Posted on 11/10/2005 2:22:43 PM PST by zyaakov
Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal. Maybe that's the "black pit" you've fallen into.
Get out of my country, you despicable little traitor.
That country may be France or Saudi Arabia, but it sure as heck ain't the US of A.
"Your country? Your country?!"
Yeah, my country. I don't recall seeing you fighting for it.
"That country may be France or Saudi Arabia, but it sure as heck ain't the US of A."
Oh, you mean the U.S. is supposed to tolerate certain ethnic/religious groups engaging in treason and espionage? I can't find that in any of the founding documents.
No treason. The espionage was dealt with -- at least wrt/ Pollard and the Rosenbergs. But not the Chinese, not the French. When was the last time you heard of any Chinese spy associated with the W88 fiasco getting hard time, much less the chair? And the French? When was the last French spy arrested -- and France passed our secrets to the Iraqis whom we WERE LEGALLY at war with. Not some mock-war.
"No treason."
Please explain to me how giving aid and comfort to a country that views itself as being at war with America isn't treason.
"When was the last time you heard of any Chinese spy associated with the W88 fiasco getting hard time, much less the chair?"
Well, unlike the case of the Rosenbergs, we haven't gotten enough evidence to indict, arrest, and try anyone in that mess, and we are unlikely to do so, given that it was compromised in the mid-1980s.
"And the French? When was the last French spy arrested -- and France passed our secrets to the Iraqis whom we WERE LEGALLY at war with. Not some mock-war."
When did Congress declare war on Iraq?
You view the war on Iraq as undeclared? The congressional declarations of military action make it a declared war, and certainly make Iraq, under Saddam, a declared enemy.
"You view the war on Iraq as undeclared?"
The last declared war the United States was in ended on September 2nd, 1945, with the unconditional surrender of Japan.
"The congressional declarations of military action make it a declared war, and certainly make Iraq, under Saddam, a declared enemy."
In that case, we'd've seen the Senate Democrats rounded up as undesirables and put in camps. Didn't happen, geehowaboutthat?
But the bottom line is this: you hold the Rosenbergs harmless, and you hold the Pollards harmless. The only things they had in common were Judaism and espionage.
You are a traitor, and your family should be billed for the cost of the bullet used to execute you.
Watching your type in a single thread go from what seems to be reasonable- if wrong- discourse to raving lunatic is one of my favorite activities on FR.
"Watching your type in a single thread go from what seems to be reasonable- if wrong- discourse to raving lunatic is one of my favorite activities on FR."
bvw defends the Rosenbergs--he states that the death penalty was unjustified for their handing over the secrets of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union--and I'm the one who gets accused of being a raving lunatic by one of bvw's religious fellow travelers.
BTW, there is no such thing as "dual loyalty." People have, at most, one loyalty. This issue illustrates exactly who is loyal to whom, which is why certain people start bitching and crying about the alleged smear of "dual loyalty."
You're another traitor. Go back to the land that claims your loyalty, and get the f*** out of mine.
Clean the dripping foam off your lips and keyboard and let everyone know what makes me a traitor.
That I claim that there is absolutely no proof that Israel gave any material to the Soviets? No proof, hell no evidence.
But I am certain that there will be evidence and proof when you try me for treason. Or should I just be executed first?
"Clean the dripping foam off your lips and keyboard and let everyone know what makes me a traitor."
1. Arguing the interests of Israel to the detriment of America's while claiming to be loyal to America.
2. Defending someone who defends the Rosenbergs, and thus favoring the interests of the USSR over America's.
Basically, it's your "give me and my co-religionists a pass whenever we pass classified information to any other country, declared enemy or otherwise" attitude. I don't generalize--that's why I don't support denying all Jews access to classified material. But I sure as hell would not entrust you or your buddy bvw access to classified material, because you've demonstrated that you are not trustworthy.
"That I claim that there is absolutely no proof that Israel gave any material to the Soviets?"
There's the statements of those in the intelligence community who are familiar with the case, plus that 46-page memo from Caspar Weinberger to the judge (oh, that's right, they're all a bunch of Nazis who want to exterminate Jews and they lied about it, that's part of their double-secret oath).
"But I am certain that there will be evidence and proof when you try me for treason. Or should I just be executed first?"
Your own statements convict you. I never thought much of the allegation that some folks are "Israel-firsters" until they showed up and started arguing that Israel's interests should come first.
Israel and Pollard have refused to disclose what information went to Israel, and what happened to it after it got there. But you think that Pollard's a "victim."
Defending Israel from unsupported defamation is ipso facto treason.
Pointing out that hearsay of a dead man's opinion, who- even if that was his opinion- had no knowledge at the time about the Soviet spies in the CIA and FBI, is not any kind of proof.
The Weinberger memo? You know what's in it. It's classified. I did quote Weinberger's current opinion though.
Affording due process to Israel is a detriment to the US?
The punishment, shot to the head and bullets billed to the family.
You true American you. LOL
"Defending Israel from unsupported defamation is ipso facto treason."
Known fact: Israel got 18 months' worth of take, and that take involved thousands of documents, many of which were of zero value to Israel, but of great value to the USSR.
"Pointing out that hearsay of a dead man's opinion, who- even if that was his opinion- had no knowledge at the time about the Soviet spies in the CIA and FBI, is not any kind of proof."
I see. So Weinberger wrote a 46-page memo that was...no big deal?
