- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by GoRedSoxHe should be sentenced to play chess in all major tournaments, for a period of 3 years.
If I had been president back then, I would have made him a wanted man as well. Fischer shouldn't get a "bye" just because he's a famous chess player. He broke the law. He should share a cell with Martha Stewart.
Here's the official party line, from Fischer's crackpot web site (Warning: not for the faint of heart):
The World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer has been viciously attacked brutalized seriously injured and very nearly killed when he was illegally detained and arrested by the Japanese immigration authorities at Narita international airport in Tokyo Japan. Also the Japanese immigration authorities at Narita international airport have illegally detained Bobby Fischer at the Narita airport jailhouse.
Furthermore in collusion with the U.S. government the Japanese immigration authorities have confiscated and destroyed Bobby Fischer's U.S. passport. Bobby Fischer is still in jail at Narita airport in Tokyo Japan. Bobby Fischer does not wish to return to the Jew-controlled USA where he faces a kangaroo court and 10 years in Federal prison and a likely early demise or worse on trumped political charges. Nor does he wish to remain in a hostile brutal and corrupt U.S.-controlled Japan.
He urgently requests at immediate offer of political asylum from a friendly third country. Any country wishing to offer Bobby Fischer political asylum should do so immediately at the following address: Miyoko Watai Japan Chess Association, Nishikamata 8-2-1-220, Tokyo 144-0051, Japan Tel & Fax: 81-3-3735-3675 E-mail: info@jca-chess.com
This is a matter of life and death for Bobby. Thank you!
For a somewhat less biased report, see the NYTimes @
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/international/asia/16CND-FISC.html?hp
The short is he knowingly played in a tournament in Yugoslavia during a time when USA had economic sanctions in place restricting him from doing so. He has been on the run from American authorities since.
From the Times article:
"The United Nations imposed sanctions against Yugoslavia for supporting Serbian aggression in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United States banned its citizens from doing business there. Mr. Fischer ignored a formal warning from the government against playing the match — even spitting at the letter on which it was written during a news conference."
There are no credible reports of his having been beaten or being near death. As is clear from his own website, Fischer is notoriously anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and, especially of late, viciously anti-American -- he is almost gleeful about the 9/11 attacks.
Originally posted by GoRedSoxThe Fish shouldn't get a bye because he's a famous chess player; the whole idea of a group of leaders in a country saying "if you go someplace we can put you in jail for 10 years" is deeply contrary to any idea of human freedom and basic human rights. We weren't at war with Yugoslavia (at least in 1992) and what right does the government have to tell you you can't play chess in another country? Plus he accepted that he wasn't welcome in this country, left and never returned!!!! Now the government wants to extradite him? As I said in another thread, what complete BS!!!(and I'd gladly share a cell with Martha Stewart; she's kinda hot and it would be really, really clean!!).
If I had been president back then, I would have made him a wanted man as well. Fischer shouldn't get a "bye" just because he's a famous chess player. He broke the law. He should share a cell with Martha Stewart.
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, the reason it was illegal for him to go to Yugoslavia in 1992 was because of sanctions imposed by the country he lived in, USA. Those sanctions were imposed because the US (and the UN) believed (correctly) that Yugoslavia was engaging in the violation of "basic human rights," as you put it. It was an imposed boycott, one he knew about and scoffed at. It would have been imposed on someone else for buying meat or ores from them, so why not Fischer, who ultimately benefited rather royally from playing there. It wasn't as simple as saying to Fischer, "Don't play chess there," or even "Don't go there;" it was more like "No American shall engage Yugoslavia in any economic activity." Fischer did, stuck out his tongue, and now he is paying the price.
the whole idea of a group of leaders in a country saying "if you go someplace we can put you in jail for 10 years" is deeply contrary to any idea of human freedom and basic human rights. We weren't at war with Yugoslavia (at least in 1992) and what right does the government have to tell you you can't play chess in another country?
