On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:49:52 -0700, "David Kane"
<davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
>> AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
>> administration, and then only by the back door of a pass****t
>> violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
>> vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
>> the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.
>Both you and Berry miss several im****ant facts. First, Fischer was
>indicted immediately after completing the match.
Can you supply a link do***enting his indictment?
>Whether the embargo
>*ultimately* proved effective was really irrelevant. (By the way, I would
>not make an *****sment based on some offhand comments interpreted
>by a Canadian chess journalist!) Second, Fischer
>did not set foot in the US while under indictment- what overt actions
>*could* the US reasonably have taken? Third, Fischer no doubt
>called attention to himself with his pro-9/11 radio broadcast. That
likely
>increased interest in bringing him to justice, but the US still
>could not seek extradition because his crime was not listed in
>the extradition treaty. Fischer's expired pass****t gave the US other
>avenues to explore. The US explored them but alternate legal
>approaches were unsuccessful.
And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the pass****t in
Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?
>Once you dismiss the "chessplayers are above the law"
>arguments, I really don't see any wrongdoing on the part
>of the US government.
"Wrongdoing" may be too strong to describe the petty vindictiveness of
a bureaucrat. It's the dispro****tionality that Berry points out,
ignoring vastly more significant violations of the embargo, while
going after a chess player many years later.
|
