mời các bác cùng assess cái essay này

mời các bác cùng assess cái essay này

Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Scientist or Renegade
â?oLike all American children born during and after World War II, I was taught about the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews. By the time I had reached college, I had no reason to disbelieve any of my education, except that I had some problems swallowing the numbers of decedents, said to total better than six million persons. But there it stopped. I believed in the Nazi genocide. I had no reason to disbelieve.â? (Fred A. Leuchter, Jr â?" The Leuchter Report, The how and the why).
I was born in Vietnam, a country whose name goes hand in hand with the term â?ocommunistâ? in the eyes of most Westerners and perhaps especially Americans. I grew up with history lessons in which Stalin and Deng Xiaobing appeared as two flawless heroes of communism who had greatly contributed to the development of mankind. I long held those school lessons as the truth until my father unmasked them and made me wonder, question and eventually realize how much of a lie they were, that Stalin killed millions of Russian peasants in order to speed up the Russian industrialization and that Deng Xiaobing was not only responsible for the Tianmen Square Massacre but was also responsible for the invasion of my own countryâ?Ts border in 1979. The lines above are quoted from Fred Leuchterâ?Ts speech, which was presented at the Ninth International Revisionist Conference (long after the 4th Leuchter Report was published) and which has often been regarded as a sophism and a pathetic excuse by those opposed to the holocaust denial. Nevertheless it leads me to have a deep sympathy for him. It is right to question in this dominated-by-dialectics world and it is especially right to raise question in America where people hold â?ofreedom of speechâ? as their most fundamental right.
Because of the fact that no question has an absolutely right or wrong answer, it is a difficult task to judge the ethics of Leuchter. In order to accomplish it, the causes, means and ends of all of his actions (both before and after the infamous Zundel trial) must be carefully considered.
Before the Zundel trial, Leuchter has the right causes and ends though somehow wrong means for his actions. Mr. Leuchter was, according to his revisionist supporters, â?owidely acknowledged as America's leading specialist on the design and fabrication of homicidal gas chambers and other equipment used in execution of convicted criminalsâ? (from www.revisionists.com) or, according to the major protestors, â?oa self-proclaimed and self-taught â?~expertâ?T on gas chambersâ? (Stern, Holocaust Denial, p.9) While what his title really is doesnâ?Tt actually matter until later, it is important to examine the reason why he agrees to take the job of doing a series of researches regarding the â?otruthâ? of the Holocaust. As in the film â?oMr Death â?" The Rise and fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr,â? before he was involved with Ernst Zundel, a revisionist (referred to as a neo-Nazi by many people) brought to trial in Canada for publishing a pamphlet claiming the Holocaust to be a hoax, he had been quite successful as an equipment salesman and repairman and had a happy family life. The fact that Leuchter accepted the proposal of Robert Faurission (member of the Zundelâ?Ts defense team) to assist in the defense with its obvious threats to his stable life and its gloomy future of success, seems quite unexplainable if we regard Leuchter as simply a greedy fame-seeker who wants to be famous for doing something others refuse to do. The only good explanation for this action of Leuchter is his pure interest in the science of the killing business as well as in the truth of history. Leuchter said, in the above-mentioned speech about his decision:
Some twenty-four years later, a very believing engineer sat at his desk working one snowy January afternoon in 1988, when the telephone rang. This very believing engineer was about to receive a very shocking history lesson, one which would cause him to question that fifty-year-old Holocaust lie and the application of that lie to generations of children. "Hello, this is Robert Faurisson" - and that very believing engineer would believe no more. (revisionists.com)
This is why Leuchter has a an acceptable ethical foundation for all of his actions before the trial.
After meeting with the defense team, he was then asked to go to Poland (specifically Auschwitz, a well-known holocaust site) and use his expertise to do research. As shown in the film mentioned above, Leuchter takes soil and rock samples from the site and illegally transports them from Poland to America. He conducts chemical analyses leading to the four famous â?oLeuchter Reports,â? which he used in the trial as evidence to defend Zundel. Here arise all the problems of his claim an â?~expertâ?T.
The prosecutors try to discover the truth about him. For example, on July 20, 1990, Alabama Assistant Attorney General Ed Carnes sent a memo to all capital-punishment states questioning Leuchter's credentials and credibility. Carnes stated that not only were Leuchter's views on the gas chamber process 'unorthodox' but that he was running a shakedown scheme. If a state refused to use his services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of the inmate, claiming that the state's gas chamber might malfunction. Finally, for all of the evidences used against him, Leuchter is forced to admit that he is not an engineer.â? (â?oHolocaust revisionist admits he is not an engineerâ? â?" Washington Post 06/17/91.) That is where the story of the Zundelâ?Ts trial ends for Leuchter. Obviously, the means he used do not seem right, however, as the ends of all of his actions are to defend a man who he believes to be innocent from being convicted, his ends are right. With right causes and right ends, Leuchterâ?Ts actions are generally ethically acceptable before the trial.
