From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Fonda
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:44:06 GMT

In <By17Lz.4tn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.722235680@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> I don't believe the law requires an enemy to have been the
>ds> recipient of an official declaration of war; look at the Rosenburghs
>ds> for an example.  The mere fact that we were fighting them makes the
>ds> North Vietnamese and their allies "the enemy," and the law might just
>ds> reflect that...

>If memory serves, the Rosenbergs signed an agreement designated by 
>the Official Secrecy Act (or whatever) and were henceforth given 
>access to the government's nuclear secrets.  Jane Fonda, on the 
>other hand, was only privy to information that educated people 
>around the world already knew, but which many americans were choosing 
>to ignore.  

	Such as how to operate a Soviet-made 40mm anti-aircraft gun in
Hanoi?  Treason is not defined by what information you know.  Would
you like me to post the relevant portions of the US Constitution again,
or would you rather try to ponder how actions, not knowledge, are what
is defined under the law?

>ds> The law gets rather tricky here, but I've no doubt Jane Fonda showed
>ds> behavior that would be considered treasonous by the Constitutional
>ds> definition with or without a formal declaration of war.

>Again, do your homework.  Had it not been for patriots like Fonda 
>and Clinton and Magaziner, our nation would have sunk deeper and 
>deeper into the morass.  As it was, however, more and more people 
>learned the real facts about the war and made their voices heard.  

	Yeah, and Walter Cronkite is a traitor too because he showed
American soldiers wounded in battle with NVA troops.  Do you honestly
think Fonda, Clinton, and Magaziner had that great an effect?  The
populace was already upset with the war; we were doing fine in the
military sense, but the political goals were never given and war is a
military means of achieving political goals.  Had the full force of
our military might been applied, the country would now be tank parking
and the war over.  Simple, really.  Fonda and the rest served as a
figurehead for the anti-war movement, but remarkably few considered
her to be any kind of patriot, let alone a spokesman for their views.
Furthermore, treason for a good cause is still treason -- the ballot
box is where the revolution should start.

>ds> And just why should my tax dollars pay for others to get
>ds> subsidized health care?  ...

>Why should my tax dollars pay for the use of animals in medical
>research for the benefit of folks who don't seem to care about their
>fellow human beings?

	Fight it, Russ -- they shouldn't.  That many others disagree
and that you'll likely lose is something you will have to deal with.
Consider it akin to your and Fonda's tax dollars being used to turn
lots of Vietnamese patriots into worm food.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals