We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The Icelandic Gambit While media attention is still on the Schiavo case, another legislature has been passing laws for specific individuals. In this case, the Icelandic Parliament has voted to grant citizenship to Bobby Fischer, the bizzare and deranged former Chess champion.
This act was done at the behest of supporters of Fischer, who has been imprisoned by Japanese immigration officials since July 2004 for trying to leave Japan without a valid passport. Since then, the US has been trying to extradite Fischer over his 1992 match with Boris Spassky, which, by being held in Yugoslavia, violated US sanctions.
I suspect that even if this new move is successful, the Icelandic authorities will come to regret their generosity. Fischer has a long habit of biting the hand that feeds, and Iceland may come to realise that there really is such a thing as bad publicity.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Nonetheless, good call to Iceland. Locking the poor deluded loon up for playing a game of chess is not a sane or just plan, and reflects rather badly on the US government…
The U.S. doesn’t intend to lock him up for playing a chess game. They want to lock him up for violating sanctions — i.e. breaking the law. Without enforcement, laws would have as much weight as UN resolutions.
Real law, or just legislation declared without lawful authority?
Fischer may have violated US sanctions against the former Yugoslavia, but those sanctions were really no better than the sanctions against Cuba.
We’ve all seen photos of the Jews escaping Hitler’s Germany, who were turned away by FDR and his minions. No doubt they were all guilty of breaking many of the special laws directed at Jews in their homeland. So would you have opposed special legislation to admit them and to protect them from any German attempts at extradition?
Moreover, since when are we the ones to castigate a loony overachiever for his loonishness? If they start locking up these types, shouldn’t we all be running for the hills?
I nominate this as the most unlibertarian post of the year, do I hear a second?
I’m pretty sure that all Icelandic citizenship requests go through the Althingi, so this may not be quite the precedent-buster that the Schiavo case is. On the other hand, I think fluency in Icelandic is generally a prerequisite, and as dispeptic and incoherent as Fisher is, it’s hard somedays to tell if he can really speak English all that well. Anyway, I tend to agree that they’ll probably have cause to regret taking in this squack but the U.S. case against him is just obnoxious.
“We’ve all seen photos of the Jews escaping Hitler’s Germany, who were turned away by FDR and his minions. No doubt they were all guilty of breaking many of the special laws directed at Jews in their homeland.”
Yeah, yeah. The US is the Fourth Reich, with Chimpy McDeath as the new Fuhrer, and Iceland has just saved Fischer from death in the ovens.
Dumbass.
“I nominate this as the most unlibertarian post of the year, do I hear a second?”
I nominate yours as the most retarded. Do I hear a second?
Haha Mike. Is that a second?
I have long thought the simplest way for the US to respond to those who violate laws overseas is to revoke their passports. In extreme cases, their citizenship could also be annulled. Since this would mainly apply to those who can’t find anything good to say about the country anyway, let them find one more amenable to their needs.
As to this poor fool, Iceland can have him.
Mike – Seconded! That was a funny post! Chimpy McDeath. I’m still laughing …
Evan – Yours was funny, too. The Althingi.
There must be something about obnoxious chess boors that brings out the best in the Samizdata commentariat.
Fischer is a mentally disturbed person. It is more than a little tragic that the press airs his rantings, rather than using a little common sense and giving him the privacy that his condition deserves – something akin to headlining nonsensical or outrageous quotes from a former notable afflicted with Alzheimers.
What fun it is to mock Fischer in his illness, and how satisfying that he is an American to boot.
I hope he finds some peace, wherever he lands. His was a great mind once.
He’s not only mentally disturbed, the IRS apparently wants a piece of him as well, since he owes a mighty lot of back taxes.
Dave Meleney:
I’m with you. U.S. sanction laws are disgraceful and to do not merit the description of “law”. To attempt to use them to justify the political vendetta that is being waged against Fischer is (at least from a libertarian perspective) absurd.
Who suggested the US today is remotely similar to Hitler and Co’s Germany? Actually this is one libertarian who thinks that, on net, we are freer under Bush or Kerry than we were under FDR, let alone Hitler. And it is FDR’s action I was comparing to the current US policy, not Hitler’s. We should not have turned away those Jews, even if they were called “lawbreakers” where they came from…. Similiarly Iceland should be applauded for accepting Fisher dispite his record of playing chess in forbidden lands and being more than looney sometimes.
