(Nick) wrote in message

You were correct. David Ames seems to have mistakenly assumed that
General Homma was tried by the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
The procedures at General Homma's trial were extremely biased in favour
of the prosecution, which provoked strong protests from the defence.

"Hasty, revengeful action is not the American way....Today the lives of
Yama****a and Homma, leaders of enemy forces vanquished in the field of
battle,
are taken *without regard to the due process of law*. There will be few
to
protest. But tomorrow the precedent here established can be turned
against
others. A procession of judicial lynchings without due process of law may
now follow...."
--United States Supreme Court Justice Murphy (11 February 1946)


Dear Nick,

You are doubtless aware of MacArthur's explanation for confirming the
sentence despite Associate Justice Murphy's objections, part of it ran:

"No trial can be fairer than this one ... Insofar as was humanly possible
the actual facts were presented to the commission ...

"If the defendant does not deserve his judicial fate, none in jurisdictional
history ever did."

In the Yama****a trial Murphy was joined in his dissent by Wiley Rutledge.
If anything this verdict was even more perverse, for Yama****a had argued
for the decent treatment of Allied prisoners in Malaya. Part of what
Rutledge wrote was:

"Never before have we tried and convicted an enemy general for actions taken
during hostilities or otherwise in the course of military operations or
duty - much less have we condemned one for failing to take action...

"This petitioner was rushed to trial under an improper charge, given
insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense, deprived of the benefits
of some of the most elementary rules of evidence, and summarily sentenced
to be hanged. In all this needless and unseemly haste there was no serious
attempt to prove that he committed a recognised violation of the laws of
war."

Professor Telford Taylor a retired general stated in 1971 that the Yama****a
case meant that General Westmoreland the US commander in Vietnam "could be
found guilty" of war crimes. Yama****a's defense lawyer objected: "Under
the Yama****a rule as set down by the United States Supreme Court,
Westmoreland would be convicted".

The real criminal was the mikado, who had been granted immunity under the
terms of the Japanese surrender.


Regards,

Simon.

In article ,
chapman Billy wrote:

Dear Nick,

You are doubtless aware of MacArthur's explanation for confirming the
sentence despite Associate Justice Murphy's objections, part of it ran:


Gee, how about you post something that relates to CHESS?

Jackass.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Harold Buck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
chapman Billy wrote:

Dear Nick,

You are doubtless aware of MacArthur's explanation for confirming the
sentence despite Associate Justice Murphy's objections, part of it ran:


Gee, how about you post something that relates to CHESS?

Jackass.

--Harold Buck

Harold,
Insofar as the relatively new medium of Usenet has any time-honoreed
traditions, these participants are invoking the well-established one which
provides a means by which users can legitimately designate and discuss an
Off Topic issue without having to post something like, "For my comments on
the treatment of Japanese leaders charged with war crimes, meet me over at
soc.history.war.world-war-ii." When done judiciously and with respect for
the normal bounds of discussion of the group, such activity should be little
cause for complaint by other subscrobers.

Of course, you are following the even more well-established Usenet tradition
of harshly attacking another member, with little or no provocation, using
language that you would never use in a face-to-face discussion with someone
you had merely overheard and never met.

Fascist bully.

Bob Musicant

In article ,
"Bob Musicant" wrote:

Insofar as the relatively new medium of Usenet has any time-honoreed
traditions, these participants are invoking the well-established one which
provides a means by which users can legitimately designate and discuss an
Off Topic issue without having to post something like, "For my comments on
the treatment of Japanese leaders charged with war crimes, meet me over at
soc.history.war.world-war-ii." When done judiciously and with respect for
the normal bounds of discussion of the group, such activity should be little
cause for complaint by other subscrobers.

I missed the OT tag because it was at the end of the subject. Partly my
bad, partly the OPs.

But this newsgroup has so much BS on it about (non-chess) politics that
it's almost useless.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Musicant" wrote:

Insofar as the relatively new medium of Usenet has any time-honoreed
traditions, these participants are invoking the well-established one
which provides a means by which users can legitimately designate and
discuss an Off Topic issue without having to post something like, "For my
comments on the treatment of Japanese leaders charged with war crimes,
meet me over at
soc.history.war.world-war-ii." When done judiciously and with respect
for the normal bounds of discussion of the group, such activity should be
little cause for complaint by other subscrobers.

I missed the OT tag because it was at the end of the subject. Partly my
bad, partly the OPs.

This is not the only thing you miss. You appear to be lacking the common
courtesy that should be shown to a stranger of whom you know nothing and
who has not insulted you.