After the trial, however, a whole new chapter opens up for Leuchter. His contract with the state prisons dwindle, his marriage falls apart and his credibility is destroyed. Leuchter said in the book â?~Witch Hunt in Bostonâ?T:
A five pronged-attack has been initiated against me...depriving me of my civil rights and the right to make a living at my chosen profession. This had consisted of the following:

1. Political threats to prison officials who choose to deal with me.
2. Vilification by private contacts as well as in newsprint and on television.
3. Legislation to prohibit my working at my profession.
4. Criminal prosecution for working at my profession.
5. Lies spread by public officials, both officially and privately. (p.455)
Gradually he moves more fully into the world of the revisionists where he finds supports both financial and psychological. It seems to me that he has no other choice, he has to do that to make a living. The causes for his association with the revisionists are therefore acceptable. Itâ?Ts right for anybody to try to earn a living. He has a just cause. However, he employs the wrong means. He gets involved deeper and deeper with the revisionists.
But let us discuss who the revisionists really are. In fact, revisionism and revisionists are not the correct terms for those who deny the Holocaust. As beside holocaust revisionism there are also communism revisionism and many other kinds of revisionism, it is probably more accurate to call those who support Holocaust denial as Holocaust deniers instead of the general label of â?~revisionistsâ?T. Holocaust denial begins even before the Holocaust ends. According to Gerry Gable, e***or of the London-based antifascist monthy Searchlight:
In 1944, people who were SS, who were propagran***s, who were involved in the camp system, knew they lost the war, and left Germany. Sweden was one of the places they went. Some went to the Arab states and into some South American countries. There they began to work for the readjustment of history. Holocaust denial material first appeared very very early after the war.
So what do they say to deny the Holocaust? Most of the arguments are based on the characteristics of the gas used to kill Jews, Zyklon-B. Robert Faurission argues, for example, that Zyklon-B is an effective killer that sticks *****rface. How, he asks, could such a powerful, combustible and explosive gas have been used, when testimony about the camp suggests that no special equipment was used to take the dead bodies out, that there would have been poisoned air pockets between corpses, the people who removed the bodies smoked while doing so and that the removal of corpses was said to have been immediate when, even with the best technology, it would have required nearly a day to ventilate a gas chamber? This argument is largely used and effectively supported by the four Leuchter reports.
Other holocaust deniers point to statistics of Jewish population before and after the war, arguing that there were not enough Jews in Europe for such a huge number of 6 millions to have been killed. All of these arguments, however reasonable they may sound, have been successfully rejected by modern scientists. While who wins and who loses in this debate is essential to this exploration of Leuchterâ?Ts actions, with the arguments too long to be included fully here, it is important to see that the holocaust deniers not only deny the Holocaust but also try to foster pro-Nazi viewpoints as well as subtlely promote anti-Semitism. Just imagine how this world would be if films and books about the World War II were replaced by stories that paint Churchill and Roosevelt as conspirators secretly plotting to pull poor Germany into a war it did not want and portraying Hitler and Mussolini as heroes. Those who did not live through the events would find the recasting of history reasonable.
By electing to side with the Holocaust deniers, Fred Leuchter chooses the wrong direction. He thereby stands in lines with those who excuse and promote crimes against humanity. This is acceptable to try to earn a living, but siding with evil to make both ends meet is totally ethically wrong. After the trial, from a man motivated primarily by a pure interest in science, Leuchter has become a supporter of something that history has proven to be wrong and that the most of humanity has long perceived as evil.
In this dialectical world where virtually no question has a right or wrong answer and where, ironically, so many seem to be searching desperately for a right direction, people can easily find themselves confused and lost. In Fred Leuchter we see a man allow himself to gradually descend into a life less moral, less ethical than he had manifested prior to his involvement in the Zundel trial.


BE YOUR SELF AS THOSE WHO MATTER DONT CARE AND THOSE WHO CARE DONT MATTER

Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Scientist or Renegade
??oLike all American children born during and after World War II, I was taught about the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews. By the time I had reached college, I had no reason to disbelieve any of my education, except that I had some problems swallowing the numbers of decedents, said to total better than six million persons. But there it stopped. I believed in the Nazi genocide. I had no reason to disbelieve.??? (Fred A. Leuchter, Jr ??" The Leuchter Report, The how and the why).
I was born in Vietnam, a country whose name goes hand in hand with the term ??ocommunist??? in the eyes of most Westerners and <Westerners refer to American already> perhaps especially Americans. I grew up with history lessons <"," comma> in which Stalin and Deng Xiaobing appeared as two flawless heroes of communism who had greatly contributed to the development of mankind. I long held those school lessons as the truth until my father unmasked them and made me wonder, question, <comma> and eventually realize how much of a lie they were, that <Not neccesary to put in, just replace it with a ".">Stalin killed millions of Russian peasants in order to speed up the Russian industrialization and that <";" or ", and">Deng Xiaobing was not only responsible for the Tianmen Square Massacre but was also responsible for the invasion of my own country??Ts border in 1979. The lines above <It takes a second to recall the reader that it is the quote at the beginning of the essay> are quoted from Fred Leuchter??Ts speech, which was presented <shorter way of saying it: "presented> at the Ninth International Revisionist Conference (long after the 4th Leuchter Report was published) and which has often been regarded <shorter: "regarded"> as a <Do you say: "A Buddhism"? No "a"> sophism and a pathetic excuse by those opposed <"who"/"that" opposed> to the holocaust denial. Nevertheless it leads me to have a deep sympathy for him. It is right to question in this dominated-by-dialectics world <comma ","> and it is especially right to raise question(s) in America where people hold ??ofreedom of speech??? as their most fundamental right.
Because of the fact that no question has an absolutely right or wrong answer, it is a difficult task to judge the ethics of Leuchter. In order to accomplish it, the causes, means and ends of all of his actions (both before and after the infamous Zundel trial) must be carefully considered.
Before the Zundel trial, Leuchter has the right causes and ends though somehow wrong means for his actions. Mr. Leuchter was, according to his revisionist supporters, ??owidely acknowledged as America's leading specialist on the design and fabrication of homicidal gas chambers and other equipment used in execution of convicted criminals??? (from www.revisionists.com) or, according to the major protestors, ??oa self-proclaimed and self-taught ??~expert??T on gas chambers??? (Stern, Holocaust Denial, p.9) While what his title really is doesn??Tt actually matter until later, it is important to examine the reason why he agrees to take the job of doing a series of researches regarding the ??otruth??? of the Holocaust. As in the film ??oMr Death ??" The Rise and fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr,??? before he was involved with Ernst Zundel, a revisionist (referred to as a neo-Nazi by many people) brought to trial in Canada for publishing a pamphlet claiming the Holocaust to be a hoax, he had been quite successful as an equipment salesman and repairman and had a happy family life. The fact that Leuchter accepted the proposal of Robert Faurission (member of the Zundel??Ts defense team) to assist in the defense with its obvious threats to his stable life and its gloomy future of success, seems quite unexplainable if we regard Leuchter as simply a greedy fame-seeker who wants to be famous for doing something others refuse to do. The only good explanation for this action of Leuchter is his pure interest in the science of the killing business as well as in the truth of history. Leuchter said, in the above-mentioned speech about his decision:
Some twenty-four years later, a very believing engineer sat at his desk working one snowy January afternoon in 1988, when the telephone rang. This very believing engineer was about to receive a very shocking history lesson, one which would cause him to question that fifty-year-old Holocaust lie and the application of that lie to generations of children. "Hello, this is Robert Faurisson" - and that very believing engineer would believe no more. (revisionists.com)
This is why Leuchter has a an acceptable ethical foundation for all of his actions before the trial.
After meeting with the defense team, he was then asked to go to Poland (specifically Auschwitz, a well-known holocaust site) and use his expertise to do research. As shown in the film mentioned above, Leuchter takes soil and rock samples from the site and illegally transports them from Poland to America. He conducts chemical analyses leading to the four famous ??oLeuchter Reports,??? which he used in the trial as evidence to defend Zundel. Here arise all the problems of his claim an ??~expert??T.
The prosecutors try to discover the truth about him. For example, on July 20, 1990, Alabama Assistant Attorney General Ed Carnes sent a memo to all capital-punishment states questioning Leuchter's credentials and credibility. Carnes stated that not only were Leuchter's views on the gas chamber process 'unorthodox' but that he was running a shakedown scheme. If a state refused to use his services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of the inmate, claiming that the state's gas chamber might malfunction. Finally, for all of the evidences used against him, Leuchter is forced to admit that he is not an engineer.??? (??oHolocaust revisionist admits he is not an engineer??? ??" Washington Post 06/17/91.) That is where the story of the Zundel??Ts trial ends for Leuchter. Obviously, the means he used do not seem right, however, as the ends of all of his actions are to defend a man who he believes to be innocent from being convicted, his ends are right. With right causes and right ends, Leuchter??Ts actions are generally ethically acceptable before the trial.
After the trial, however, a whole new chapter opens up for Leuchter. His contract with the state prisons dwindle, his marriage falls apart and his credibility is destroyed. Leuchter said in the book ??~Witch Hunt in Boston??T:
A five pronged-attack has been initiated against me...depriving me of my civil rights and the right to make a living at my chosen profession. This had consisted of the following:
1. Political threats to prison officials who choose to deal with me.
2. Vilification by private contacts as well as in newsprint and on television.
3. Legislation to prohibit my working at my profession.
4. Criminal prosecution for working at my profession.
5. Lies spread by public officials, both officially and privately. (p.455)
Gradually he moves more fully into the world of the revisionists where he finds supports both financial and psychological. It seems to me that he has no other choice, he has to do that to make a living. The causes for his association with the revisionists are therefore acceptable. It??Ts right for anybody to try to earn a living. He has a just cause. However, he employs the wrong means. He gets involved deeper and deeper with the revisionists.
But let us discuss who the revisionists really are. In fact, revisionism and revisionists are not the correct terms for those who deny the Holocaust. As beside holocaust revisionism there are also communism revisionism and many other kinds of revisionism, it is probably more accurate to call those who support Holocaust denial as Holocaust deniers instead of the general label of ??~revisionists??T. Holocaust denial begins even before the Holocaust ends. According to Gerry Gable, e***or of the London-based antifascist monthy Searchlight:
In 1944, people who were SS, who were propagran***s, who were involved in the camp system, knew they lost the war, and left Germany. Sweden was one of the places they went. Some went to the Arab states and into some South American countries. There they began to work for the readjustment of history. Holocaust denial material first appeared very very early after the war.
So what do they say to deny the Holocaust? Most of the arguments are based on the characteristics of the gas used to kill Jews, Zyklon-B. Robert Faurission argues, for example, that Zyklon-B is an effective killer that sticks *****rface. How, he asks, could such a powerful, combustible and explosive gas have been used, when testimony about the camp suggests that no special equipment was used to take the dead bodies out, that there would have been poisoned air pockets between corpses, the people who removed the bodies smoked while doing so and that the removal of corpses was said to have been immediate when, even with the best technology, it would have required nearly a day to ventilate a gas chamber? This argument is largely used and effectively supported by the four Leuchter reports.
Other holocaust deniers point to statistics of Jewish population before and after the war, arguing that there were not enough Jews in Europe for such a huge number of 6 millions to have been killed. All of these arguments, however reasonable they may sound, have been successfully rejected by modern scientists. While who wins and who loses in this debate is essential to this exploration of Leuchter??Ts actions, with the arguments too long to be included fully here, it is important to see that the holocaust deniers not only deny the Holocaust but also try to foster pro-Nazi viewpoints as well as subtlely promote anti-Semitism. Just imagine how this world would be if films and books about the World War II were replaced by stories that paint Churchill and Roosevelt as conspirators secretly plotting to pull poor Germany into a war it did not want and portraying Hitler and Mussolini as heroes. Those who did not live through the events would find the recasting of history reasonable.
By electing to side with the Holocaust deniers, Fred Leuchter chooses the wrong direction. He thereby stands in lines with those who excuse and promote crimes against humanity. This is acceptable to try to earn a living, but siding with evil to make both ends meet is totally ethically wrong. After the trial, from a man motivated primarily by a pure interest in science, Leuchter has become a supporter of something that history has proven to be wrong and that the most of humanity has long perceived as evil.
In this dialectical world where virtually no question has a right or wrong answer and where, ironically, so many seem to be searching desperately for a right direction, people can easily find themselves confused and lost. In Fred Leuchter we see a man allow himself to gradually descend into a life less moral, less ethical than he had manifested prior to his involvement in the Zundel trial.
-----------------------
I don't have enough time to correct it all, but I'll let others continue doing that. I read it all though! It sounds a bit like a speech to me. I skipped some parts that don't work in formal writing, but do in delivering speeches.
Notes for you:
1. Have an American friend check your essay first. There are phrases that don't fit in English way of writing.
2. Use Microsoft Words to check grammar and spelling. You might not have used it or ignored its correction.
3. Learn to write in MLA form.
Other than these, it's really good. You have a huge amount of vocab. I bet this is your final paper? Good luck!
Chân đất mắt sõi

Cảm ơn bác Nhaque nhé. Đây không phải là final paper của em, chỉ là một cái paper cho writing class thôi.
Bác thấy viết thế này có cái gì không fit in English way of writing à??? Trước khi em post bài này lên, em chưa đưa ai check cả. SAu khi post lên xong, em vác sang cho advisor của em check, đồng chí ấy chữa chi chít, hichic, làm cái paper của em trông như cái bản nháp ý.
Mà đúng là cảm ơn bác quá, cái này 6 pages double-space mà bác đọc được hết lại còn correct cho em nữa, cảm động quá. Em thấy đúng là cái câu em viết Western với American ngớ ngẩn quá bác ạ, cảm ơn bác làan nữa nhá.
Danke sehr schoen.
BE YOUR SELF AS THOSE WHO MATTER DONT CARE AND THOSE WHO CARE DONT MATTER

Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Scientist or Renegade
â?oLike all American children born during and after World War II, I was taught about the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews. By the time I had reached college, I had no reason to disbelieve any of my education, except that I had some problems swallowing the numbers of decedents, said to total better than six million persons. But there it stopped. I believed in the Nazi genocide. I had no reason to disbelieve.â?? (Fred A. Leuchter, Jr â?" The Leuchter Report, The how and the why).
I was born in Vietnam, a country whose name goes hand in hand with the term â?ocommunistâ?? <MAY WANT TO USE THE WORD â?oSYMNOMYOUS WITH COMMUNISMâ??> in the eyes of most Westerners and perhaps especially Americans (PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED). I grew up with history lessons in which Stalin and Deng Xiaobing <IS IT DENG XIAOPENG> appeared as two flawless heroes of communism who had greatly contributed <IF THEY ARE DEAD, PAST TENSE, â?oCONTRIBUTED GREATLYâ?? OR â?oMANY CONTRIBUTIONSâ??. SINCE THIS IS A CRITIC, AVOID USING WORDS THAT ARE UNQUANTIFIABLE. MAY I SUGGEST â?oUNEQUALâ?? INSTEAD? FURTHERMORE, â?oAPPEARREDâ?? DOES NOT PROVIDE CLARITY, TRY â?oPAINTEDâ??, > to the development of mankind <THIS IS A GROSS GENERALIZATION, MAY NOT GIVE SUBSTANTIVE TO THE READER> . I long held those school lessons <SCHOOL LESSONS IS NOT IDIOMATIC, MAY TRY â?oBELIEFSâ??> as the truth <TRUTH AND FACTS ARE DIFFERENT, BRO> until my father unmasked them <I LIKE â?oUNMASKEDâ?? BUT THE SENTENCE NEEDS HELP. U CANâ?TT UNMASK THE TRUTH, BUT U CAN UNMASK THE â?oFALSE TRUTHâ??>and made me wonder, question and eventually realize how much of a lie <NOT ALL OF THEM ARE LIE, I HOPE, THEY ARE A LITTLE TWISTED, BUT NOT A TOTAL LIE. THE SENTENCE ALSO NEED HELP I THINK> they were, that Stalin killed millions of Russian peasants in order to speed up the Russian industrialization <NOT CONVINCING, HOW DID YOU GO FROM YOUR FATHER TO THIS> and that Deng Xiaobing was not only responsible for the Tianmen Square Massacre but was also responsible for the invasion of my own countryâ?Ts <REPETITIVE, â?oMY COUNTRYâ?? IS GOOD ENOUGH, IF YOU ARE STILL A â?oVIETNAMESEâ??. AGAIN, JUMPING THE GUN, HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT â?oDENGâ?? WAS RESPONSIBLE. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE INVASION ORDER, WITH HIS SIGNATURE?> border in 1979. The lines above are quoted from Fred Leuchterâ?Ts speech, which was presented at the Ninth International Revisionist Conference (long after the 4th Leuchter Report was published) and which has often been regarded as a sophism and a pathetic <BE GRACEFUL, BRO> excuse by those opposed to the holocaust denial. Nevertheless it leads me to have a deep sympathy for him. It is right to question <WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION HISTORY> in this dominated-by-dialectics <YOU MUST IMPORT THIS FROM A POOR OLD JOURNAL> world and it is especially right <EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG> to raise question in America where people hold â?ofreedom of speechâ?? as their most fundamental right.
Because of the fact that no question has an absolutely right or wrong answer <YES THERE IS, 1+1=2>, it is a difficult task to judge the ethics of Leuchter <ARE YOU JUDGING HIS ETHICS OR HIS BELIEFS. FURTHERMORE, IS IT HIS PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OR HIS WORK ETHICS?> In order to accomplish it <WHAT IS â?oITâ??? BRO.â?o, the causes, means and ends <NOT IDIOMATIC ENGLISH> of all of his actions <AGAIN, GROSS GENERALIZATION. YOU CAN DISCRE*** HIM PROFESSIONALLY ONLY WITH FACTS> (both before and after the infamous Zundel trial) must be carefully considered.
Before the Zundel trial, Leuchter has the right causes and ends though somehow wrong means for his actions. Mr. Leuchter was, according to his revisionist supporters, â?owidely acknowledged as America's leading specialist on the design and fabrication of homicidal gas chambers and other equipment used in execution of convicted criminalsâ?? (from www.revisionists.com) or, according to the major protestors, â?oa self-proclaimed and self-taught â?~expertâ?T on gas chambersâ?? (Stern, Holocaust Denial, p.9) While what his title really is doesnâ?Tt actually matter until later, it is important to examine the reason why he agrees to take the job of doing a series of researches regarding the â?otruthâ?? of the Holocaust. As in the film â?oMr Death â?" The Rise and fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr,â?? before he was involved with Ernst Zundel, a revisionist (referred to as a neo-Nazi by many people) brought to trial in Canada for publishing a pamphlet claiming the Holocaust to be a hoax, he had been quite successful as an equipment salesman and repairman and had a happy family life. The fact that Leuchter accepted the proposal of Robert Faurission (member of the Zundelâ?Ts defense team) to assist in the defense with its obvious threats to his stable life and its gloomy future of success, seems quite unexplainable if we regard Leuchter as simply a greedy fame-seeker who wants to be famous for doing something others refuse to do. The only good explanation for this action of Leuchter is his pure interest in the science of the killing business as well as in the truth of history. Leuchter said, in the above-mentioned speech about his decision:
Some twenty-four years later, a very believing engineer sat at his desk working one snowy January afternoon in 1988, when the telephone rang. This very believing engineer was about to receive a very shocking history lesson, one which would cause him to question that fifty-year-old Holocaust lie and the application of that lie to generations of children. "Hello, this is Robert Faurisson" - and that very believing engineer would believe no more. (revisionists.com) <WHERE ARE THE QUOTATION MARKS, ITALIC?>
This is why Leuchter has <a> an acceptable ethical foundation for all of his actions before the trial.
After meeting with the defense team, he was then asked to go to Poland (specifically Auschwitz, a well-known holocaust site) and use his expertise to do research. As shown in the film mentioned above, Leuchter takes soil and rock samples from the site and illegally transports them from Poland to America. He conducts chemical analyses leading to the four famous â?oLeuchter Reports,â?? which he used in the trial as evidence to defend Zundel. Here arise <WHAT DO YOU MEANS BY THIS> all the problems of his claim an â?~expertâ?T.
The prosecutors try to discover the truth about him. For example, on July 20, 1990, Alabama Assistant Attorney General Ed Carnes sent a memo to all capital-punishment states questioning Leuchter's credentials and credibility. Carnes stated that not only were Leuchter's views on the gas chamber process 'unorthodox' but that he was running a shakedown scheme. If a state refused to use his services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of the inmate, claiming that the state's gas chamber might malfunction. Finally, for all of the evidences used against him, Leuchter is forced to admit that he is not an engineer.â?? (â?oHolocaust revisionist admits he is not an engineerâ?? â?" Washington Post 06/17/91.) That is where the story of the Zundelâ?Ts trial ends for Leuchter. Obviously, the means he used do not seem right, however, as the ends of all of his actions are to defend a man who he believes to be innocent from being convicted, his ends <TRY ANOTHER WORDS> are right. With right causes and right ends <THESE WORDS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED IN GAS CHAMBER, TRY ANOTHER>, Leuchterâ?Ts actions are generally ethically acceptable before the trial.
After the trial, however, a whole new chapter opens up for Leuchter. His contract with the state prisons dwindle, his marriage falls apart and his credibility is destroyed. Leuchter said in the book â?~Witch Hunt in Bostonâ?T:
A five pronged-attack has been initiated against me...depriving me of my civil rights and the right to make a living at my chosen profession. This had consisted of the following:
1. Political threats to prison officials who choose to deal with me.
2. Vilification by private contacts as well as in newsprint and on television.
3. Legislation to prohibit my working at my profession.
4. Criminal prosecution for working at my profession.
5. Lies spread by public officials, both officially and privately. (p.455)
Gradually he moves more fully <I THINK THIS IS OXYMORON, CANâ?TT BE MORE AND FULLY AT THE SAME TIME, BRO> into the world <IS THERE SUCH A SEPARATE WORLD, DO YOU MEANS â?oHE ALIGNS WITH THE SOPHISTSâ?T IDEA THAT THE HOLOCAST WAS NEVER EXISTâ??> of the revisionists where he finds supports both financial and psychological <HE IS NOT A MENTALLY RETARDED PERSON, â?oPSYCHOLOGICALLYâ?? SUGGESTS A TOTAL STATE OF MIND ENCOMPASSING MENTAL, BEHAVIOR, THOUGHTS, ETC>. It seems to me that he has no other choice, he has to do that to make a living <SOUNDED LIKE HE HAS ONLY FINANCIAL SUPPORT>. The causes for his association with the revisionists are therefore acceptable <TOO WINDED, TRY â?oHIS ASSOCIATION WITH THE REVISIONISTS DEEMS ACCEPTABLEâ??, I HAVE NO IDEA WHO ARE THE REVISIONISTS, DO YOU MEANS THE â?oNEO-NAZISâ??>. Itâ?Ts right for anybody to try to earn a living. He has a just cause. However, he employs the wrong means. He gets involved deeper and deeper with the revisionists.
