Conspiracy Theories

It escapes me what might be "silly" about the continued pursuit of Fischer. He flagrantly violated one of our laws, and it is only right and just for the US government to pursue such a high profile person for such a crime. Many of our laws might seem silly -- why do we drive on the right side of the road and not the left? Why are some spots no-parking zones and others not? Many laws are arbitrary, but it isn't silly to pursue those who flagrantly break our laws. It seems to me that many people simply believe that celebrities shouldn't be punished for crimes they commit merely because they are celebrities, otherwise if they felt that Fischer's case had merit, they would encourage him to argue his case in a US court of law. After all, that is the proper place to decide such things.

Who are these people who believe that celebrities shouldn't be punished merely because they are celebrities? Who has argued that--here, or anywhere? You're responding to an imaginary argument that no one has made.

Your defense of the law for its own sake is an empty vessel. If it's the government's right to pass whatever laws it wants, it's our right to object when those laws are stupid, silly, or just plain wrong. That's how democracy works.

Perhaps there is a principled justification for prosecuting Fischer at this late date, although at the moment I can't see it. Prosecuting him merely because the law allows it--which is the only justification you offer--isn't much of a principle. Would you enforce an unjust law, merely because it is there?

Prosecution is often a matter of discretion. The government does not prosecute every case it can, or charge every crime, or enforce every law with equal vigor. After Fischer's rematch with Spassky, the government ignored him for years. It is certainly reasonable to ask WHY they are suddenly interested in the case, and WHAT is to be gained by pursuing him so many years after the events in question.

Fischer is beyond a celeberity--he is a god of chess---leave him be ! :)

Oh, btw, if anyone knows where I can get an authentic Fischer autograph, please let me know. I will pay top-dollar! Thanks!

Let him go free!

I don't think he has commited such severe crimes... just played a Chess Match in Serbia. No less, no more. I don't know anything about possible tax issues. I guess there are some folks who didn't pay every buck they should have either, but sit not in jail but in Congress :)

Like (I guess) most people, I didn't like Fischer's disgusting interviews, but that's a different topic.... Anyway, he was a true American Hero in 1972. From a european viewpoint, I do not understand why he is not simply provided with a valid passport. I don't say celebrities should have more rights or something, but I guess the law suit could be handled without keeping a 60 years old World Chess Champion in jail...

I agree with Permanent Brain. They dont have to lock him inside the jail. Fischer is right when he says about Nuclear radiations. That's very bad to arrest him on false charges of carrying invalid passport. He was never been notified. Now the Authorities say, they sent the notice about his Passport to the US Embassy in Phillippines. Very strange. Should we believe that CIA did not know about Fischer's movements earlier before he was arrested? Its a very sad situation countries like US sometimes act like Russia, and China. Does US really show Liberty, Equality, and Justice for all? Fischer is mentally ill. The US should pardon him afterall he was a National Hero during Cold War. I think deep inside Fischer loves his own country. But the US should take the first step to pardon him.

Marc Shepherd writes: "If it's the government's right to pass whatever laws it wants, it's our right to object when those laws are stupid, silly, or just plain wrong. That's how democracy works." Sure, but you haven't made any argument that the law was unjust. The 1992 Fischer-Spassky match was played in spite of a severe UN embargo which included sanctions on sports events. In a pre-match press conference, Fischer spat on a document from the US State Department forbidding Fischer to play in the Balkan state because of economic sanctions in place at the time. In response, Fischer was indicted and a warrant was issued for his arrest. So what is your argument? Doesn't the UN have a right to attempt to stop genocide with sanctions? Doesn't the US have the right to place economic sanctions on rogue nations? Or are you wanting to suggest that the Serbia-Croatia war was a just war and the UN and US should have just left them alone?

