banana wrote in message ...
In article , John A Swartz
writes

Try to understand this: US law does not apply outside of US
jurisdiction.

That is one statement of principle, and there are other principles
which may apply, whether you agree or disagree. Your claim that being
abroad absolves the citizen of responsibility under U.S. law cannot be
upheld. Your view is idealistic, not practical.

Whether or not a refugee from State X is given asylum
by
State Y does not depend solely on what State X says about whether or not
the person is a citizen of State X. That is not how international law on
refugees works. (How on earth could it be?) For example, let us say a
few years ago a refugee from Afghanistan turned up in, say, the UK,
before the illegal US/UK invasion. The decision on whether or not to
grant asylum status would not be taken solely on the basis of whether or
not the Taliban government claimed the person was still an Afghan
citizen.

Doesn't want to be treated as a U.S.
citizen? Sure Bobby, how 'bout you just pay all your back taxes (and
associated penalties) and we'll let you go wherever you like

Do you understand that the US authorities have no legal authority to
tell anyone outside US jurisdiction where they can or can't go? Yes or
no? Tell me whether or not you know this, please.


If a U.S. citizen visits Cuba, departing from Mexico, although such
visit is against U.S. law, legal penalties await upon return. Perhaps
the law is an ass, but the law is to be upheld. The Constitution says
so.

- although
you may need to find another country to grant you a personal
passport...

John

..
On following up or not, the "follow ups" of the US were pretty perfunctory
until now, 12 years later. For example, it would have been a very simple
matter to send the Japanese police after him, if the US really wanted him,


I seriously doubt that the United States is in the habit of "commanding" the
police departments of other countries, just as other countries are not in the
habit of "commanding" ours.


The US could have sent the police of all
the other countries after him too,


Or the U.S. *could have* had Fischer assasinated, but since they didn't, they
obviously approved of his every action, his every whim. What sort of
un-reasoning is this?



The issuance of a passport to Fischer does make applicable the doctrine of
acquiescence of the US to Fischer wandering around in the world, instead of
getting hold of him.


You obviously "missed" where another poster argued that the U.S. may have
deliberately allowed Bobby to escape their clutches in Switzerland, because of
their alleged lack of an extradition treaty with the United States. This
argument, unfortunately, is based upon the purely speculative conspiracy
theory, but it inadvertently points to a flaw in your silly argument.



Therefore, IMHO, laches and acquiescence of the US have been clearly
established


Are you willing to show up in a court of law, and reiterate this argument on
Fischer's behalf? And will legal "expert" Sam Sloan agree that your "defense"
is the best line of play? Or will Bobby -- IF he is deported here -- hire a
*real* lawyer? Time will tell. :-)

I still favor that guy who got O.J. off -- but it's not up to me.

If there is someone silly, then that's you with your uninformed assertions.

Cooperation between national police forces through the Interpol is a matter
of routine, no "commandeering" of foreign police forces is required. But the
US did not even require such routine cooperation, which is not very
credible, if the US really wanted to get hold of him.

Moreover, I said nothing of assassinating Fischer or the like, you are
putting words in my mouth.

What I *am* saying though is that the *very* perfunctory efforts of the US
for the past 12 years give rise to presumptions of laches and acquiescence,
and that the US would have to overcome those presumptions for enforcement of
whatever the US wants to enforce.

These are very basic legal doctrines and procedures, but in spite of you
throwing around legalisms, you still don't understand what that means, even
after my attempts to explain.

Well, enough said.


"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
On following up or not, the "follow ups" of the US were pretty
perfunctory
until now, 12 years later. For example, it would have been a very simple
matter to send the Japanese police after him, if the US really wanted
him,


I seriously doubt that the United States is in the habit of "commanding"
the
police departments of other countries, just as other countries are not in
the
habit of "commanding" ours.


The US could have sent the police of all
the other countries after him too,


Or the U.S. *could have* had Fischer assasinated, but since they didn't,
they
obviously approved of his every action, his every whim. What sort of
un-reasoning is this?



The issuance of a passport to Fischer does make applicable the doctrine
of
acquiescence of the US to Fischer wandering around in the world, instead
of
getting hold of him.


You obviously "missed" where another poster argued that the U.S. may
have
deliberately allowed Bobby to escape their clutches in Switzerland,
because of
their alleged lack of an extradition treaty with the United States. This
argument, unfortunately, is based upon the purely speculative conspiracy
theory, but it inadvertently points to a flaw in your silly argument.



Therefore, IMHO, laches and acquiescence of the US have been clearly
established


Are you willing to show up in a court of law, and reiterate this
argument on
Fischer's behalf? And will legal "expert" Sam Sloan agree that your
"defense"
is the best line of play? Or will Bobby -- IF he is deported here -- hire
a
*real* lawyer? Time will tell. :-)

I still favor that guy who got O.J. off -- but it's not up to me.

Fischer has no obligations to the US government. He is not living in US
jurisdiction.

