From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Clinton/Fonda
Keywords: You really had to be there, Russell...
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:17:54 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Along these same lines, was it ok for a people like Jane Fonda 
rl> and Bill Clinton to protest US involvement in the Vietnam War?  
rl> Or, would you agree with Scott that such actions constitute 
rl> treason?  

From article <1992Nov10.182933.6448@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com 
(Kenneth D. Whitehead):

kw> What Bill Clinton did was legal, (although in my opinion, it made it
kw> impossible for me to vote for him for Commander-in-Chief), but Jane
kw> Fonda went to North Viet Nam and made propaganda broadcasts on the
kw> behalf of an enemy with which her country was engaged in military
kw> hostilities.  She also posed for propaganda pictures which were widely
kw> published at the time, and publicly urged Americans fighting in South
kw> Viet Nam to refuse to fight.
kw> 
kw> She also encouraged the North Vietnamese, telling the Communists that 
kw> the "people" in the US were behind them. US prisoners in Hanoi reported
kw> increased torture and other forms of poor treatment after Fonda's visit,
kw> and there were reports of a prisoner being executed for refusing to see 
kw> Fonda. 

I don't understand how/why you think Jane Fonda was somehow 
responsible for the alleged mistreatment of US prisoners.  Be 
that as it may, I'd like to explore a couple of related points.  

It's been my experience that people who don't appreciate the 
concept of non-human animal rights are often equally 
disrespectful of human rights.  Perhaps you'd be willing to share 
your views on a couple of human rights questions: 

1) Do you favor the right of individuals to select their own form of
   government.  If so, do you agree that the US violated the rights
   of the vietnamese people by subverting the plans for an all-vietnam
   election, as embodied in the terms of the geneva peace accord that
   was signed after the french loss at Dien Bien Phu?  Or, would you
   say that it's acceptable for the United States to violate democratic
   principles elsewhere in the world if it suits her economic and 
   political objectives?

2) Do you disapprove of torture?  If so, would you have agreed with
   critics like Jane Fonda that the participants in the CIA's 
   "phoenix" project ought to be tried for war crimes?

kw> It's not the same thing as merely protesting the war;  Fonda 
kw> actively gave aid and comfort to the enemy (the legal definition 
kw> of treason, I believe), no two ways about it.  

The generals who attempted to kill Hitler in the closing months 
of WWII were tried, convicted, and executed for treason, yet some 
germans later viewed them as patriotic heros.  Perhaps the 
definition of patriotism and treason ought to depend on our 
definition of "home and country" and the values that we hold 
dear.  

Was Vietnam your home?  If not, was it "patriotic" for the US to
use her military muscle to "protect" the vietnamese people from 
their desire to control their own political and economic future?

kw> ...
kw> And can you imagine the moral quandry poor President Clinton is going
kw> to find himself in if he ever needs to send troops into combat?  You 
kw> almost have to feel sorry for the guy.  (I'm even going to resist the
kw> temptation to  make a sarcastic remark about that.)  ;-)

I don't envision any moral quandaries here.  If you're the sort of
"good german" who does what he's told, and never asks questions, I
suppose that any particular war would seem like every other war.
You'd simply do what you're told, regardless of the situation.

On the other hand, if you're the sort of person who likes to asks
questions, I'm sure you'll realize that some wars may be totally
unjust.


	Sorry Russell, I already fought the war in Viet Nam once, and
	I don't intend to do it again with you here on the net.  I'm not
	going to let you bait me on this issue, because it's something
	of a "hot button" with me.

	My observations about Fonda were an attempt to educate you about
	things you've probably only heard about in history books.  My remarks
	about Clinton were an honest observation on my part.

	Look, I can remember what it was like back in those days, and I
	can sympathize with the feelings that motivated Mr. Clinton to
	take the path that he did.  If you really want to believe that
	his motivations were altruistic, go ahead.  I was a little closer
	to the issue than you may have been, and I can honestly tell you
	that *I* didn't want to go when I was called, back in '66, and the 
	reason was real simple:  I was afraid.  So was everybody else I knew
	that was draft bait.  The "I want to beat the draft BECAUSE OF MY 
	OPPOSITION TO THE WAR" stuff didn't become fashionable for another 
	couple of years. 

	But I went anyway, and the reasons I went may not be things you can 
	relate to, because they're pretty "traditional".   I went because it 
	was my duty, and to have not gone when called would have been something 
	I would have considered dishonorable.  So nobody had to go in my place,
	I went.

	Now, from some of the things I've seen you post savaging Mike Linan
	for his religious beliefs (something I have remained heretofore
	silent about, but nonetheless consider to be extremely tacky) I can
	well imagine what you're going to say about my adherence to such
	"prehistoric" concepts as honor and duty.  So before you start asking 
	me to explain every arcane point about those concepts, let me just let ya 
	know -  if you don't know what I'm talking about, there's no way anybody 
	can explain it to you.  Hopefully, somebody will be able to explain
	it to our new President.

	By the way - referring to Viet Nam veterans with the "good german"
	comparison is pretty offensive stuff.  Please don't subject me to
	any more of it. 



	Ken