Brain writes: "I don't think he has committed such severe crimes... just played a Chess Match in Serbia. No less, no more." That is not entirely correct. It isn't like Fischer went to Yugoslavia and just played a few games of chess with a friend, rather he played a match for millions of dollars in a country at war and one with UN & US economic sanctions upon it, which included sanctions against sporting events. Surely you must recognize that a chess match played for millions of dollars to be a sporting event, yes? Can't you see how such an event might be prohibited by economic sanctions?

I do agree with Steven that Fischer has played the Chess match against the law. But why the US kept silent for the last 12 years and now suddenly they want to prosecute him? I feel he has already suffered being in exile. Is not possible for the US to pardon him? Spassky is a free man. France did not say anything about him violating UN sanctions.

I think the implied argument here is that since Fischer is an enemy of the United States he should be persecuted for violating sanctions. Without injecting current politics into this debate (because this should not be the place for it) I would just say that these Fischer bashers should be careful because there are other who could be prosecuted for busting sanctions who are far more responsible for provide aid and confort for our enemies.

Leave Fischer alone! It is not worth the money it will cost and the platform it will provide for him to go after him. We all have bigger fish to fry.

@Steven, I realise the economic sanctions thing, but I don't consider it to be "such" a big crime in that specific case that he must sit in jail. It isn't that Fischer sold weapons or something like that. He played chess. Actually he GOT money from there, didn't bring money in. So you could say, for the money they spent for chess, they couldn't buy weapons anymore...

(I don't go that far to claim it was an attempt to weaken Serbia's economy :-))

Knight writes: "Is not possible for the US to pardon him?" Of course, but why should Fischer be pardon? Aren't you suggesting that Fischer should be pardon merely because Fischer is a chess celebrity? Let's say an American corporation sold $5,000,000 worth of Pepsi to Yugoslavia during the economic sanctions. Would anyone be suggesting that the person who made such a deal shouldn't be prosecuted? Would anyone care to pardon him? The only reason people care about Fischer's fate is because he is a celebrity!

Charles writes: "I think the implied argument here is that since Fischer is an enemy of the United States he should be persecuted for violating sanctions." I would never make such an argument. In fact, I think it would be a stretch to say that Fischer is "an enemy of the United States." Rather, I would suggest that he is a high profile celebrity who has knowingly and willfully committed a crime, and based on that -- and only on that -- he deserves to have his day in a US court of law.

Brian writes: "Steven, I realize the economic sanctions thing, but I don't consider it to be "such" a big crime in that specific case that he must sit in jail." But one should look at the context, as the Communist regime fell, Yugoslavia was divided up into Serbia, Bosnia-Hergezovenia, Macedonia, Croatia and Slovenia. Fighting soon broke out inside these areas, as Serbs attempted to gain control of the entire territory. The Serbs instituted a policy of "ethnic" cleansing, whose goal was to force non-Serbs out of all areas that the Serbs conquered. The economic sanctions were an attempt to put pressure on the Serbs to cease genocide. UN resolution 757 (1992) of 30 May 1992 imposed economic and other sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), including a full trade embargo, a flight ban, and the prevention of the participation of the FRY in sporting and cultural events.

I would concur with you that the chess match was not such a "big crime," not as big as ethnic cleansing (obviously). But aren't such economic sanctions worth the attempt to defuse such a situation? Shouldn't the UN and the US government try something? It is not like Fischer accidently broke the law, he did it knowing full well that the US government would consider it a crime. If a person can go to jail for not paying parking tickets, why shouldn't Fischer go to jail for violating US & UN sanctions?

@Steven, are there any American citizens who had a court trial because of violating the economic sanctions against Serbia, at all? If yes, how long did they have to sit in jail, and for what type of crime?

I simply find it difficult to accept that playing a chess match would be a crime, under which circumstances whatsoever.

And just like Saddam, these sanctions couldn't stop Milosevic. Only bombs could... but that is off topic.

Steven says: "I would suggest that he is a high profile celebrity who has knowingly and willfully committed a crime." Which is, of course, exactly why you want to prosecute him. If he were an unknown executive making shadowy deals that really did threaten the sanctions he would probably get away with it - as some have.

I'm saying that he is not worth the trouble. If the government pursues this case they are wasting our money and will accomplish nothing.

What could we possibly gain? Will his conviction convince others not to break sanctions? Will we prevent him from doing further harm? Will we provide a platform for him to continue to spew his hatred and venom?

Let him go!

Brain writes: "Steven, are there any American citizens who had a court trial because of violating the economic sanctions against Serbia, at all? If yes, how long did they have to sit in jail, and for what type of crime?" I don't know.

He continues: "I simply find it difficult to accept that playing a chess match would be a crime, under any circumstances whatsoever." Fischer is not charged with playing chess, but with violating economic and sporting sanctions. Why should it be hard to understand that at times, playing chess is illegal? In my younger days, I was chased out of a place for playing chess -- a coffee shop at one time allowed us to play chess on their premises, and then later changed their policy. I didn't like it, but I respected the fact that the law was on their side. I had no right to continue to play chess on their premises.

And again: "And just like Saddam, these sanctions couldn't stop Milosevic. Only bombs could... but that is off topic." I don't necessarily disagree (frankly, I'm not knowledgeable enough on that topic). My only point is that the UN & US government has the right to impose such sanctions, and that they have the right to prosecute those who violate such sanctions.

Charles writes: "I'm saying that he is not worth the trouble. If the government pursues this case they are wasting our money and will accomplish nothing. What could we possibly gain? Will his conviction convince others not to break sanctions?" Yes, I believe that his conviction would convince others not to break such sanctions. As for the rest, I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, it is in our government's interest to pursue high profile celebrities who flagrantly break the law. The harsh side of justice should not be just for the poor and disenfranchised, but should be handed out to the rich and famous too when they commit crimes.

Steven writes: "The harsh side of justice should not be just for the poor and disenfranchised, but should be handed out to the rich and famous too when they commit crimes." And my view is that this particular prosecution would make no sense even if Fischer were "poor and disenfranchised." Of course, if he were, he wouldn't be prosecuted, and in the unlikely event he were, we wouldn't know about it.

Marc: I understand your point. But in this particular case, can any poor and disenfranchised in the world dare to violate the law?

Steven: I think Fischer violated the sanctions because he thought he can get away. He was a Cold War hero. He got away and nobody said anything for 12 years. Now, you see what they have done to him. They put him in the jail on false charges of carrying invalid passport. Is this we call the harsh side of justice?

I agree with steven on this one. He broke a fair and official ban on commerce. He broke the law. End of story.

To quote the great Steven Segal, "no man is above the law."

Some tips for committing a crime and getting away with it: (i) don't call a press conference to announce that you are going to commit the crime and, at the press conference, effectively spit in face of the government who has jurisdiction over you; (ii) make sure that the crime doesn't involve millions of dollars or, if it does, try not to publicize this fact; and (iii) after you have committed this crime in the most public and defiant manner, don't do anything else which might piss off people who have influence over enforcement decisions (like celebrate 9/ll over the radio, for example). If you can't manage (i) through (iii) (or at a minimum, one of them) don't do the crime unless you can do the time.

I find it difficult to understand people who idolize Fischer as some great American hero. Fischer was a great chess player, no doubt. Arguably the most dominant player of all time, at least for a handful of years. But winning isn't everything (at least I hope it isn't), and except for his chess prowess there seems to have been little to admire about Fischer. He was arrogant, a prima donna, he went back on his word with such regularity that a firm agreement with him often became an adventure in rennegotiating, and he was socially maladjusted from an early age, if not mentally disturbed. And yet simply because of his ability to make good moves over a chess board and end decades of Soviet dominance of the World Championship, some people seem to believe he can do no wrong (or at least should get away with it if he does).

I don't dislike Fischer, and I do think he played many beautiful chess games. But as a person, I think he is more to be pitied than anything else. And although I agree that little good will come out of his prosecution, I don't see any reason the federal government should be compelled to afford him immunity from allegedly criminal acts (and if they were not criminal, and he can prove that in a court of law, then that's fine with me too). And I think that it is at least possible that if he is extradited to the United States and convicted of some crime, he will finally receive some treatment for a mental illness that a life-time of sycophants and enablers have allowed to fester. Which would probably be good for Fischer in the long run, although in his current mental state he may not have the ability to realize it.

Just my opinion, and I expect to be flamed by the Fischer worshippers out there.

- Geof

The indictment is based on UN sanctions. As Spassky pointed out, he wasn't charged with anything by the French. I'm not saying anyone should be above the law, only that in this case it was foolish and foolishly applied in 1992 at the discretion of the US State Department.

While economic sanctions have a terrible record of success in global history, they may have a place in commerce. The list of failures is very long and getting longer all the time. Awarding the Olympic Games to apartheid-era South Africa would have been one thing. Playing a locally-sponsored chess match is quite another.

Mig writes: "I'm not saying anyone should be above the law, only that in this case it was foolish and foolishly applied in 1992 at the discretion of the US State Department." How so? What did they do so foolish?

In addition, Mig adds: "Awarding the Olympic Games to apartheid-era South Africa would have been one thing. Playing a locally-sponsored chess match is quite another." Obviously they are two different "things," but how is one really that much different from the other?

I said they foolishly applied the indictment. If you disagree, say so.

If you can't tell the difference between the Olympic Games and an individual playing a chess match, no amount of explanation will help. Sanctions are supposed to have a concrete point, not make useless points. Playing some sort of moral equivalency game is silly; this is someone's life. I don't think what Fischer did qualifies as a crime. I don't think chessplayers, as individuals, should be told where they can and cannot play chess.

NEWS FLASH!

Bobby Fischer is NOT a celebrity. Sorry.

Ask anyone in the USA under the age of thirty who he is and I'll be willing to bet that less than 2 percent can answer you. Derek Jeter is famous, Snoop Doggy Dog is famous; Bobby Fischer is not.

He is a nobody... except to chessplayers like you and I.

Anonymous
Las Vegas, Nevada U.S.A.

Actually, thanks to the book and the movie of "Searching for Bobby Fischer," his name recognition as a chess player in the US is still considerable, even with the under-30 crowd. I spent 20 minutes in Times Square asking people about Kasparov, Karpov, and Fischer during the X3D Kasparov-Karpov rapid match held there in ABC Studios. Fischer got twice as many positive responses as Kasparov. Most people mentioned the movie. Nobody knew Karpov except one Spanish tourist. The video I have of this excursion is hilarious; I'll dig it out and release it some day.

In most other languages the title didn't have Fischer's name in it. It was variations on "Innocent Moves" in Spanish and, I think, in French.

Anonymous says:
Bobby Fischer is NOT a celebrity. Sorry.

Ask anyone in the USA under the age of thirty who he is and I'll be willing to bet that less than 2 percent can answer you. Derek Jeter is famous, Snoop Doggy Dog is famous; Bobby Fischer is not.

He is a nobody... except to chessplayers like you and I.

I think atleast in New York and North Eastern region, under-30 people surely know him more than any other Chess player today. Go to Central Park, Washington Square Park etc people will tell you legendary stories about Bobby.

Usually I know better than getting involved in political discussions over the 'Net, but a few postings by one Steven Craig Miller really jerked my chain.
This is a chess site, isn't it? Do we need a dumb-ass FOX News type of political propaganda here?
"Serbian-Croatian War" (?), "genocide", "sanctions didn't stop Milosevic, but the bombs did" etc.
Take it somewhere else, buddy. This is an international chess forum not a Promise Keepers meeting.
Mig, if you can't moderate this stuff, then in the future, please avoid offering such politically charged topics. Let's stick to "if FIDE wants to remain relevant" rather than replace it with "If UN wants to remain relevant"

I dunno. Whether or not Fischer committed a crime seems relevant, although it's getting pretty far afield by this point, as usual. I'll usually settle for once-removed discussions as long as they don't hijack the real topic or intelligent discussion. I'll agree that Fischer to sanctions to genocide is twice removed and moderation-worthy.