This leaves open the question of what should be policy toward potential immigrants who have committed
Of course, if you believe a crime is anything the legislators get forbidden by law… than this wouldn’t be a substantial distinction for you.
Dave Meleney – Of course, if you believe a crime is anything the legislators get forbidden by law… than this wouldn’t be a substantial distinction for you.
Ahhh, yes, actually, anything that contravenes the law that was put on the statute books by duly elected legislators is what we technically know as a misdemeanour or a crime. Apparently Fischer committed a crime.
Fischer was always a boorish asshole. Now he’s a sick boorish asshole and the Althingi is giving him citizenship in Iceland. Tells you the excitement level during the winter months up there in Iceland.
Sure, Fisher is a complete barking moonbat loony, but I find it hard to take seriously the idea that US law extends into Yugoslavia.
That the mentally unstable Fischer gave aid and comfort to the toxic Milosevic regime puts him beyond the pale as far as I am concerned but that does not mean I find the US penchant from applying its laws extraterritorially any more acceptable.
I have the feeling that it is the IRS that is driving this. I doubt the US would have bothered with him so much if there was no money involved.
I agree with Perry about the heavy handed arrogance and ignorance of the US trying to extend its laws over other countries.
My main impression of the Yugoslavia charge is that it’s small beer, and I wonder why it’s being pursued so relentlessly. Still, I don’t agree that the US (or any other state) should have no power to regulate the behavior of its own citizens in their dealings with foreigners, whether those dealings physically take place abroad or otherwise. What about money laundering, (illegal) weapons trafficking, or actions that directly support terrorist organizations abroad? Or other behaviors that clearly accomplish or support these things at one foreign remove?
However the Yugoslavia imbroglio is resolved, it’s collection of delinquent taxes that will ultimately cause Fischer real pain. He apparently hasn’t paid income tax since about 1976, and has publicly bragged about it. Not too smart.
Whoa, I step away for a day, and find that my post — intended to be fairly innocuous — has provoked quite a reaction, with one overly excitable responder taking no time at all to Godwinize the whole thing.
Just to clarify what I said earlier: Fischer isn’t being pursued for “playing a game,” as John B put it. Fischer is being pursued for breaking a U.S. law. John B’s deliberate disregard for this fact in favor of “playing the game” annoyed me a little — much like I’m annoyed by rhetoric that people illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are being hounded for seeking work and a better life for their family. They aren’t; they are being hounded for breaking the law. You don’t have to like the law, but enforcing it is legitimate and necessary.
I am not sure what is by Damaged Justice about “legitimate law” vs. legislation with no authority. The American government has authority over American citizens, and as far as I’m aware, the sanctions were declared by the U.S. Congress, the legitimate governing body of the United States. Exactly what about this is not legitimate?)
The best clue I have is from Perry de Havilland, who claims (here and in another post) that national laws stop at a nation’s borders. I’m not qualified to debate the finer points, but I don’t think this is right. A nation’s laws routinely apply to its citizens even when they are outside its borders, which is why a CIA employee wouldn’t be immune from prosecution if he divulged top-secret information from a hotel room in Ontario. Most nations will punish egregious violations of their laws carried out by their citizens in other nations, and a foreigner is always subject to both the laws of the country on his passport and the country he is in. The home country may not be able to know of the violations or enforce the punishment, but that’s not equivalent to saying that its laws don’t apply at all.
(This is hardly a U.S.-only concept. For example, sanctions are a routine tool of foreign policy, and if all laws stopped at borders, they would be utterly meaningless by definition.)
Is the Fischer case the best application of the law? Probably not. Fischer’s flagrant and highly public disregard for it, though, almost made it a necessity to make him into an example. Regardless, I don’t see Mr. de Havilland’s position on the territorial limitations of national laws as being inherently true or obvious.
E.Nough – countries do not arrest citizens for crimes committed in other countries. End of story. The country in which the crime was committed is the only one with the authority to arrest and prosecute that individual.
(Assuming you’re American) … if you committed a, let’s say, bank robbery in Britain, and assuming the police were motivated to come after you, you would be arrested and tried, and possibly convicted, in Britain. You would not be tried for a bank robbery in Britain in the US. This is why we have extradiction treaties.
Bobby Fischer comitted a crime and should pay.
