Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikk14 | Hacker News Reader

Isn't a bit bizarre from the author to point the finger to Italian anarchists for this unsolved case? I mean the "pair of Italian-American anarchists had been indicted five days earlier for bank robbery and murder" he mentions are none less than Sacco and Vanzetti, who were victims of one of the most spectacular miscarriages of justice willingly perpetrated for political reasons I can recall. To find an Italian anarchist guilt of something in the US during the 20s proofs were not really a requirement, so this case wouldn't end up unsolved.

View on HN

> Isn't a bit bizarre from the author to point the finger to Italian anarchists for this unsolved case?

It's the investigators that are pointing the finger, not the author: "Investigators immediately suspected that the bombing was the work of Galleanist anarchists"

The author chose how much context to include. Not to even mention the issues that most historians have with the treatment of S&V, while mentioning the case in apparent support of a completely opposed proposition, is odd in a work of this length.

Author of the article here. I did not intend to imply support for the conclusion that Galleanist anarchists were to blame. To the contrary, I feel the response of the public was misdirected and the response of the government was heavy-handed. Hence my phrase "the orgy of misguided justice."

I thought that referred to the "deportation of about 10,000"?

The "orgy" was the series of events that led up to the deportation, including the presumption that anarchists were to blame. Of course, it is quite probable the bombers were self-styled anarchists, but they didn't act on behalf of all anarchists, and many of those punished were not demonstrably guilty of anything.

It's clearly referring to the entire fallout from the attack. The author specifically says that anarchists "had not been proven responsible"; he mentions them to explain the context that led people to blame radicals at the time.

I understand and I hope you'll forgive my nitpicking. It's just that when I read the paragraph with the Sacco & Vanzetti reference, I got the vibe of something in the lines "look what else the Italians were doing" and that rubbed me the wrong way. I would have much preferred something like "were _wrongly_ indicted of", to avoid the misunderstanding. I hope this comment will be taken not as a void critique by somebody who got offended, but as a reminder that phrasing is important to not to have your writings be interpreted the other way around.

I write obnoxious comments all the time, and I can't recall when I've been downvoted as much as this thread. It's clear that you and I and our non-psychic reading habits have touched a nerve with this author and his band of acolytes.

I'm downvoting you for implying without evidence that the author is responsible for a backlash against you. You are not contributing anything to discussion.

> this author and his band of acolytes.

I'm just keeping you distracted while my minions and I complete construction of my doomsday device. Mwahaha, etc.

Haha, touché! b^)

> I would have much preferred something like "were _wrongly_ indicted of", to avoid the misunderstanding.

I understand that you would like me to have a political opinion that resembles your own, but I prefer to remain impartial and describe the facts.

> Sacco and Vanzetti, who were victims of one of the most spectacular miscarriages of justice

Nonsense. They were guilty, as subsequent investigations have demonstrated.

You are free to be adamant about that. I wonder what gives you this confidence though. I hope it's something more substantial that contradicting witnesses speaking decades after the fact and a pistol who passed dozens of hands. Certainly, that does not convince me that two men should die, nor should a reasonable jury. Sacco and Vanzetti weren't executed because they allegedly killed a man during a robbery. They were executed because of what they believed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com