But let us discuss who the revisionists really are. In fact, revisionism and revisionists are not the correct terms for those who deny the Holocaust. As beside holocaust revisionism there are also communism revisionism and many other kinds of revisionism, it is probably more accurate to call those who support Holocaust denial as Holocaust deniers instead of the general label of â?~revisionistsâ?T. Holocaust denial begins even before the Holocaust ends. According to Gerry Gable, e***or of the London-based antifascist monthy Searchlight:
In 1944, people who were SS, who were propagran***s, who were involved in the camp system, knew they lost the war, and left Germany. Sweden was one of the places they went. Some went to the Arab states and into some South American countries. There they began to work for the readjustment of history. Holocaust denial material first appeared very very early after the war.
So what do they say to deny the Holocaust? Most of the arguments are based on the characteristics of the gas used to kill Jews, Zyklon-B. Robert Faurission argues, for example, that Zyklon-B is an effective killer that sticks *****rface. How, he asks, could such a powerful, combustible and explosive gas have been used, when testimony about the camp suggests that no special equipment was used to take the dead bodies out, that there would have been poisoned air pockets between corpses, the people who removed the bodies smoked while doing so and that the removal of corpses was said to have been immediate when, even with the best technology, it would have required nearly a day to ventilate a gas chamber? This argument is largely used and effectively supported by the four Leuchter reports.
Other holocaust deniers point to statistics of Jewish population before and after the war, arguing that there were not enough Jews in Europe for such a huge number of 6 millions to have been killed. All of these arguments, however reasonable they may sound, have been successfully rejected by modern scientists. While who wins and who loses in this debate is essential to this exploration of Leuchterâ?Ts actions, with the arguments too long to be included fully here, it is important to see that the holocaust deniers not only deny the Holocaust but also try to foster pro-Nazi viewpoints as well as subtlely promote anti-Semitism. Just imagine how this world would be if films and books about the World War II were replaced by stories that paint Churchill and Roosevelt as conspirators secretly plotting to pull poor Germany into a war it did not want and portraying Hitler and Mussolini as heroes. Those who did not live through the events would find the recasting of history reasonable.
By electing to side with the Holocaust deniers, Fred Leuchter chooses the wrong direction. He thereby stands in lines with those who excuse and promote crimes against humanity. This is acceptable to try to earn a living, but siding with evil to make both ends meet is totally ethically wrong. After the trial, from a man motivated primarily by a pure interest in science, Leuchter has become a supporter of something that history has proven to be wrong and that the most of humanity has long perceived as evil.
In this dialectical world where virtually no question has a right or wrong answer and where, ironically, so many seem to be searching desperately for a right direction, people can easily find themselves confused and lost. In Fred Leuchter we see a man allow himself to gradually descend into a life less moral, less ethical than he had manifested prior to his involvement in the Zundel trial.
YOU CAN SEE I LOST INTEREST SOMEWHERE. I NEED TO GET BACK TO WORK. ANYWAY, HERE ARE MY IMPRESSIONS:
ON THE ASSESMENT OF SUBSTANCE, THE PAPER LACKS COHESIVENESS, GROSS OVERGENERALIZATION, FAILS TO ESTABLISH AUTHORITY TO RENDER A QUALIFIED JUDGEMENT, LACKS (THIS IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT, â?oMISSINGâ?? IS THE BETTER CHOICE) OF LOGIC, ETC.
ON THE ASSESMENT OF STYLE, IT SEEMS THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS STYLE HAD BEEN USED BY THE POPULAR â?oCUT AND PASTEâ?? METHODOLOGY. THEREFORE, THE POINT OF â?oSINGULARITY OF STYLEâ?? CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
ON THE ASSESMENT OF GRAMMAR, I MAY SOUND SMART, BUT I AM AS DUMB AS YOU ARE.
OVERALL. I THINK YOU DID GREAT (NO JOKING HERE). WITH YOU BEING IN THE U.S. FOR ONLY A SHORT TIME, I THINK YOU DID GREAT. Iâ?TVE SEEN PAPERS FROM NATURALLY PRODUCED YANKEES THAT CAN ONLY COMPARE WITH AN ELEPHANTâ?TS DUNG.
HERE IS AN ADDENDUM TO MY PREVIOUS DISCLAIMER: The writerâ?Ts comments are strictly honorable, and cannot be interpreted in anyway, shape, or form as libel, malicious, carrier of hatred or the like. If there are physical and/or emotional damages caused by the abovementioned comments, it should be construed as inadvertent remarks, which are made in a state of insanity, effected by the writer's poverty, despair, and other uncontrollable factors which can not be disclosed at this time. In the event of any lawsuit is pursued as a result of the abovementioned remarks. It is duly noted that, the appellant has waived all rights when the article is voluntarily posted by said appellant. Therefore, as a matter of law, there can be no liability as a result of the abovementioned remarks.
Furthermore, the writer, hereby, explicitly and categorically, denies any involvement and/or association with any sophist, revisionist, terrorist individual and/or groups. Even to the degree that such a relationship is found, I hereby assert, as a matter of right, my 5th amendment which states: â?oNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.â??
