Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, They Were Guilty. But of What Exactly? [NYT FINALLY admits Rosenbergs were guilty!]
NY Times ^ | June 15, 2003 | SAM ROBERTS

Posted on 06/15/2003 6:43:14 AM PDT by Pharmboy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-334 next last
To: aculeus
Gag
61 posted on 06/15/2003 3:33:42 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
See the link in #38. Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested we should have done that. Toward the end of his life he seemed to realize what over 50 years of liberal lies had done to his party and to America

I followed your link in #38. The implication is that this is the work of Moynihan...but in fact it is an appendix, not written by him.

Here is the Chairman's Foreward

Chairman's Introduction

He says some things about Cuban policy which I think you'd strongly disagree with...

In any case there's a great deal of information only peripherally related to the Rosenbergs.

62 posted on 06/15/2003 3:50:33 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: UbIwerks
Sorry I missed your earlier link. I'll go back and look at it. Unfortunately, this is no casual thread. The link I've glanced at so far will require several days reading and thinking. Even then, I'm not sure where I'll stand. You know how it goes...probably links upon links.
63 posted on 06/15/2003 3:58:38 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; All
You introduced left-wing politics into the modern comic strip.

Not that the left exists anymore. This is an essentially conservative country that had a left-wing fling in the 30's, during the New Deal, because everyone was broke.

You're acting as if the 60's never happened.

The 60's were more of a revolution in terms of clothing, music and language. You were allowed to curse. You just weren't allowed to redistribute wealth.

That strikes me as simplistic. The civil rights movement was about more than jeans, cursing and Joni Mitchell. It brought real social gains.

Yes, it made enormous gains, and then it ended up being a fashion statement. Look at the clothes kids wear today -- the baggy pants, the baseball caps worn backward, the hip-hop look. This has been going on since the 60's, when white kids picked up black language -- ''I groove on that! Too much! Tell it like it is!'' -- while reserving their inalienable right to white flight.

There has been much defection from the old left since Sept. 11 among writers like Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens.

I found it quite a shock.

You may be the last unreconstituted leftist.

No. Fortunately, there are several million last leftists.

64 posted on 06/15/2003 4:10:37 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband (From the NYT article)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: vaudine
The Venona info. was gained only after the breakup of USSR.

America had the VENONA information in the late 1940s--it was based on codebreaking efforts.

Its existence was only disclosed in the 1980s, and the actual decrypts were released only after the collapse of the USSR.

VENONA, due to the nature of the cryptographic break, was only going to be of very limited use--we shouldn't have worried about letting it go public in the 1940s.

65 posted on 06/15/2003 4:11:25 PM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Yeah...let's forget about liberals from John Reed to Robert Scheer supporting genocidal maniacs. Let's just talk about how the Rosenbergs were railroaded

Come on. Be rational (It's hard enough to understand what's going on in this crazy world). I said I had no problem with the conviction or the penalty...and Robert Scheer's present day opinions obviously had no bearing whatsoever on the Rosenberg case (when he was about 10 years old).

You say threatening the Rosenbergs with the death penalty was like the "Inquisition"...The government knew they had committed treason. No doubt about it. If the government know that about a Nazi agent in the USA in 1942, would you still consider it to have been wrong to use threats of the death penalty to make the rat rat out out his fellow rats?

The Inquisitors knew they were dealing with heretics didn't they? No doubt about it.

But you do raise a serious point. How serious and immediate does a threat have to be in order to abandon Constitutional safeguards in the interests of national self-preservation? Since there are always threats one can make the argument that safeguards should always be abandoned.

66 posted on 06/15/2003 4:13:27 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg(Summary)

VENONA and the Rosenbergs. Too long for me to read now...but for those who are interested forming their own opinions....

67 posted on 06/15/2003 4:23:23 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; UbIwerks; DPB101
Here's something I came across while doing a Google on VENONA

Sobell on "Venona and the Rosenbergs"

I'm never going to get to the bottom of this. It's too difficult and too much that's written about it is ideological propaganda.

What is clear is that we were spying on the Russians at least as much as they were spying on us. Why not? The WWII alliance was a marriage of convenience, that's all. Everyone knew the pre-war antagonism would resume as soon as Hitler was gone. Everyone except the idiots. Remind you of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute perhaps?

68 posted on 06/15/2003 4:45:06 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Wow.

You're using the Clintons' "Everybody does it" sophistry to excuse high treason.

Reading your posts is an exercise in observing the perfect clarity of a mind that is unburdened by the weight of anything resembling a thought.
69 posted on 06/15/2003 4:55:52 PM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Mort Sobell was part of the Rosenberg spyring. Hardly sounds unbiased to me.
70 posted on 06/15/2003 5:09:18 PM PDT by UbIwerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You're using the Clintons' "Everybody does it" sophistry to excuse high treason

Not at all. Although I can see how you would think so. I think spying should be punished. I have no problem with severe punishment. I just think surprise and outrage are out of place and not believable. The enemy has weapons and uses them? Incredible. We have the same weapons and use them? Even more incredible.