People don't write 46-page documents over trivial things.
"I did quote Weinberger's current opinion though."
The only people making that claim about Weinberger's quote are you and your co-tribalists, the same folks who defend Pollard and Rosenberg. Sorry if I don't believe the word of those who defend treason.
Pollard refused to admit that he had checked out documents that he had signed for and were found in his possession. He refused to admit that he had taken so many documents that he often needed to borrow a handtruck to carry them out to his car. He refused to divulge what information he sent to Israel. But he is, according to you and your co-tribalists, some sort of victim.
And you insist on defending another co-tribalist who sticks up for your fellow tribalists, the Rosenbergs.
Bottom line: you seek to excuse disloyalty, but only as long as it's committed by your co-tribalists.
You are not, in any shape or form, loyal to America. You are loyal to your tribe.
Crawl back under your rock.
You know nothing and what you think you know is wrong.
I'm one among many who make the argument that the Rosenbergs, while guilty (that is Julius, Ethyl was not) of espinoage were guilty of spying for an ALLY, thus the crime was not a capital crime, the execution was a egregious miscarriage of justice driven by the flames of hate and fear.
From the The Straight Dope:
The trial of the Rosenbergs, the only U.S. civilians ever executed for espionage, was one of the most notorious episodes of the cold war. Among other things Julius was accused of persuading his brother-in-law David Greenglass, a technician at the Los Alamos nuclear lab, to divulge design details for the implosion device needed to trigger the bomb, which were then passed to the Soviets. After a three-week trial, the Rosenbergs were convicted in March 1951 and sentenced to death. The verdict predictably outraged the left--both defendants had been Communists in the 30s--but even Pope Pius XII made a pitch for clemency. The critics fell into two camps: some believed the defendants were innocent; others felt that, regardless of guilt, the sentence was too harsh. The authorities were unmoved. Their appeals exhausted, the Rosenbergs were electrocuted in June 1953.Belief in the Rosenbergs' innocence faded in the 1990s. First an expanded edition of Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs was published in which the former Soviet premier claimed he'd heard a high official tell Stalin that the Rosenbergs had greatly aided Russia's A-bomb push. Then in 1995 the National Security Agency began to declassify files from the Venona Project, a till-then little-known effort to decode Soviet diplomatic cables. The correspondence contained numerous references to nuclear spying by a party at one point code-named--you can hear the teeth gnashing--"Liberal." An abundance of biographical details led inescapably to the conclusion that Liberal was Julius Rosenberg. He was no bit player, either, but an energetic recruiter for the Soviet cause.
Still, that doesn't mean he and his wife deserved the death penalty. True, the Espionage Act of 1917, under which the Rosenbergs were convicted, permitted execution for spying "in time of war." But you'd think it might count for something that during World War II, when the couple passed along their ill-gotten secrets, the Soviet Union was an ally. For just that reason the UK was obliged to spare the life of physicist Klaus Fuchs, a naturalized British citizen, who confessed to giving information from the Manhattan Project and the British nuclear program to the Soviets and was sentenced to 14 years. The U.S. legal system drew no such fine distinctions. Sentencing judge Irving Kaufman blamed the Rosenbergs for the Korean War and said what they'd done was "worse than murder." Come now. We know today that the Soviets obtained A-bomb secrets from multiple sources--Venona files indicate they had some 350 informants in the U.S. government. Even at the time it was widely assumed that Fuchs had provided the core technical know-how, with the Rosenbergs merely confirming the details. (Actually, some now think the Greenglass info may have given the Russians their first insight into a key feature of imploder design.) But in the hysterical atmosphere of the early cold war--the Russians had detonated their first atom bomb less than a year before the Rosenbergs were arrested--nobody with a say in the matter, up to and including the Supreme Court, was in the mood to cut the bad guys any slack. Even if you consider Julius an evil genius, Ethel was at most an accomplice. Prosecutors apparently hoped that leaning hard on Ethel would persuade Julius to talk, but it seems clear the U.S. was set on making an example of them. To paraphrase philosopher Omar Sharif in Dr. Zhivago: Your example, their lives.
Disgusting to see Americans excusing a convicted spy because he was just "spying for our allies."
"I'm one among many who make the argument that the Rosenbergs, while guilty (that is Julius, Ethyl was not) of espinoage were guilty of spying for an ALLY, thus the crime was not a capital crime, the execution was a egregious miscarriage of justice driven by the flames of hate and fear."
One more time: the Soviet Union was NOT an ally. They were, by their own self-definition, at war with the United States from 1917 to 1991. We were at war (though we were loath to admit it) during that time, as wars are not tangos (i.e., while it takes two to tango, it only takes one to have a war).
So, you continue to carry the torch for your co-tribalists--but only the more disloyal ones.
As for Klaus Fuchs: that sentence was passed by a British court. The British got very squeamish about espionage for one very good reason: they had so many of their "best and brightest" committing it, and thus could not afford to make a strong effort lest it embarrass them.
"Note that Brit spy Fuchs only served 14 years!"
Note that Fuchs was tried and sentenced by the Brits, who had a really bad problem with spies. Hell, most known and admitted British spies did zero jail time.
"Pollard's in prison on account of -- we'll call it -- "racial hatred"."
You obviously support the Rosenbergs and Pollard out of a racial hatred for Gentiles. There, I've proved my point with bvw's flavor of logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.