Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 24th 05, 10:00 PM
banana
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fischer will not be extradited from Iceland

According to:

http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-INCSR/96/Europe/Iceland.html

The [US Government] and [the Government of Iceland] have an
extradition treaty dating from 1902, and a supplementary treaty
signed in 1905.


These treaties are at:

http://www.internationalextradition.com/iceland_bi.htm:

and

http://www.internationalextradition.com/iceland_s1.htm

Article I (from the first .com URL above) states that extradition can
only occur:

upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the
place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would
justify his or her apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime
or offense had been there committed.


So, since playing chess in Yugoslavia has never been against the law in
Iceland, Fischer cannot be extradited to the US for having done this.

Article V states that:

Neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its
own citizens, born or naturalized


In short, if the US government dared to submit a request for Fischer's
extradition, the Icelandic government would not be in breach of the
treaty if it told the US government to stick its request up its arse.

(Note: I have not yet found anything on the 1972 treaty mentioned at:
http://www.uncjin.org/Laws/extradit/iceland.pdf but I think it may be
a red herring since I don't understand how in 1972 a treaty between the
US and Denmark could bind Iceland which by 1972 was an 'independent' and
'sovereign' country).

However it is possible that US government gangsters might want to kidnap
Fischer in Iceland and bundle him to the US base at Keflavik, so I hope
he employs good security.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 24th 05, 10:25 PM
banana
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , banana [email protected]_T
HIS.borve.demon.co.uk writes

snip

You have to laugh at how the 'New York Times' sneers at Iceland as
'Kentucky-sized' and 'windswept':

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/in...d-fischer.html

Why don't they say what they mean, and call it a ****ty little rock in
the North Atlantic that doesn't even have its own army?

They don't seem to be able to bring themselves to report the *truth*,
namely that the Icelandic government has had the courage to support a
man in his 60s whom the US criminal regime is persecuting and seeking to
jail for up to 10 years for the 'crime' of playing chess thousands of
miles away from US territory.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 24th 05, 10:37 PM
Morphy's ghost
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In the year of our Lord Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:00:45 +0000, banana
wrote:

I doubt that Iceland would have offered citizenship to Fischer if they
intended to later honor an extradition request.

The next question is whether Washington will even bother tendering an
extradition request or not.



However it is possible that US government gangsters might want to kidnap
Fischer in Iceland and bundle him to the US base at Keflavik, so I hope
he employs good security.


This is extremely unlikely.



What is now proved was once, only imagin'd. -- William Blake
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 24th 05, 10:49 PM
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"banana" wrote in message
...


upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the
place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would
justify his or her apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime
or offense had been there committed.


So, since playing chess in Yugoslavia has never been against the law in
Iceland, Fischer cannot be extradited to the US for having done this.


The US has never charged Fischer for playing in chess in Yugoslavia. He
was charged for entering into a contract in Yugoslavia. Presumably, that
*was* also illegal in Iceland, unless Iceland was in defiance of UN
resolutions.

However, the other aspects of the treaty do protect him (e.g. violation of
sanctions it is not listed as an extraditable crime, he is now a citizen
etc.)

So it looks likes we can thank Japan for providing what little bit of
justice there was to be had in this case.





  #5   Report Post  
Old March 25th 05, 02:56 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Didn't Fischer renounce his citizenship in Japan before the US
Ambassador. If so he is no longer a citizen.



  #6   Report Post  
Old March 25th 05, 09:47 AM
banana
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Morphy's ghost
writes

In the year of our Lord Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:00:45 +0000, banana
wrote:

I doubt that Iceland would have offered citizenship to Fischer if they
intended to later honor an extradition request.


'Honor'/'honour' is not the right word.

The next question is whether Washington will even bother tendering an
extradition request or not.


However it is possible that US government gangsters might want to kidnap
Fischer in Iceland and bundle him to the US base at Keflavik, so I hope
he employs good security.


This is extremely unlikely.


I guess you haven't got out much in recent decades.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
  #7   Report Post  
Old March 25th 05, 05:07 PM
Morphy's ghost
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In the year of our Lord Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:47:55 +0000, banana
wrote:

In article , Morphy's ghost
writes

In the year of our Lord Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:00:45 +0000, banana
wrote:

I doubt that Iceland would have offered citizenship to Fischer if they
intended to later honor an extradition request.


'Honor'/'honour' is not the right word.


Perhaps you are not a native English speaker? One can indeed honor a
request.

The next question is whether Washington will even bother tendering an
extradition request or not.


However it is possible that US government gangsters might want to kidnap
Fischer in Iceland and bundle him to the US base at Keflavik, so I hope
he employs good security.


This is extremely unlikely.


I guess you haven't got out much in recent decades.


As I said before, it is extremely unlikely, despite what the radical
leftwing weblogs you've been reading tell you.

--




Bray a fool in a morter with wheat. yet
shall not his folly be beaten out of him. -- William Blake
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 26th 05, 08:01 AM
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Morphy's ghost wrote:


One can indeed honor a request.


Here is a question:

can one honor a request
which is not a honarable rquest?

By the time (any of) you answer this
question in full you will understand
the difference between the
syntax and semantics.

Wlod

  #9   Report Post  
Old March 26th 05, 08:31 AM
Mike Murray
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 26 Mar 2005 00:01:53 -0800, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)"
wrote:

Morphy's ghost wrote:


One can indeed honor a request.


Here is a question:

can one honor a request
which is not a honarable rquest?

By the time (any of) you answer this
question in full you will understand
the difference between the
syntax and semantics.


She offered her honor
He honored her offer
And all night long
It was honor and offer



Wlod


  #10   Report Post  
Old March 26th 05, 09:37 AM
Morphy's ghost
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In the year of our Lord 26 Mar 2005 00:01:53 -0800, "Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski (wlod)" wrote:

Morphy's ghost wrote:


One can indeed honor a request.


Here is a question:

can one honor a request
which is not a honarable rquest?


I now see what your misunderstanding is. In our beloved English
language, words can have more than one meaning. Just because a word
is used in one sense does not mean that the other sense is also
implied. In fact, the verb "to let" has two completely opposite
meanings: the commonly understood "to allow" and the rarely used and
somewhat archaic "to prevent."

By the time (any of) you answer this
question in full you will understand
the difference between the
syntax and semantics.

Wlod




The enemy fight in chains, invisible chains, but heavy;
Their minds are fetter'd; then how can they be free,
-- William Blake
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bobby Fischer flies free to Iceland Rob Rodgers rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 March 24th 05 12:55 PM
Expelled Barbara Villiers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 March 11th 05 01:02 PM
Getting expelled from DePauw University by Ray Villiers Barbara Villiers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 March 11th 05 01:00 PM
Win a date with Barbara Gordo by Ray Villiers Barbara Villiers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 March 11th 05 12:59 PM
Truong the hypocrite BarbaraVilliers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 11th 05 12:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017