Man. You must be living in one heck of a fantasy world. Every
criminal would love what you said. You must be doing something
illegal somewhere to make such a statement.

EZoto

..
If there is someone silly, then that's you


Impressive. I haven't seen "reasoning" this deep since Jason Repa
disappeared, some time ago.



Cooperation between national police forces through the Interpol is a matter
of routine,


Many times, it has been assertted here that Japan would never extradite
Fischer back to the U.S. on account of his "crime" not being one in Japan.
Where were you?


US did not even require such routine cooperation, which is not very
credible, if the US really wanted to get hold of him.


This sounds like a (very) vague reference to Fischer's visits to American
embassies, yet you appear afraid to actually make the assertion that an
embassy can and should snatch-up its visitors, for extradition. Enough said.



Moreover, I said nothing of assassinating Fischer or the like, you are
putting words in my mouth.


I was not quoting you, stupid. I was giving an example of your kind of
un-reaasoning, your peculiar sort of il-logic.

Failure of the U.S. government to do anything in the past, is hardly
justification for
assertting that a fugitive be let off the hook for his "crimes." I could just
as well argue that, since a cop passed me on my way to work, failing to stop me
for speeding, this was tacit approval, and means I can now speed whenever I
want, and if they try to stop me, it's "latches" time, baby! I'm immune,
because someone failed to do something they were supposed to do. Time to trade
in my old jalope for a new Porsche!


Once again, where were you when it was pointed out earlier that the doctrine
of "latches" does not apply to the state? MIA -- again.



These are very basic legal doctrines and procedures, but in spite of you
throwing around legalisms, you still don't understand what that means, even
after my attempts to explain.


Attempts is hardly the word. You have completely ignored all facts which
don't neatly fit into your "defense" plan. This is not the way to win a case
in court. Perhaps Sam Sloan should be placed in charge, and you, demoted to
his assistant. :-)

Were you born ineducable or did you train to become that way?


"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
If there is someone silly, then that's you


Impressive. I haven't seen "reasoning" this deep since Jason Repa
disappeared, some time ago.



Cooperation between national police forces through the Interpol is a
matter
of routine,


Many times, it has been assertted here that Japan would never extradite
Fischer back to the U.S. on account of his "crime" not being one in Japan.
Where were you?


US did not even require such routine cooperation, which is not very
credible, if the US really wanted to get hold of him.


This sounds like a (very) vague reference to Fischer's visits to
American
embassies, yet you appear afraid to actually make the assertion that an
embassy can and should snatch-up its visitors, for extradition. Enough
said.



Moreover, I said nothing of assassinating Fischer or the like, you are
putting words in my mouth.


I was not quoting you, stupid. I was giving an example of your kind of
un-reaasoning, your peculiar sort of il-logic.

Failure of the U.S. government to do anything in the past, is hardly
justification for
assertting that a fugitive be let off the hook for his "crimes." I could
just
as well argue that, since a cop passed me on my way to work, failing to
stop me
for speeding, this was tacit approval, and means I can now speed whenever
I
want, and if they try to stop me, it's "latches" time, baby! I'm immune,
because someone failed to do something they were supposed to do. Time to
trade
in my old jalope for a new Porsche!


Once again, where were you when it was pointed out earlier that the
doctrine
of "latches" does not apply to the state? MIA -- again.



These are very basic legal doctrines and procedures, but in spite of you
throwing around legalisms, you still don't understand what that means,
even
after my attempts to explain.


Attempts is hardly the word. You have completely ignored all facts
which
don't neatly fit into your "defense" plan. This is not the way to win a
case
in court. Perhaps Sam Sloan should be placed in charge, and you, demoted
to
his assistant. :-)

"PeteCasso" wrote in message
m...
I'm neither the original poster nor the challenger in this thread,
I'm just jumping in the discussion.

A US citizen is subject to applicable US laws regardless of where he is.
However, the key qualifier here is "applicable" and that's where reasonable
minds differ (in all sorts of directions and in all shades of colors, to say
something superfluous).

By renouncing US citizenship, whatever it was that applied, if any, would
no longer apply. That is unequivocal for acts done after renunciation.
However, for acts done prior to renunciation, I would think that whatever
it was that applied, if any, would still apply.
(snipped)

(What I write here is a question, not an attempt to criticise anyone.)

Suppose that a United States citizen is a permanent resident of another
country, and his wife and children are citizens of that country.
Suppose that the United States initiates a war (whether formally declared
or not) against that country, and he expects that he may be conscripted
into military service against the United States.

Then could he *immediately* renounce his United States citizenship in order
to avoid any potential charge of treason if he were to be conscripted into
military service later against the United States?

--Nick

(David Ames) wrote in message
. com...
banana wrote in
message ...
Try to understand this: US law does not apply outside of US jurisdiction.

That is one statement of principle, and there are other principles which
may apply, whether you agree or disagree. Your claim that being abroad
absolves the citizen of responsibility under U.S. law cannot be upheld.

