She testified(falsely) that Ethel Rosenberg, her sister-in-law had typed up the notes that Ruth's husband, David Greenglass, had smuggled out of Los Alamos for transmission to the Soviets.

And in fact, even if she and Julius Rosenberg had not been involved in passing on atomic secrets(to the trivially small degree that they were)those secrets would still have reached the USSR exactly as soon as they did, since Klaus Fuchs, the German exile scientists, had given the information to the Soviets himself.

Thanks to her, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's sons, Robert and Michael, were orphaned(they were later adopted by Abel Meeropol, the Communist activist and songwriter best known for composing(under the name "Lewis Allan")the Billie Holliday song "Strange Fruit".

A murderous liar has gone to her grave.

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

There is a guy serving a long jail sentence in the US because he was caught spying for Israel in the US! - if you can go to jail for spying for a country that is generally considered to be a close ally - then you can obviously go to jail for spying for an adversary.

quote:

---

Ruth Greenglass betrayed members of her family and put them in the position where they would be killed.

---

That may be. But here is my question. What do you do if you are called as a witness and you have to testify under oath and what if the fact is that if you tell the truth, family members will be convicted and possibly executed. Do you commit perjury in order to protect them, or do you tell the truth even if it means horrific consequences. I'm just tossing this out as a moral conundrum.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

Something I wasn't aware of was that Roy Cohn (McCarthy's good chum)was the prosecutor in the case and influenced the choice of the judge and pushed for the death penalty.

I am surprised by the callousness of the Greenglass I guess some people will do anything to save their own skin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But, I think that there is no getting away from the fact that there has to be some sort of penalty for espionage ...

---

Sounds to me like the prosecutor was just using flimsy charges against Ethel Rosenberg to try to get her husband to talk. They threatened Greenglass with her husband's execution and her own prosecution which might end up in execution if she didn't testify against the Rosenbergs. So, that's what she did. She had to choose between she and her husband dying, or the Rosenbergs. She chose them.

Perhaps not the most noble choice in the world that she made. But she sure wasn't the one who put anyone in the position of having to choose. She wasn't the one holding the axe.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I agree with you Michelle. Who knows what any of us what do in similar circumstances. If someone was applying elector shocks to my genitals or ripping out my finger nails with pliers - I'd probably betray my own mother.

---

From reading your post, Michelle, I concluded that you do have sympathy for Greenglass, not sure, though. But, if you do, why should she be afforded that honor? I have great respect for persons who defend right, especially if they are prepared to give their life to do so. In Greenglass' case I understand her motivations and actions, but I hold her accountable for what she decided to do.

On a barely related note: I have visited the housing project in New York City where the Rosenbergs lived. It was the first large project housing of its kind in New York, I lived about 10 blocks away from it a long time ago. I paid $125/month for my rent. ha!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The point is, she wasn't a "murderous liar" - she didn't murder anyone. From the accounts I'm reading online, it sounds like the government set them up to either lie about someone else, or get the chair themselves.

Sounds to me like the prosecutor was just using flimsy charges against Ethel Rosenberg to try to get her husband to talk. They threatened Greenglass with her husband's execution and her own prosecution which might end up in execution if she didn't testify against the Rosenbergs. So, that's what she did. She had to choose between she and her husband dying, or the Rosenbergs. She chose them.

Perhaps not the most noble choice in the world that she made. But she sure wasn't the one who put anyone in the position of having to choose. She wasn't the one holding the axe.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Incidently has anyone else seen one of Charlie Chaplan's later films where Chaplan plays an aging comedian trying for a comeback who comes across a boy whose parents have been executed for espionage? I can't remember the name of the film I don't think it's well known I believe I saw it on Elwy Yost Saturday night at the movies.

---

Do you mean Limelight?

Marvelous film. Don't recall that incident. I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival where it was introduced by Liv Ullman. She said it was the first film she ever saw and it convinced her to be a movie actor. She also said she hadn't seen it since, when she first saw it she identified with the dancer, at the TIFF she identified with Chaplin.

And watch of course for Meryl Strep as Ethel Rosenberg. I don't know why I was ever skeptical of her acting ability. Too much hype about mediocre movies she was in, maybe.

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I agree with Michelle and indeed this instance is an example of why capital punishment should NOT exist.

---

For interest's sake, here's an article I wrote about Robert Meeropol, the son of the Rosenbergs, when he spoke in Montreal a couple of years ago, for The Suburban.

And don't worry about copyright:

‘Demonization sparks terrorism, executions'

Demonization by governments can lead to terrorism as well as capital punishment, says the son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S..
Robert Meeropol spoke last Wednesday at Westmount’s Temple Emmanu-El Beth Sholom, and was in Montreal to take part in the 2nd World Congress Against the Death Penalty at Place des Arts.
“If every country in the world said, no matter what someone does, we will not kill our own citizens and... acknowledge our common humanity, you can’t have terrorism in the world, you can’t have people blowing up children if they see these other people as human beings,” Meeropol told The Suburban.
Terrorism takes place because governments demonize the victims,” he said, “it’s because they say they’re worthless, they’re terrible people and not really deserving. It’s the same reason we execute people, because we say they’re demons and don’t deserve to live.”
Meeropol admits changing the viewpoint of governments sounds idealistic, “but it’s important to set our goals of what direction we’re trying to go in.”
Meeropol told the synagogue audience that documents reveal his mother was innocent of being part of a conspiracy to pass the secrets of the atomic bomb on to the Soviet Union, and that her execution was the end result of a process to force her to testify against her husband and others.
The attorney and activist also said he cannot prove his father did not collude with the Soviets in some way in 1945 to help defeat the Nazis, but maintains he was not involved in passing atomic bomb secrets.
Meeropol, a critic of President George W. Bush, said Bush is using the politics of fear emanating from the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to proceed with foreign and domestic policies, such as the Patriot Act.
“There’s a real basis for fear,” he admitted, referring to Islamic terrorism. “But it’s been overblown in order to achieve a political end. President Franklin Roosevelt said ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,’ that fear makes us stupid and take rash actions that are dangerous. Large groups of frightened people do stupid things, large groups of powerful, frightened people do stupid and dangerous things. That is really scary.
“The Bush administration would like to say, because of our draconian actions, there hasn’t been a terrorist attack, and if there’s an attack, they’ll say we need more draconian actions to prevent an attack. Whatever happens, they’re going to say the same thing and act the same way because they have an authoritarian agenda.”
For instance, Meeropol suspects the Patriot Act, a 400-page document which details means to prevent future terrorist attacks, was created before 9/11 as a “wish list” for its authoritarian agenda, because it was produced just weeks after 9/11.
Does that mean Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11?
“I’m not one of these conspiracy theorists, I don’t know what went on. I was taught in law school, if something happens and you’re looking for the perpetrators, the first place you look is who benefits. There’s no doubt in my mind one of the primary beneficiaries of Sept. 11 was George W. Bush. It doesn’t mean he had prior knowledge, but it means you have to consider the possibility.”

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

In both, there was certainly some sort of espionage occurring, though relatively understandable in context.

Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet spy, interested in discovering information about the atomic bomb, at a time when the USSR and the US were allies. Thus, he was "helping an ally in the war effort".

The facts concerning Rosenberg are now undeniable due to declassification of KGB commmunications concerning the intelligence their agent, "Liberal", passed to the USSR.

It also seems that Ethel Rosenberg was put to death because she wouldn't rat her husband out.

http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00039.cfm

Unfortunately, the campaign for the Rosenbergs was based on complete denial. They didn't do nothing! They are heroes!

In the Cuban Five situation, there is no death penalty being imposed, but some of them got ridiculous sentences for crimes they either didn't commit, or for crimes they committed in an understandable context. Their espionage was primarily against anti-Castro targets operating contrary to international law from Miami.

On the other hand, having members of the Cuban Secret Police operating surreptitiously on US military bases is unlikely to be tolerated; just as it would not be if the CIA had placed secret agents on Cuban military bases.

So, it seems to me that in both cases, support for the accused is called for, but if one wants to support the official Communist-controlled campaign for the Five, it should be with eyes wide open, and an understanding that not all the claims being made are the whole truth.

I might add that I have reason to believe that some of the Five were approached to give evidence against the others, but refused. That may be one reason that the initial sentences were so high (though it appears they will be reduced).

quote:

---

Although the convictions were upheld, the sentences of Ramón Labañino, Fernando González and Antonio Guerrero were overturned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
So, it seems to me that in both cases, support for the accused is called for, but if one wants to support the official Communist-controlled campaign for the Five, it should be with eyes wide open, and an understanding that not all the claims being made are the whole truth.

---

Well, can be say that CUBA is Communist-controlled?

Can we say that the Cuban Five, intelligence agents of the Cuban government, were Communist-controlled?

Can we say that the Cuban government is itself running a campaign for the Cuban Five? And that Granma, the Official Organ of the Communist Party of Cuba is hosting a "Miami Five" website for the "Heroes"?

And can we say that the Cuban government campaign and the "Cuban Five Campaign" are identical, do not criticise each other, and make the same points within a day or two?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Oh, are we not allowed to say that the Cuban Five Campaign is Communist-controlled?

---

Of course we are allowed to say that. Even suicide has been decriminalized in Canada. People are allowed to do some of the weirdest things imaginable.

Psssssssst. Russia is still run by Commies....

I support the Cuban Five and I am NOT a communist.

This is getting tiring and stupid as hell. Constantly having to tiptoe around the nasty big red white and blue elephant in the room.

quote:

---

I support the Cuban Five and I am NOT a communist.

---

I also support the Cuban Five and am not a Communist. Somewhere on the internet you can find me, the Cuban Ambassador to Canada, and others at a Law Union Conference, in which we support the Cuban Five and aver that they did not get a fair trial.

But the whole idea of a front organization is that it will be controlled by the Party, but have numerous non-party members; perhaps a majority.

Here's what wikipedia says:

quote:

---

Communist and other Marxist-Leninist parties have sometimes used front organizations to attract support from those (sometimes called fellow travellers) who may not necessarily agree with Leninist ideology. The front organization often obscures its provenance and may often be a tool for recruitment. Other Marxists often describe front organizations as opportunist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Dude, chill out. This is one of the few times that Jeff mentions communists without simply dismissing arguments based on their presence. Over-the-top response. Understandable considering past history, but still.

---

You are allowing this poseur to come here and crap on the thousands of activists who are fighting to defend the Cuban Five by saying their movement is led by Communists who are not telling them the whole truth.

Or are they marching in lockstep?

Remember, I began discussing this in connection with the Rosenberg case, in which Communist Parties worldwide ran an international support campaign for a cause which was, in substantial part, justified.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

On the other hand, having members of the Cuban Secret Police operating surreptitiously on US military bases is unlikely to be tolerated; just as it would not be if the CIA had placed secret agents on Cuban military bases[/URL]

---

That's not what human rights lawyer Jose Pertierra or García Márquez said about the Cuban Five. The U.S. knew they were there ahead of time and what their purpose was.