The question is, was the sanction itself a just one? Here is a rather modern definition of economic sanctions: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs-sanction.htm
Here is a link about the sanction (EO 12810): http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/1992.html
This Executive Order was tied in with 12808. 12810 blocked property of and prohibited transactions
with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
Are all sanctions good? Of course not: http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb34.htm
(although notice the Yugoslav sanction is mentioned as being at least partially effective).
The fact is, whether or not we think sanctions are good in general, or whether we liked this one or not, the fact was that it was illegal. He didn't go to Yugoslavia for politcal reasons, to protest the sanction; he wasn't fighting for "an oppressed people against an oppressive government;" he hasn't raised any politico-philosophical arguments justifying himself. He simply went because HE WANTED TO, with no agenda but his own: play chess and make big money.
Yes it was a momentous occasion, having not played for 20 years. Yes it was the rematch of the century. But it was also totally and completely illegal. A person can't just say, "I think this law, executive order, regulation (etc.) is silly so I am not bound by it." There are provisions for fighting things. He wasn't and hasn't been interested in that facet of things at all. He was thumbing his nose saying, "I'll do whatever I want. I hate America and its laws (but I will try to keep my passport!)."
And yes, I think he should go to jail for breaking the law he knew about and dismissed because he thought he was above it or that it didn't apply to him.
Bobby Fischer did more for this countries youth than both Bushs' put together. Do you know how many young people started playing chess the year "Searching For Bobby Fischer" came out? Chess takes time, time spent away from drugs, crime, I would say sex, but I love sex. The prez will probably try to put Bobby in Gauntanemo Bay with war criminals, simply because he played a game of chess to show he was still a world power after years of hibernation, if I may say. Don't forget, your "perfect" president was convicted of drunk driving in the 70s
I think you've missed the point about having a free country; you should be able to do something because YOU WANT TO as long as you're not sticking a fist in somebody's face, you're supposed to be able to do what YOU WANT TO.
Originally posted by nemesio
Actually, the reason it was illegal for him to go to Yugoslavia in 1992 was because of sanctions imposed by the country he lived in, USA. Those sanctions were imposed because the US (and the UN) believed (correctly) that Yugoslavia was engaging in the violation of "basic human rights," as you put it. It was an imposed boycott, one he knew about and sco ...[text shortened]... he knew about and dismissed because he thought he was above it or that it didn't apply to him.
Economic sanctions? What a joke! Name one US citizen who has ever faced prison for trading with South Africa when it had an apartheid regime!
The Fish left the country because he felt the law was BS. I don't care whether you think the "law" is soo sacred (ever speed?) but he took his medicine: the US says you can't be free, so he left. I don't care how much money he made, I don't care what his motives were; a free man (which we all should be ) should be able to make such a decision.
Screw the Law!! Free the Fish!!!
Originally posted by no1marauderLaws (sanctions, whatever) are impositions on freedom. They limit what you can and cannot do. Sometimes, I want to put my fist in someone's face, and maybe I have a pretty good reason, but it's illegal, not matter how badly I want to do it.
I think you've missed the point about having a free country; you should be able to do something because YOU WANT TO as long as you're not sticking a fist in somebody's face, you're supposed to be able to do what YOU WANT TO.
Some limitations are direct, some are indirect. What about bribing a union delegate not to come into your business to solicit new members? No one is directly hurt, right? It's a free country, right?
What about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one? Freedom of speech should make this okay, right?
C'mon, bud. If you do whatever you want, it's anarchy, not freedom. Freedom is the general pursuit of happiness, not just your own, but the corporate happiness. Sometimes that means sacrifice of yourself on behalf of others. The sanctions (rightly or wrongly) were put in place because G H Bush believed that economic support of that country was assisting in violations of human rights. Bobby Fischer basically said, "I don't care about anyone else's rights but my own do do whatever I want." That's not "Freedom," that's anarchy.
Fischer didn't just up and leave-- he was warned that he was breaking the law, he held a press conference to say that he didn't care about the law, he went ahead and broke the law, he collected a $3.3 million paycheck for breaking the law, and THEN he left.
If he really thought the laws of his country were BS and didn't apply to him, a better choice would have been to renounce his citizenship and take off. Then he wouldn't have had to worry about the BS laws.
Originally posted by Alpha10Um. I don't recall endorsing either Bush (far from it). However, the notion that Bobby Fischer changed America dramatically, that his existence appreciably lowered crime or drug use is totally ludicrous. He didn't "just play a game." He could have played that game an infinite number of places, but he played it in Yugoslavia. He was apprised that his actions were illegal, he said, "I don't care," pocketed the money and became a criminal. Period.
Bobby Fischer did more for this countries youth than both Bushs' put together. Do you know how many young people started playing chess the year "Searching For Bobby Fischer" came out? Chess takes time, time spent away from drugs, crime, ...[text shortened]... ur "perfect" president was convicted of drunk driving in the 70s
I don't think he's a war criminal, and he won't be treated as such. If he is, I will as appalled as anyone else on this site.
I never, ever, ever said, implied, suggested, or insinuated that "W" was perfect.
I said that Bobby Fischer committed a crime. He should be arrested. He will have an opportunity to defend himself in court. The jury will have to decide his innocence or guilt. My gut tells me he will be convicted, but I will weigh my judgement based on evidence.
Originally posted by nemesioYour idea of freedom seems to be doing what you're told to do. Of course, that's the opposite of freedom (as any teenager will tell you).
Laws (sanctions, whatever) are impositions on freedom. They limit what you can and cannot do. Sometimes, I want to put my fist in someone's face, and maybe I have a pretty good reason, but it's illegal, not matter how badly I want to do it.
Some limitations are direct, some are indirect. What about bribing a union delegate not to come into your busin ...[text shortened]... ne else's rights but my own do do whatever I want." That's not "Freedom," that's anarchy.
I gave the example of " fist in somebody's face' to assume the "fire in a crowed theater " argument. These are things that cause direct harms to other human beings and therefore your freedom to do them should be circumscribed. One of the ideas behind a free society (which you evidently miss) is that these circumstances constitute an exception, not the general rule.
No one can reasonably argue that the Fish playing a chess match in Yugoslavia did any harm to the US, indirect (whatever that means and where's the limit) or direct. If he never wants to come back, fine, leave him alone. Roman Polanski screws 11-year olds, releases movies in the US and makes millions of dollars and lives abroad in peace. Why can't the greatest American chess player be accorded the same treatment? Probably because he puts "anti-American" and "anti-semitic" garbage on his web site. It's all BS, what's on his site and the idea that this government run by a sub-moron who couldn't figure out how to make a move in checkers can put a man in jail for going somewhere other idiots don't want him to go. If the Fish wanted to be told what to do and where to go he would have got married!!!!
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is where we disagree. First of all, the embargoes inherently hurt US people. It costs them billions of dollars in exports. The US government puts these in place because it believes that that loss of freedom is JUST, because it believes that those billions of dollars will go towards harming other people in that sanctioned country. The US (and UN) says that "We will undergo a sacrifice because we don't want to support the mass genocide of other people." I think its pretty clear that Yugoslavia engaged in profoundly unethical behavior, and by his actions Fischer supported it, knowingly and against the express law of his country. He did do harm to people, although how much is difficult to say; an economic theorist would have to comment on that.
No one can reasonably argue that the Fish playing a chess match in Yugoslavia did any harm to the US, indirect (whatever that means and where's the limit) or direct.
If he REALLY wanted to do that, if he REALLY thought the US laws were BS, he should have become the member of another country, let's say Yugoslavia, before he did what he did.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. If there is a law in place that I strongly disagree with, I petition or fight against it. I fully expect that if I should violate that law, even if I disagree with it, I should pay the price (like speeding; I don't always follow the speed limit, but when I get a ticket, I deserve it).
Your idea of freedom seems to be doing what you're told to do. Of course, that's the opposite of freedom (as any teenager will tell you).
There are wonderful provisions in this country for legalally fighting against laws. Fischer had those at his disposal, as do I and every other citizen.
If it ever got to a point where I could not tolerate a law, I would move to another country with laws that matched my own political or personal beliefs.