins ex post
factum, your stated lack of confidence in the courts in question
notwithstanding, -- who are you to decide?

As for your expressed opinion that there HAS to be a better solution, I am
willing to wager that it won't be forthcoming out of your interminable and
inconsequential verbiage.  If justice is unavailable by any other means, I
submit that the above course of action is the only one worthy of moral
consideration by men of honor and dignity.  For the only alternative to
resolute action is empty talk.

>Not so cordially, VMS

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."