Actually, it's the incessant quoting he's been doing that bothers me. This isn't really a message board. We have those too. Post your thoughts and your opinions. If you find it necessary to constantly quote and refer to other posters you probably aren't doing a good job of expressing your own thoughts.

Yermo writes: "Steven Craig Miller really jerked my chain. ... Do we need a dumb-ass FOX News type of political propaganda here?"

I thought of it as more like NPR reporting. But I guess enough is enough.

"When the US government revokes the passports of everyone with outstanding federal indictments I guess you could say they are out to get you when you are one of those under indictment. Doh."

Is it really true that the US government revokes the passports of everyone with outstanding federal indictments? Does anyone know this for sure, or is just an assumption? If the latter, I think somebody ought to check instead of just taking it for granted.

If it is true, then somebody ought to check this further question: is it really true that, for everyone with outstanding federal indictments, the time delay between the indictment and the passport revocation is 11 years?

Only after we KNOW, not just assume, that the answers to both those questions are "yes", can we go on to say that "Fischer's claims that he is the victim of particular persecution" are "silly".

The State Dept. isn't answering these questions and operates in mysterious ways. In general they prefer to have wiggle room so things can be fiddled on a case-by-case basis if necessary. That doesn't mean they handle things case-by-case from the start, however. Their only statement regarding Fischer was very early on, and they called the revocation "part of a process" and "routine."

I assume the long delay was due to the crackdown on outstanding warrants that is part of the post-9/11 tightening. Starting in 2002 the US govt started coordinating more across the FBI, State Dept, and Immigration. There have been tens of thousands of visa and other document revocations since then. These include many US passports, most for invalid dual citizenship and being wanted for federal crimes. Fischer falls into that last category. You can even have your passport revoked for owing back taxes or child support.

I wonder if Fischer has been paying his taxes?

Yes, if he is to be believed. This has been addressed off and on for a long time and if I remember correctly Fischer even showed up in Florida in the 90's to deal with a tax issue on property that had belonged to his mother. Everyone remembers Al Capone. But who knows if he has kept up lately, especially after his 9/11 meltdown.

One thing the recent hearing cleared up is that his passport was revoked because of the 1992 indictment. I guess they could add other charges like taxes and bad teeth later.

I attended the "Free Bobby Fischer" press conference at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Tokyo. Bobby had been "on the run" for some 12 years, but the US authorities obviously weren't trying too hard to pick him up, as he got a new US passport in Switzerland in 1998. However, once the Homeland Security Act kicked in, the US Embassy in Tokyo pressured the Japanese government to act. Being detained for travelling on an invalid passport is such a frame up. Any US citizen could be subject to the same fate when the State Department, via an embassy, can invalidate a passport retrospectively. This makes US citizens living abroad rather nervous, because presumably, if you antagonise your government sufficiently, the same could happen to you. So unless the State Department is trying to lower the average IQ of the United States while simultaneously raising that of Canada, I suggest it finds some face-saving excuse (statute in limitation?) to allow Bobby Fischer to take up Iceland's offer of residency.
The perception of a world-wide police state is becoming so pervasive, that many people are reluctant to express views hostile to their own (or any other) government, for fear of suffering the same fate as Bobby. He has been held in detention in Japan since mid July 2003. Even that must be causing the US administration some embarrassment. The US under Bush is suffering an image problem and this type of spiteful, petty behaviour just makes it worse.
Paranoia: Don't knock it. It keeps you free and it keeps you alive. US, UK, Australia, Japan: Nice countries, shame about the government.