Here's a chess question, do you even have a grade?

But this newsgroup has so much BS on it about (non-chess) politics that
it's almost useless.

Then I suggest you use a killfile; or, better still, practise instead what
we in England call noughts and crosses, it appears to be better suited to
your abilities.

Harold Buck wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bob Musicant" wrote:
Insofar as the relatively new medium of Usenet has any time-honoreed
traditions, these participants are invoking the well-established one which
provides a means by which users can legitimately designate and discuss an
Off Topic issue without having to post something like, "For my comments on
the treatment of Japanese leaders charged with war crimes, meet me over at
soc.history.war.world-war-ii." When done judiciously and with respect for
the normal bounds of discussion of the group, such activity should be little
cause for complaint by other subscrobers.

I missed the OT tag because it was at the end of the subject.
Partly my bad, partly the OPs.

Mr. Buck:

But that's enough reason for you to call someone else a 'jackass', right?

But this newsgroup has so much BS on it about (non-chess) politics
that it's almost useless.

In my view, Simon was writing a post about history, not contemporary politics.
Do you regard it as 'BS'? If you have a political objection to what he wrote
about 1940s history, then it should be better for you to express that objection
openly rather than just denouncing him for writing it in an off-topic thread.

--Nick

"Bob Musicant" wrote in message . net...
"Harold Buck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
chapman Billy wrote:
You are doubtless aware of MacArthur's explanation for confirming the
sentence despite Associate Justice Murphy's objections, part of it ran:

Gee, how about you post something that relates to CHESS?
Jackass.

Harold,
Insofar as the relatively new medium of Usenet has any time-honoreed
traditions, these participants are invoking the well-established one which
provides a means by which users can legitimately designate and discuss an
Off Topic issue without having to post something like, "For my comments on
the treatment of Japanese leaders charged with war crimes, meet me over at
soc.history.war.world-war-ii." When done judiciously and with respect for
the normal bounds of discussion of the group, such activity should be little
cause for complaint by other subscrobers.

Dear Mr. Musicant:

I declared this descendant thread as 'OT' in order to preempt those complaints.
Unfortunately, that declaration seems not to have been too successful.

Of course, you are following the even more well-established Usenet tradition
of harshly attacking another member, with little or no provocation, using
language that you would never use in a face-to-face discussion with someone
you had merely overheard and never met.

Given that Harold Buck, in my view, has mischaracterised Simon's post as
'political' rather than 'historical' in its subject, did Mr. Buck have a
political objection to what Simon wrote, which Mr. Buck decided to express
in the guise of denouncing it unfairly as being 'off-topic'?

Fascist bully.

Ah, has Jerome Bibuld's rhetoric been gaining influence here? :-)

--Nick

"Bob Musicant" wrote in message
. net...
"Harold Buck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
chapman Billy wrote:
Dear Nick,
You are doubtless aware of MacArthur's explanation for confirming the
sentence despite Associate Justice Murphy's objections, part of it ran:

Gee, how about you post something that relates to CHESS?
Jackass.

Harold,
(snipped)
Of course, you are following the even more well-established Usenet tradition
of harshly attacking another member, with little or no provocation, using
language that you would never use in a face-to-face discussion with someone
you had merely overheard and never met. Fascist bully.

Dear Mr. Musicant,

Thanks for expressing your position in general.

I have observed (and indeed I frequently have been the target) so many examples
here of "the even more well-established Usenet tradition of harshly attacking
another member, with little or no provocation..." that I was almost beginning
to suspect that hardly any other readers believed there was anything wrong with
it.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Musicant" wrote in message
. net...
"Harold Buck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
chapman Billy wrote:
Dear Nick,
You are doubtless aware of MacArthur's explanation for confirming
the
sentence despite Associate Justice Murphy's objections, part of it
ran:

Gee, how about you post something that relates to CHESS?
Jackass.

Harold,
(snipped)
Of course, you are following the even more well-established Usenet
tradition
of harshly attacking another member, with little or no provocation,
using
language that you would never use in a face-to-face discussion with
someone
you had merely overheard and never met. Fascist bully.

Dear Mr. Musicant,

Thanks for expressing your position in general.

I have observed (and indeed I frequently have been the target) so many
examples
here of "the even more well-established Usenet tradition of harshly
attacking
another member, with little or no provocation..." that I was almost
beginning
to suspect that hardly any other readers believed there was anything wrong
with
it.

--Nick

Nick,
Strange new world we live in.
Bob