Du y Tan

hì, cảm ơn bác Duy tân. Em biết bài này em viết yếu lắm nên em mới post lên đây để các bác sửa giúp. Bác sửa tận tình quá, đa tạ bác nhiều.
Em biết cái tệ hại nhất là cái bác nói generalization (gross) nhưng mà em không biết làm thế nào cả bác ạ. Em có nhiều claims muốn viết nhưng lại không có đủ giấy để đưa ra những cái supporting evidence cho nó. Cái paper này là về chuyện đánh giá cái ethics (bác hỏi là professional hay work ethics - em nói là personal ethics có được không ạ) của cái bác tên là Fred Leuchter. Đánh giá về một người thì quá khó với em, mà em lại chỉ có 4 trang double-space, em lại làm research nhiều quá nên muốn nói đủ thứ --> lack of cohensiveness, nhưng mà không nói thì lại thấy thiếu thiếu. Em đã viết bố nó thàn 6 trang rồi đấy bác ạ.
Bác bảo là bài này dùng cái "Cut paste methodology" thì cũng phải nhưng em chỉ chơi quả này với mấy cái đoạn trích dẫn thôi, mà em có đưa vào trong Bibliography cả rồi. Có cái câu: "dominated-by-dialectics," bác bảo em ăn trộm trong cái old poor journal ra, hichic, bác ạ, bác làm em buồn woá, cái đấy em tự nghĩ ra đấy, nghe tưởng là fancy lắm ai ngờ bác độp cho phát thế này, đau hết cả người.
Neway, muốn hỏi bác một điều: bác đọc bài em xong bác có hiểu em đang viết gì không? Ý em tức là bác có hiểu được đại khái bài của em viết là nhằm mục đích gì không ạ? nếu mà cả cái này em làm cũng không được thì bỏ mẹ em rồi bác ạ, chắc em phải lo re-write cả cái paper mất.
BE YOUR SELF AS THOSE WHO MATTER DONT CARE AND THOSE WHO CARE DONT MATTER

Ba'c long:
Nếu em mạnh tay thì cho em khoanh tay xin lỗi .
Nếu bác không chấp tội thì em xin phát biểu kiểu ngắn gọn:
- Mục đích của bác là gì ? kể chuyện gia đình vợ con hay mang bác Leu ra toà , hay là làm phóng viên toà án, hay là muốn làm sử gia, hay làm nhà luân lý . Kiếm một mục đích, rồi chú trọng vào nó, còn lại tóm tắt mấy cái khác . Bác có vẻ ôm đồm nhiều quá .
- Tiếng Mỹ đòi hỏi chính xác , một động từ có thể chụp được không gian và thời gian, một tĩnh từ có thể biết được danh từ như thế nào . Như là bỏ bom thông minh vào bọn Taliban vậy
- Generalization là tánh của hầu hết người chúng ta (tôi cũng đang generalize nhỉ) . ex. "trăm năm trong cõi ng` ta, chữ tài chữ mệnh khéo là ghét nhau" Bác mà mang cái này nói với Bill Gates hay Bob Hope thì tụi nó có vẻ không tin .
- Biết kỹ sự thật trước khi viết, vd, ??ofreedom of speech??? as their most fundamental right. "freedom of speech" is one of their fundamental rights.
- Nếu mà bác muốn xét đoán thì tất phải có thẩm quyền (authority), không bắt buộc bác phải biết gì nhưng phải cho họ biết tại sao bác có quyền .
Personal : I was lied about the facts that......I felt betrayed. (You may want to expand to show how one feel about this: you have the authority of a witness),
or Collective authority(may want to do research on the effect of sophism): The people of Mexico lost a part of their collective identity when they found out they were lied to about the involvement of the government hiding the facts that their ancestors did not come from Spain.
U may want to invoke melodrama: A part of Mexicós history is vanished . No one know what happens.
- Nếu mà bác phán tội cho người ta thì phải đưa ra bằng chứng, gán tội tổ tông cho ba'c Leu : He, along with other revisionists, tried to erase the fact that 6 millions jews were destroyed by Nazism.....
- about ethics, if you want to question his ethics then u should establish the boundaries of ethics, vd, personal ethics: one with another (stealing, and sh*t like that), or professional ethics: one with own profession, or moral ethics (Right and Wrong, the Cardinal Virtues, Truthfulness, Fairness, Respect)
Chúc bác ngủ ngon .

Hôm nay mới ghé qua đây, đọc được bài của bác. Đa tạ bác DuyTan nhiều. Kỳ sau chắc em còn phải viết nhiều paper nữa. Sẽ post lên đây cho bác sửa giúp. Em có cáu giận gì bác đâu, bác quá nhời rùi.
BE YOUR SELF AS THOSE WHO MATTER DONT CARE AND THOSE WHO CARE DONT MATTER