71 posted on 06/15/2003 5:25:47 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: UbIwerks
Who is unbiased?

I found it interesting that Sobell still claims innocence. I also found it impossible to follow his reasoning. I'd have to do an incredible amount of research - which I'm not prepared to do.

My view is that the Rosenbergs were a small piece of the Cold War. Many spies were operating. If the Rosenbergs were guilty they got what they deserved. If they weren't they got what someone else deserved - because there were many, many spies trying to do what they were accused of doing. Since the basic science was known to everyone the Soviets were going to succeed...sooner rather than later. They were good enough. They put Sputnik in orbit before us. I've read in many places that the really difficult thing was to prove that such a bomb was possible. Had the Nazis known it they would not have given up when they did and might have beat us to it.

72 posted on 06/15/2003 5:34:34 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Well, you're the one arguing that we were too harsh on the Rosenbergs.

And Mort Sobell's a piece of work. First, he was part of the ring.

Second, he makes an argument that indicates that he's either (a) willfully ignorant about cryptography (since it's the latest in a string of evidence that says he's guilty, one would THINK that he'd study up on it in order to argue against it effectively), or (b) he does know what he's talking about and is lying.

His argument is that the coming of the computer should have massively increased the number of VENONA decrypts. It sounds plausible, unless you understand how the one-time pad system worked--and why VENONA achieved what it did.

Basically, the idea behind the one-time pad is that the message is turned into a series of numbers using a fixed formula (either a code book or a simple substitution cipher), and the figures on the one-time pad are then added to the message. The important part is that the encryption figures are used only ONCE and then destroyed. If the encryption pad is used only once, then it's impossible for a third party to break out the message.

VENONA relied on two lucky breaks: the recovery of PART of an NKVD code book, and the fact that the USSR's espionage apparatus was so busily energetic in the US that the NKVD was forced to reuse some one-time pads--thus invalidating the entire premise of the system.

Not all NKVD operatives used the same pads--only a few. The Rosenbergs got extremely unlucky.

Sobell's argument treats computers as these amazing devices that can do amazingly new mathematics. Actually, they can't. They can just do a bunch of calculations in the time that it takes to perform one calculation manually. A computer can't break a properly-employed one-time system.

Now, either Sobell's an ignorant fool, or he's a willful liar. Given his background (unrepentant agent of the USSR), I vote for the latter.
73 posted on 06/15/2003 5:42:02 PM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
Thanks for posting that. I thought Jules Feiffer was just an insipid, cynical, atheistic cartoonist.

Btw...Feiffer is Dick Morris' cousin. So was Roy Cohen. Now there is a family which worked both sides of the street and the middle.

74 posted on 06/15/2003 5:59:25 PM PDT by DPB101 ("Smearing good people like Alger Hiss and Lauchlin Currie is . . .unforgivable"---Eleanor Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Well, you're the one arguing that we were too harsh on the Rosenbergs

Based on the article I thought we ignored the protections of the Fifth Amendment and I questioned whether the situation justified that. That's not the same thing.

You know way more about Sobell's argument than I do - and I don't intend to do the research necessary to upgrade my understanding - so I'll leave this to others.

75 posted on 06/15/2003 6:07:29 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
3)You can't seriously believe intellectuals are dumber than the general public...

IQ has nothing to do with character or the ability to contribute to political thought. Look at Noam Chomsky.

76 posted on 06/15/2003 6:15:36 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: js1138
IQ has nothing to do with character or the ability to contribute to political thought

I see things a little differently. Intellectuals often exagerate their abilities - particularly in the arenas of social and economic organization where no one really knows what's going on. That certainly doesn't mean dumb people could do better.

77 posted on 06/15/2003 6:21:51 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: UbIwerks
As for the price paid by the Rosenbergs, they willingly chose not only to die themselves but to commit their two boys, ages six and ten at the time, to orphanhood.

I roomed next door to Robert Meeropol in college. His identity was certaintly among the best kept secrets on campus. I had no idea until I say his picture on the book, "We Are Your Children," many years later. One of the prices paid was allowing their children to grow up believing their parents were innocent.

78 posted on 06/15/2003 6:26:26 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
That certainly doesn't mean dumb people could do better.

I don't know how you are defining dumb, but emotional intelligence is more important than IQ. A lot of brilliant political leaders and writers are psychopaths like Hitler and Stalin, or boderline autistic like Chomsky. People who cannot accept the grit and chaos of ordinary life are extremely dangerous, and should never be voted into office or allowed to assume power through force.

79 posted on 06/15/2003 6:31:43 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Lemme translate, "NY TIMES: Joe McCarthy was right."
80 posted on 06/15/2003 6:39:12 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets ("ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS, WE PRINT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-334 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson