1
   

Ethel Rosenberg was innocent

 
 
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 09:14 pm
It now becomes clear that Ethel rosenberg did not spy for the Soviets, a charge for which she was put to death
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/nyregion/12spy.html?pagewanted=1&hp

I support the death penalty only for treason, but this case gives me pause to reconsider. Anyone besides me think it matters that she was innocent, that she did not get due process, that the prosecutors unjustly charged her knowing that she likely was innocent?
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 09:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
It now becomes clear that Ethel rosenberg did not spy for the Soviets,
a charge for which she was put to death

BALONEY !
Your statement is unsupported by even the very friendly article u have
proffered, which refers to her as a "bit player" in the communist spy plot.
That is certainly enuf to justify the penalty.

Personally, I usually give a chick better than an even break,
but in THIS case, forget it. Thay all deserved WORSE than thay got.
I was very happy when thay got fried. I CHEERED ! in 1953.
It still makes me feel good.
MORE of the commie spies shoud have gotten the same.
Stalin woud not have allowed the North Korean commies to invade,
if he did not have nuclear armament (in some degree of development).
The Rosenbergs were spies in the Third World War and many decent people
were killed or enslaved under communism therein. That counts for a lot.
She was not "innocent " as u put it, and your article does not prove otherwise.
Did u take the time to read your own NYT story ?


Woud u have said the same as u did
if thay had been nazis instead of commies ?





David
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Isn't quoting the NYT claiming Ethel Rosenberg was innocent a bit like quoting the Volkischer Boebachter trying to claim Goering or somebody like that was innocent?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:06 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
if you read the article you would have seen that the main evidence that supported the charge was manufactured, and the prosecutors later admitted that they charged her in an attempt to flip her husband. It was a prosecutor's game to get at someone else, and the prosecutors let her die knowing that. here is now not a shred of evidence that she was guilty of anything but having some idea of what her husband was doing. Being married she had not obligation to turn him in, so she was guilty of nothing.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
Roberts I think would say that you David are a sucker:
Quote:
Sam Roberts, a New York Times writer, author and expert on the case told me, “Communism looked a little more appealing after the depression when a lot of people were not benefiting from Capitalism, when there was anti-Semitism in this country and there was a perception, certainly not a reality, that there was a lot less of it in the Soviet Union.”

But Roberts and others have long suggested the evidence against Ethel was weak and her execution may have been a mistake.

“Ethel Rosenberg was an actress…,” Sam reminded me. “At some point she realized this was her greatest role. Whatever loyalty she had to Communism and towards the Soviet Union she could perform a lot more as a Martyr than she ever could as a spy.”


http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/22/julius-and-ethel-rosenberg-trial-resurfaced-nearly-55-years-later/

thing is, our justice system is required to separate out those who are innocent but playing guilty for those who are actually guilty. The system failed.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Note that u have ignored my question:
" Woud u have said the same as u did
if thay had been nazis instead of commies ? "

Note also that Gunga brings out a very good point.
Let us observe from the syntax and general cast of your article
that its theme is commie friendly. As Gunga implies, the NYT
has a HISTORY of friendliness to commies. (Think Red Chinese and Castro.)


Any decisions of the prosecutors came AFTER the facts
of her acts or her omissions, and did not alter the past qua her innocence or guilt.
Your choice of words almost makes it sound as if the Prosecution
had suborned witnesses.

From your assurance that:
" here is now not a shred of evidence that she was guilty of anything
but having some idea of what her husband was doing
" I surmise that u have
carefully analysed the entire trial transcript, right ?





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I am interested primarily in the legal system doing its job, so it does not matter to be if the alleged guilty are said to be Nazi or Commies.

There is still a bit of evidence sealed, so it is possible that there is something to base her conviction on, but as time goes on the case looks increasingly weak. You are correct, more info in needed before we conclude that she was innocent and the the case was rigged. We are going that way however.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Re: hawkeye10 (Post 3398891)
Roberts I think would say that you David are a sucker

I have no wish to curry favor with the commies,
nor with pro-socialist people; u can trust me on THAT.


Quote:
“Ethel Rosenberg was an actress…,” Sam reminded me.
“At some point she realized this was her greatest role. Whatever loyalty she
had to Communism and towards the Soviet Union she could perform
a lot more as a Martyr than she ever could as a spy.”

Yeah; she and John Wilkes Booth were both innocent actors.





David

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
I must say, in the fullness of sincerity, that I took the 3rd World War very seriously.

I remain very grateful for ALL Anti-commie efforts
that contained the ineffably evil empire, until it fell of its own weight
after Ronald Reagan ran its economy into the ground with the arms race.
Because of those efforts, I will not live any part of my life as a commie slave.
I CARE about that.

Tho I reject the proposition that she was innocent,
let me say that if we were to weigh the justice system in a balance scale
against the anathema of communist slavery,
I 'd support killing communism, no matter what.





David
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 08:27 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Isn't quoting the NYT claiming Ethel Rosenberg was innocent a bit like quoting the Volkischer Boebachter trying to claim Goering or somebody like that was innocent?


So you are saying that the NYT is the official newspaper of the NSDAP now Shocked (Leaving aside the fact that the Völkischer Beobachter never could do so because it wasn't published when the question about "Goering or somebody like that" guilt arose.)

However, "your Prawda", gunga, reports the same ...

http://i33.tinypic.com/242a4it.jpg
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 09:41 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Gunga was creating a simile, Walter.
Did u see where he wrote: " . . . a bit like . . . "





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 09:44 am
sim·i·le
"noun 1. a figure of speech in which two unlike things
are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose.”
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:15 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Okay - but ... the NYT only reported.

The material is from the National Archive:
Records of the Rosenberg Grand Jury Transscripts.

Ruth Greenglass , Ethel Rosenberg's sister-in-law, gave differing accounts in her grand jury and trial testimony: Greenglass told the grand jury that Ethel Rosenberg had typed notes about the US nuclear program before Julius Rosenberg passed them to the Soviet Union¹, whereas at trial Greenglass testified that she herself wrote the information by hand².

¹ http://media.nara.gov/northeast/nyc/rosenbergcasefiles-greenglass-ruth-pg9132to9161.pdf
² http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_TRGR.HTM
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
As I remember Hawkeye 's exhibited NYT story,
her testimony referred to some of or part of the typing.

0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 12:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
of course it matters.

as a matter of principle. a civilised society does not execute innocent people for political reasons. but then perhaps, in this regard, the us is not actually that civilised.

but i've nothing against the american people.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 01:24 pm
@Steve 41oo,
She was not innocent.
She was a filthy commie.
Steve 41oo
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 01:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
silly person
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 02:25 pm
Death or slavery under communism (worse than nazism)
was a very serious matter; deadly serious.

silly

adjective
1. ludicrous, foolish; "gave me a cockamamie reason for not going";
"wore a goofy hat"; "a silly idea"; "some wacky plan for selling more books" [syn: cockamamie]
2. lacking seriousness; given to frivolity; "silly giggles" [syn: airheaded]




Since the Cambrian Explosion
there has never been as much of an abominable, anathematic,
object of loathing and abhorence as communism.

U trivialise it, Steve.

Maybe Comrade Steve ?
Steve 41oo
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 03:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Lenin and Trotsky would be proud of the way American bankers have brought down international capitalism. OOPS THERE GOES ANOTHER BANK....Smile All these nationalised American banks. They are a disease.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 03:17 am
@Steve 41oo,
I am proud and in ecstatic, rapturous delight
concerning how communism collapsed on Christmas Eve of 1991,
when the USSR went out of business.
Now it languishes, cheek by jowl, next to national socialism,
together at the bottom of the cesspool of history.

It makes me happy to think about it.
If I ever feel sad, I ponder that, Comrade Steve.





David
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ethel Rosenberg was innocent
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/20/2019 at 05:45:19