Before the United States Civil War (1861-5), the African American 'fugitive
slaves' who succeeded in fleeing to legal sanctuary in Canada were happy that
'US law (did) not apply outside US jurisdiction' and that Canada refused to
extradite them to the United States, whose laws presumably would have returned
them to their former lives as slaves.

Your view is idealistic, not practical.

The 'fugitive slaves' seemed to regard their new freedom in Canada as
practical enough, perhaps, to be worth risking their lives to gain.

(snipped)
Do you understand that the US authorities have no legal authority to
tell anyone outside US jurisdiction where they can or can't go?
Yes or no? Tell me whether or not you know this, please.

If a U.S. citizen visits Cuba, departing from Mexico, although such visit
is against U.S. law, legal penalties await upon return. Perhaps the law
is an ass, but the law is to be upheld. The Constitution says so.

*Perhaps* David Ames has a different view from mine about the moral worth of
Martin Luther King's campaigns of civil disobedience against racist laws in
the United States.

Of course, I am *not* comparing Bobby Fischer in any way to Martin Luther King
as a hero of morally principled civil disobedience.

--Nick

"PeteCasso" wrote in message
m...(to 'NoMoreChess'):
If there is someone silly, then that's you with your uninformed assertions.
(snipped)
Moreover, I said nothing of assassinating Fischer or the like,
you are putting words in my mouth. ...

Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a deeply dishonest troll with a long record of
misrepresenting other writers and lying about them to attack them personally.

Here are some views from several diverse writers here about Greg Kennedy:

"The falsehood seems to me to be in the rewrite by NoMoreChess of what I wrote.
.... So far what we have seen is NoMoreChess misrepresenting me and trying to
argue that he is correct to assume what I am implying....Once again, it is
in reality NoMoreChess who is putting words in my mouth....No matter how many
times NoMoreChess repeats his misrepresentation of what I wrote, it will not
become true....Is it too much to hope that NoMoreChess will stop
misrepresenting what I have written?"
--Louis Blair (29 March 2003, in RGCP)

"NoMoreChess's main hobby seems to be putting words into other people's mouths.
Of course, the rational among us will observe that I never made any such
conclusion, but I'm sure NoMoreChess won't let that stop him."
--Ed Seedhouse (9 July 2003, in RGCM)

"I finally have learned to use Google to find previous posts.
Thus I correct 'nomorechess', who *makes a habit of misrepresenting me--and
others*....*Given its/her/his past record*, these are NOT, to my mind, 'honest
mistakes' on the part of 'nomorechess'. In this case, therefore, *as in so
many others*, *'nomorechess' is a baldfaced liar*."
--Jerome Bibuld (4 February 2004, in RGCM)

"Greg Kennedy (NoMoreChess) is *not* someone one should rely on for determining
the veracity of a claim, *rather the opposite*. I give just one example,
although *his distortions are legion*...."
--Simon ('chapman billy', 2 June 2004, in RGCM)

--Nick

banana wrote in
message ...
(snipped)
Note the amazing arrogance of the scumbag US officials, as if they have
the right to force someone outside of the US to be treated as a US citizen
if he doesn't want to be.

On a historical note (unrelated to Bobby Fischer's case), before
and during the US-Mexican War (1846-8), some American soldiers--Irish
and German Catholic immigrants (most of whom *never* were United
States citizens)--'defected' and joined the San Patricio
(St Patrick's) battalion of the Mexican Army, a crack unit that
became much feared and hated by the United States Army. The San
Patricio soldiers often fought to the death because they knew that
they could expect little or no mercy if they were captured alive
by the Americans.

Those men had 'changed sides' for one or more of several reasons:
1) The fierce anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States of
the 1840s.
2) The common arbitrary and harsh punishments (particularly
against Catholic soldiers) in the United States Army.
3) Moral objections to the United States invasion of Mexico,
which included many war crimes against Mexican civilians.
4) Mexican promises of Mexican citizenship and free land grants.

Near the end of the war, almost all of the San Patricio men who
had been captured by the United States Army were put on trial
for their lives. The Mexicans liked to contend that the San
Patricio men had become Mexican citizens, and so they should be
treated as prisoners-of-war, but the United States evidently
refused to recognise those claims of Mexican citizenship.
Some of the San Patricio men (including their commander, John
Riley) were saved from execution by the legal fact that they had
deserted from the United States Army *before* the United States
had officially declared war on Mexico. Forty-eight San Patricio
men were hanged by the United States Army.

Every year, the Mexicans hold a ceremony to honour their 'fallen heroes'
of the San Patricios. As each man's name is read, the crowd chants:
'Murio por la patria!' ('He died for the country!').

Here's an article, 'The Irish Soldiers of Mexico' by Michael Hogan:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2004/hogan.htm

For further reading:
"The Rogues' March: John Riley and the St Patrick's Battalion"
by Peter Stevens

'Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States.'
--Porforio Diaz (1830-1915, who was president of Mexico)

--Nick