I am a Norwegian citizen. Norway has had sanctions as well (Yeah, go ahead, laugh), and if I broke those sanctions on foreign soil, I would still be subject to Norwegian law. This is not unique to the US in any way.
By the way, since Fischer is a repugnant collectivist, he should _really_ pay for his crimes. Just imho.
I feel sorry for my Icelandic brethren who will have to deal with this lunatic ass**** for years to come.
Australia has laws that allow for the prosecution of its nationals when they commit acts of paedophilia overseas. I believe we have task forces in certain (willing) Asian countries that Australian child-sex tourists commonly frequent. I am not against this.
The US does have laws on its books regarding criminal actions committed in other countries. For example, the US can prosecute US citizens or residents who commit bribery in another country of a foreign government official.
Anyway Fischer may fit in Iceland. I hear there is quite a bit of anti-semitic sentiment there. I hear he went to Japan because he didn’t think there were any Jews there.
Suffering says “I believe we have task forces in certain (willing) Asian countries that Australian child-sex tourists commonly frequent. I am not against this.”
Well, actually, I am. First, I don’t like all this transnational business. Second, it fuels the hysteria over paedophilia. Not that I don’t think it’s a hateful crime, but I would not elevate it above armed robbery, rape or murder. There’s a vast army of pleaders riding on the paedophilia bandwagon and it irritates me.
Many libertarians follow Bastiat in believing that a law can be passed by those who work in a tall domed building and then signed and enforced…. and yet be very far from legitimate. In fact when a law is sufficiently egregious, most of my neighbors would follow Bastiat on this, witness the general agreement that: “I was just following orders!” was not a consistently acceptable defense at Nuremberg.
If we are to be able
in an age when legislatures are in session full time, it’s important that Bastiat’s notion of legitimacy be second nature, no?
I think the libertarian tent needs to be pretty broad . Even that we should encourage some of our friends to call themselves libertarian-Republicans, or even libertarian-Marxists, when the need for transitional avenues is quite clear. But I would hope we don’t see a lot of posts at Samizdata that celebrate things like the extended imprisonment of someone for playing chess in a forbidden zone many years ago, even if he did violate duly enacted legislation!
Dave, this post was not about extradition or anything to do with that. I have been a chess ‘fan’ for a long time, and I just thought it was fun to note that the Icelandic people are about to find out that ‘no good deed goes unpunished’.
I think I had better raid the smiley archive for posts that tend more to the frivolous side in future!
Dave Meleney – I think your comments are a little over dramatic for the rational, eagle-eyed Samizdata commentariat who post on this blog. The libertarians here, far from “celebrating” Fischer’s imprisonment, have by and large adopted the typical libertarian posture of not giving a rat shit.
The only one who likened the consequences Fischer is obliged to suffer as a result of his own behaviour to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and FDR was your good self. This is all a bit too florid for many of us here.
Scott – please. No smileys. There’s a good chap.
I hope he bites ’em all.
Defending Bobby Fischer with his anti-Semitic diatribes is only slightly easier than defending King Herod. But with Japan being thwarted in securing its long-cherished permanent seat on the UN Security Council, chickens have come home to roost. Of course there were other factors; Yasukuni Shrine visits by serving prime ministers, the whitewashing of Japan’s war record in school textbooks, and lack of apology and compensation to “comfort women” and POW groups all contributed. However, the net result was a less than acceptable human rights image, of which the Bobby Fischer case may have been the last straw. When you consider the US was forcing Japan to break its own laws, the very least the US should have done was lend its unswerving support to Japan’s UN application. However, Japan is learning what a lot of countries already know: Namely that the only interests the US has are its own.
In summation, US inept diplomacy meant Bobby’s currently unfashionable anti-Semitic views got a lot of undeserved publicity. However, the danger is that anti-Zionism is a cause a lot of people could get behind. The clincher that brought Bobby’s name up on the Patriot Act computer, was his interview on Philippine radio where he said the US had brought 9/11 on itself. Think about it, if in any way 9/11 was a false-flag operation … And suggesting that George Bush should be hung as a war criminal: A global referendum might well get behind that. So all in all, a public relations disaster for the United States and to a lesser extent, Japan. And even after Bobby was in Iceland, the US still played the sore loser, demanding Iceland inform them when Bobby left the country. Will always savour Iceland’s response, essentially telling the US they did not monitor their citizens, as Iceland was not a police state.