"PeteCasso" wrote in message
m...(to Greg Kennedy):
If there is someone silly, then that's you with your uninformed assertions.
...
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.

Mr Casso, based on the vast experience of Greg Kennedy's ('NoMoreChess')
dishonest trolling posts in the chess newgroups, I doubt that Greg Kennedy
has any sincere interest in attempting to understand what you really mean.
I suspect that any further attempt by you to explain will be wasted on him.

Greg Kennedy's favourite pastime here is 'trolling for a flame war'
(to quote John Macnab). It's better for you to know that sooner than later.

Well, enough said.

On 2 June 2004, Simon ('chapman billy') wrote to David Richerby:
"Does David Richerby wish to be associated with Greg Kennedy and Lance Smith?
Will David Richerby do as I did six months ago and permanently killfile
Greg Kennedy (NoMoreChess)? I ask David Richerby this because I do not
yet consider him a lost cause."

Then David Richerby wrote that he did *not* 'wish to be associated
with Greg Kennedy and Lance Smith'.

--Nick

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


Me train hard -- many years it take! One day, me maybe reetch yur leval of
edgikation, no longer be "ineducable" ignorant, but legul expurt like you!
Make big money then, like Sam Slone! Work for Wallmart, after them buy out
Microshaft....

Kennedy, everyone here knows that you're a complete imbecile, so why do you
continue to embarass yourself? You have not made a single post in this
usenet group which reflects even the slightest ability to reason or
understand anything more complex than shoe tying. You're nothing more than a
useless troll.

Jason

(Nick) wrote in message
om...
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.

"I find the intolerance of differing opinions here disturbing.
The citizens of the U.S. do not have a monopoly on the truth but
from external appearances it seems like most of them think they do."
--David Bohm (5 August 2004, in rec.games.chess.politics)

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.

"With the notable exception of (Robert) Miller and Michael Hogan, few American
scholars examined Mexican documents recording the Irish character of the
St Patrick's Battalion. *With complete ignorance of or contempt of Mexican
sources*, many American historians hammered home the fallacy that such a rabble
could have no cohesive identity nor any esprit de corps. The contention
crumbles not only from the weight of the Mexican army's official reports of the
San Patricios' stellar performance in all their battles, their commendations,
their promotions, and the effusive praise accorded (John) Riley and his men by
Santa Anna and dozens of other Mexican generals, but also from the evidence of
virtually every letter or other account written by U.S. Army soldiers, both
native-born and immigrants, who fought against the St. Patrick's Battalion.
In the words of both armies' combatants, *no unit of the war possessed a
stronger identity than the St. Patrick's Battalion*."
--Peter Stevens (The Rogue's March, p. 284)

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.

Michael Hogan has written that '48 of the San Patricios were hanged'.
But Peter Stevens listed the names of 49 San Patricio men who were hanged.

According to Peter Stevens, fifty San Patricio men had been sentenced to death,
but one of them, Roger Duhan, was able to escape (aided by a Mexican woman)
evidently while disguised as a woman. Then Roger Duhan reported back to the
Mexican Army, which promoted him.

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!').

And representatives of Ireland's government always attend that ceremony.

"Mark Day, writer, producer, and director of 'The San Patricios', the first
documentary presenting the story of John Riley and his battalion, has filmed
the ceremony, capturing what he describes as 'the passion of the San Patricios'
and Mexico's depth of feeling for them.
....
Across the Atlantic, another ceremony unfolds at John Riley's birthplace in
Clifden, Ireland, each September 13, the anniversary of the hangings of 30
San Patricios in front of Chapultepec. The Irish army's Western Command Band,
officials of the Irish and Mexican governments, and a crowd of spectators
gather around a plaque honouring Riley and the Irish soldiers of the
St Patrick's Battalion."
--Peter Stevens (The Rogue's March, p. 294)

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

For further reading:
"The Rogue's March: John Riley and the St Patrick's Battalion, 1846-48"
by Peter Stevens

For further viewing:
"One Man's Hero" is a 1999 feature film.

"One man's hero is another man's traitor", it has been said.

Today, the men of the San Patricio Battalion seem condemned as traitors, in
effect (though most of them never were US citizens), in the United States.
But they are admired as national heroes in Mexico and seem regarded with
much sympathy in Ireland.

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

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in message
. com...
(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.

I suppose that most proud American patriots of that time (except for a small
minority of 'abolitionists') believed that the United States must have been
right (and Canada must have been wrong) in claiming that the 'fugitive slaves'
should be returned to the United States and thence presumably to slavery.

(snipped)
Perhaps the law is an ass, but the law is to be upheld.
The Constitution says so.

Some people in my family have been denied the right to vote (and
some other legal rights) on account of the colour of their skins.
They had to obey those laws, but they did not respect them or the
people who had made them.

"We don't want our chains made more comfortable. We want them removed."
--Desmond Tutu (His statement has been quoted with some slight variations.)

--Nick