From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 29 Dec 92 09:45:38 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec29.054749.23332@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.112949.687@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>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:
>>>>> 
>>						     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.
> 
> Not convincing at all.

Not convincing? I just shot to hell your theory that we could prosecute the
person here in the U.S.--because it does not happen. Period. Your theory of
jurisdiction is flat out wrong.

Of course, I supose it is hard to convince someone who has such a closed mind
that they are ignorant...
...and so you will probably stay ignorant.

And, of course, wrong.


> 
>>>>
>>>>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. [A long tirade of legal facts with, to put it mildly, problematic 
> logical connection among them, follows]

Gee Sven, it isn't valid just to state that one's logic is wrong, you gotta
show where...

Of course, you can't, so like Benjamin, you stae your pre-determined conclusion
and move on real fast hoping no one notices.

But I suppose that is where your style and my style differ. I ENJOY pointing out
the dysfunctionality of your logic. I LOVE highlighting just how absurd your
arguments are.

You are forced to render little more than the functional eqivelent of 

"NOT!"

In response to my posts. I'd think someone who claims t be as educated as
yourself would be happy to spread his reasoning before the light of public
debate. I would think someone who claims to be as in search of the truth as you
claim to be would welcome showing all his solid basis in his beliefs.


> 
> No wonder we are screwed when such people become lawyers! I wouldn't be
> surprised if he goes all the way to become a SC Justice - there already are
> such boneheads on the SC...

Yep. Nice 'off-the-cuff' attack. Address no issues whatsoever. Lamely tries to
divert attention away from one's own fallacies.

Of course, it does, in its own warped way, demonstrate why people run to
lawyers at the first sign of trouble. We are trained indebate. We understand
that an anology MUST not defy common sense or it works against you. We
explain in detail how we came to our concluions.

And if do our job right, the other side must resort to the proverbial 'Yell
real loud' technique.
 

> 
>>WE HAVEN'T TRIED NAZI WAR CRIMINALS IN THE US!!! WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION!!!
> 
> However, we tried them in the US-occupied territory. Guess under whose 
> jurisdiction it was...

Military jurisdiction. Under a joint coalition of other militaries.

And, the people we tried were all members of the military who had engaed in
military duties. Pursuant to the terms of an agreed upon surrender. Beisdes,
militaries always have jurisdiction over conquered militaries.

Did Fischer join the Yugo army while he was over there???

And, did Yugoland surrender to the U.N.? 

> 
> 	Sven
>