Yes, They Were Guilty. But of What Exactly? [NYT FINALLY admits Rosenbergs were guilty!]

NY Times ^ | June 15, 2003 | SAM ROBERTS

[DPB101]

The article which began this thread stated the government attempted to extort a confession - a clear violation of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Going for the maximum penalty and then offering a lesser penalty if the defendents cooperate is not an attempt to "extort" nor is it a violation of the Bill of Rights. It is exactly what the prosecution should have done in order to uphold its sworn duty to protect and preserve the constitution. We were under attack. The Rosenbergs were part of that attack. The government had an obligation to mitigate the damage they caused. Offering a plea deal in order to unravel the extent of the attack on America fulfilled that obligation and it did not violate anyones civil rights.

You, or anyone else, can say all day long (as you have) that offering plea bargins such as the Rosenbergs recieved violates the constitution. Doing so has been the MO of the extreme left since Willi Muzenberg made a cause out of Sacco and Vanzetti. But that doesn't make it true. There isn't a court in the land which has ever agreed with you (or if one did, it was overturned--the same deal the Rosenbergs got could and would be offered today).

[liberallarry]

We're not that far apart...and I was not heading for Bush.

What bothers me is anti-intellectualism...and I think it arises from imprecise thinking. A formal education is over-rated - it is neither necessary nor sufficient for achievement.

We have to correct that by recognizing that a good education can be obtained in many, informal ways. One can be an intellectual, a thinker, a doer, without graduating from a major university.

Correcting it by devaluing intelligence, education, and intellectual achievement is no correction at all.

I agree with your assessment of Bush, by the way. It's disturbing that a person who mangles the language can have those qualities but reality is indeed strange.

[liberallarry]

By way of contrast, Adlai Stevenson was extremely adapt with the language but had the reputation among insiders as an incompetent fool. Equally disturbing.

[js1138]

It's disturbing that a person who mangles the language can have those qualities but reality is indeed strange...

My own field of credentials is in Special Education. Bush has a specific speech impediment known as cluttering, similar to, but not the same as stuttering. It has nothing to do with education or intellect. I find it interesting that democrats who have such a finely tuned regard for the handicapped also have no qualms about making fun of them.

[liberallarry]

My own field of credentials is in Special Education. Bush has a specific speech impediment known as cluttering, similar to, but not the same as stuttering

First I heard about it. Hats off to him for risking public service with such a handicap.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Ok, continuing on in this thread and thoughts:

Oppenheimer was a CPUSA member who lied about it. Big possibility that he gave out info to USSR! The Rosenbergs seemed to be small potatoes compared to that.

I'm wondering why Opp. wasn't tried?

[DPB101]

McCarthy wanted to know too. He also could not figure out why Eisenhower invoked executive privilege and banned the Army from testifying about Soviet agents at the Ft. Monmouth Army labs. McCarthy was willing to take the testimony in closed executive session. But Eisenhower would not budge. Why?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The whole point of the Civil Service is to stop exactly that practice, partly stimulated by the assassination of Garfield.

On the other hand, passing such a law will allow Hillary to pack the Civil Service middle management with her own people.

[liberallarry]

Going for the maximum penalty and then offering a lesser penalty if the defendents cooperate is not an attempt to "extort" nor is it a violation of the Bill of Rights

If you are a constitutional lawyer I'll give special weight to your opinions. Otherwise I think it's an open question as to whether or not threatening a person (or - even worse - his or her wife or husband) with death unless he confesses violates the Fifth.

Here it is

Fifth Amendment

I've alread conceded that the New York Times may have misrepresented the situation and that the Fifth may not apply because of public danger ("...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"), so don't bring that up.

The House Un-American Activities Committee later routinely attempted to circumvent possible problems with the Fifth by offering immunity in order to compel testimony - which pretty much supports my interpretation.

[liberallarry]

Here's an interesting Amendment case

The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration

After reading it I don't care whether or not you're a constitutional lawyer. The courts can rule any way they want to - and later courts can change those rulings. It happens all the time.

[js1138]

It's my "diagnosis," possibly not completely accurate. A google search of cluttering gave me this as one of the symptoms:

Mispronunciation or slurrring of speech sounds or deleting non-stressed syllables in longer words (e.g., "ferchly" for "fortunately").

Sounds like my Bush.

[liberallarry]

SELF-INCRIMINATION

Make of it what you will.

[liberallarry]

Most potentially far- reaching was a holding that invalidated the penalty structure of a statute under which defendants could escape a possible death sentence by entering a guilty plea; the statute ''needlessly encourage[d]'' waivers of defendant's Fifth Amendment right to plead not guilty and his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. 194

From SELF INCRIMINATION

[DPB101]

Fine. Next time we nab some Al Qaeda suspects I expect you to use your Rosenberg defense that it is unconstitutional to offer them plea bargins for cooperation.

This debate is nonsense. Buh...bye...

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Larry, we've moved on from that *issue*. I know you want us to argue, but we've stumbled across some very interesting things here.

Maybe you can help us research it?

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Well...I'm wondering that too. Maybe no pardons will help come up with a theory.

Or we'll stumble across more facts.

I'm thinking that Opp. might have been too hot to truly go after. Maybe they were afraid he'd defect to USSR if caught then he'd give everything away.

Maybe they cut a deal with him?

Maybe some of those books we've linked in this thread might be able to shed a light on why. Or their reviews might be able to.

[liberallarry]

I'm so far behind I don't even know where to look for the door. But I'll be glad to help if I can. What issues and what posts refer to them?

[liberallarry]

Ahh...I'm beginning to suspect. Why weren't Oppenheimer, Hall, and others prosecuted?

[HISSKGB]

Partly because of shyster lawyers, the communist ACLU and the pinko press.

The whole traitorous crowd should have been hanged. They would have received no less in their beloved Soviet state.

[liberallarry]

I've read the all the posts (but only partially read the links). I don't know whether I can help with research but I can make some educated guesses;

At the highest levels the government made a cost-benefit analysis and decided a trial of Oppenheimer would have been counter-productive - a Pyrrhic victory.

Considerable effort had been expended to assemble a team of the world's best scientists. What value a conviction if that team were destroyed?

Read Feyman's "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feyman!" to get a feel for the quality of people involved and the atmosphere they worked in. They could not have been replaced and they would not have tolerated a repressive, suspicious environment. It's also clear that most of them were scientists to the bone - with politics a distant second, third, or last.

I also seriously question whether the government was smart enough to catch such people if they chose to spy...and I think the government also thought seriously about that. They tried with Linus Pauling and ended up looking like fools.