janw@inmet.UUCP (09/13/86)
[ brkirby@watdragon.UUCP /* ---- "Spies and the Media" ---- */] >- Why is it that an american caught with secret documents is >"framed" and "innocent", beyond a shadow of a doubt? He is to be presumed innocent legally until proved guilty. He won't be, as there's no due process in the USSR. He is to be presumed innocent by the public, and defended, unless there's evidence of his guilt. There's none except the statements of Soviet authorities, and they are not trustworthy. >- Why is a soviet spy automatically "guilty"? He is not, legally, until proved guilty. He probably is, in reality, because the prosecution will have to prove its case under stringent conditions - and they wouldn't want international humiliation - so they must have moved careful- ly and on good evidence. >- Do any of the reporters covering the case actually have any >evidence either way? or, are they simply assuming Rambo Ronnie >always tells the truth? The press has not been noted for this much trust in the adminis- tration. I expect they do have evidence. >From what I've seen, the U.S. govt. is willing to let Daniloff >rot in jail in order to have a topic for jingoistic, anti- >communist speeches and a reason to refuse to seriously negotiate >in Geneva. Any Comments? The events have proved you wrong. The government has already buckled under and (this part is good) Daniloff is already out of jail. Some journalists think it was done for fear the *Soviets* would refuse to come to Geneva. "Jingoistic, anti-Communist speeches" from the president - necessary as air to restore the nation's morale - have unfortunately stopped long ago. Instead he is going to Geneva - circus at best, worse if it's serious. > Bruce Kirby ----------------------- > Of all the stupid things I could have thought, this was the worst. Maybe. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/13/86)
[alang@masscomp.UUCP ] /* ----- "Re: Spies and the Media" ----- */ >>- Why is it that an american caught with secret documents is >>"framed" and "innocent", beyond a shadow of a doubt? >Because we're the good guys. We *are*, but the answer is still wrong. The American would still be a good guy if he *was* spying against the USSR, but he would not be innocent of spying. He is to be presumed innocent legally until proved guilty. He won't be, as there's no due process in the USSR. He is to be presumed innocent by the public, and defended, unless there's evidence of his guilt. There's none except the statements of Soviet authorities, and they are not trustworthy. >>- Why is a soviet spy automatically "guilty"? >Because they are communists. He is not, legally, until proved guilty. He probably is, in reality, because the prosecution will have to prove its case under stringent conditions - and they wouldn't want international humiliation - so they must have moved careful- ly and on good evidence. >>- Do any of the reporters covering the case actually have any evidence >>either way? or, are they simply assuming Rambo Ronnie always tells the >>truth? >The president of the United States would never lie. The press has not been noted for this much trust in the adminis- tration. I expect they do have evidence. >>From what I've seen, the U.S. govt. is willing to let Daniloff rot in jail >>in order to have a topic for jingoistic, anti-communist speeches and a >>reason to refuse to seriously negotiate in Geneva. Any Comments? The events have proved you wrong. >We would never do such a thing. Right, this time, unfortunately. The government has already buck- led under and (this part is good) Daniloff is already out of jail. Some journalist think it was done for fear the *Soviets* would refuse to come to Geneva. "Jingoistic, anti-Communist speeches" from the president - necessary as air to restore the nation's morale - have unfortunately stopped long ago. Instead he is going to Geneva - circus at best, worse if it's serious. >What's the matter with you? Didn't you go to a public school? Public schools do not teach anti-Communism - as they should. Compare the text-book treatment of Nazi Germany (a totalitarian ex-enemy) and of China (totalitarian and an ex-enemy) and even the USSR - totalitarian, and the current enemy of this nation. The latter is infinitely more positive, for no good reason at all. Even opinions similar to those of Mr. Groupe are not at all an ex- ception among public school teachers. > Alan Groupe Making Daniloff's frame-up an occasion for America-bashing is characteristic of the inverted logic of the loony Left. Jan Wasilewsky
alang@masscomp.UUCP (Alan Groupe) (09/17/86)
>[alang@masscomp.UUCP ] /* ----- "Re: Spies and the Media" ----- */ >>>- Why is it that an american caught with secret documents is >>>"framed" and "innocent", beyond a shadow of a doubt? > >>Because we're the good guys. > >We *are*, but the answer is still wrong. . . . >Even opinions similar to those of Mr. Groupe are not at all an ex- >ception among public school teachers. > > Jan Wasilewsky Well, I guess like everyone I have to learn the hard way. Sarcasm really *doesn't* come across in print. Alan Groupe
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/17/86)
In article <7802402@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >Compare the text-book treatment of Nazi Germany (a totalitarian >ex-enemy) and of China (totalitarian and an ex-enemy) and even >the USSR - totalitarian, and the current enemy of this nation. Did we declare war last night? I must have slept through it. I can't help but wonder what authority Mr. Wasilewsky has to make such pronouncements on the foreign relations of the United States. I don't even remember voting for him. -- David desJardins
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/22/86)
[alang@masscomp.UUCP ] >>>>- Why is it that an american caught with secret documents is >>>>"framed" and "innocent", beyond a shadow of a doubt? >> >>>Because we're the good guys. I took it to be irony - i.e. that Alan Groupe thinks Americans are no more "the good guys" than the Soviets. Assuming this, I said: >>Even opinions similar to those of Mr. Groupe are not at all an ex- >>ception among public school teachers. Now, he writes: >Well, I guess like everyone I have to learn the hard way. Sarcasm really >*doesn't* come across in print. Apparently what I mistook for irony was *double* irony. My apologies. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/23/86)
[-- David desJardins: desj@brahms.UUCP ] >>Compare the text-book treatment of Nazi Germany (a totalitarian >>ex-enemy) and of China (totalitarian and an ex-enemy) and even >>the USSR - totalitarian, and the current enemy of this nation. > Did we declare war last night? I must have slept through it. Wars aren't declared anymore. Didn't you know? >I can't help but wonder what authority Mr. Wasilewsky has to make >such pronouncements on the foreign relations of the United >States. The authority is threefold: (A) The First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech (or, as you call it, of "pronouncements"). (B) Common sense. The US and the USSR have many gigatons of nu- clear warheads trained on each other at this moment. How much more would be *really* unfriendly? :-) The two powers conduct a vigorous arms race against each other. They are currently waging three or four hot wars against each other by proxy. In my book, this is more than enough to call them enemies. (C) The dictionary: e.g., The American Heritage. Enemy: (1) One who manifests malice or hostility towards, or opposes the purposes or interests of another; a foe; an opponent. (2) A hos- tile power or force, as a nation, or a member or unit of such a force; (3) something destructive or injurious in its effects. Interestingly, not just *one* meaning but *all* of them fit. (Also note that the word "declare" is not used). > I don't even remember voting for him. Good. You see, David, you *can* be right on something when you really try. Keep trying. Jan Wasilewsky