From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: 1984 Elections in Nicaraugua
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:14:47 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Aug25.004506.851@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.194340.1287@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>
>>Consider the following hypothetical situation.
>
>Not a good analogy.

Somehow I didn't think you would think so. No analogy is perfect but it
is demonstrative.
>
>>The United States has just won its war of Independence from Great Britain
>>and is about to have its first election.  
>
>First of all, the colonies had been having elections for over a hundred
>years. Many members of the Continental Congress had been supporters
>of the Crown and opposed to independance.

Elections prior to independence aren't the issue.  They were at the
pleasure of the crown and could be cancelled or prevented, as happened
to Franklin's autonomy proposals in the 1750's.
>
>The Sandinistas however, seized power and began jailing and killing opponents.
>They also enacted a number of laws banning opposition. They had little
>interest in democracy.

You have posted evidence that this happened in 1984 when the contra war
was going full swing, but in 1979?  Note that the Sandinistas initially
had broad support, including from centrist business.  Much of this
support evaporated because of economic policy, but this happened later.
>
>>The British decide they don't
>>want to give up their colonies so they arm and support an insurgency
>>that attacks farms and farmers and causes havoc in the fledgling
>>republic.  
>
>Since the rights of the people are preserved under the Articles of
>Confederation along with the state and local constitutions and
>charters there is no moral base for this action. The insurgents
>CAN run for office and change things that way.

The tories might have thought there was a moral base for an insurgency
since the status quo was violently overthrown.  Are insurgents, who
are trying to overthrow a system (isn't that the definition of treason?),
allowed to run?
>
>In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas had no intention of allowing opponents
>win. There is therefore a moral basis for violent opposition.

Do you have an AI report that proves this?  In the immediate aftermath
of the revolution, there was widespread support for the Sandinistas.
An election was scheduled for 5 years after the revolution.  If
the moral basis for violent action comes from bad (or no) elections,
then that moral basis COULDN'T exist till after the 1984 elections.
Note that they did eventually lose an election.  There was pressure
at that time (another issue), but was that pressure any greater than
in 1984?  Why would they prevent a loss in 1984 and permit it in 1990
if they had no intention of allowing opponents to win?
>
>>There are colonists who want to continue to be British
>>subjects and don't want to move to Canada.  They vocally support the
>>insurgency and one of their members owns and operates a newspaper.
>
>First amendment.

Does the first amendment protect treasonous activity?
>
>>What effect would this have had on the election?  Would George Washington
>>and Congress have permitted the newspaper to operate?  
>
>So long as it wasn't actively engaged in violent activity, why not?

What is the definition of aiding and abetting?
>
>>What would/should
>>they have done about the insurgents?  
>
>Arrest them.

And if they arrested contras and their active supporters, would that be
a valid action for a government to take?
>
>>Should they let the insurgents
>>candidate run for president?  
>
>Why not? there where supporters of the Crown in the Continental Congress.
>Remember, the revolution was going for over a year before the Declaration
>of Independance.

Did these supporters of the Crown fight against the Revolutionary Army?
Are those guilty of treason allowed to run for office?
>
>>If they close the newspaper and stifle
>>opposition that supports the insurgency, and maybe a few others in the
>>process, who is to blame for the less-than-perfect elections?
>
>I would say we are.

Bingo.
>
>But I must wonder, why is it only the Sandinsitas who get this
>treatment? Are you explaining the actions of the Salvadoran
>government? After all, the same thing applies there.

The issue here is Nicaraugua.  Some of these observations did apply to
the Salvadoran situation while the war was continuing.  I also remember
mass murders of leftist Salvadorans during a news conference after they
had agreed to work within the so-called democratic process, so I would
claim they had a moral basis for their actions, but we can
discuss this separately. 
>
>   Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------242 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15529 talk.environment:3426 talk.politics.misc:42348 misc.headlines:6007 alt.save.the.earth:1070