jGilder wrote:
Not so, I want to find out what exactly she did that is so wrong. There's a lot of hype surrounding her experience and we're sorting out facts from lies. I care about facts and truth.
Jack, the snopes article appears to have done a good job of seperating fact from fiction.
I think Jack is just trying to be argumentative on this one, because other than Snopes, you can find lots of other reference articles out there that say the same things.
jGilder wrote:
Not so, I want to find out what exactly she did that is so wrong. There's a lot of hype surrounding her experience and we're sorting out facts from lies. I care about facts and truth.
Jack, the snopes article appears to have done a good job of seperating fact from fiction.
I think Jack is just trying to be argumentative on this one, because other than Snopes, you can find lots of other reference articles out there that say the same things.
Wrong. I wanted the people who have stated their resentment for Fonda to explain why in their own words or at least poit to their own specific reasons. We've already demonstrated that one of the reasons was a fallicy, but asking for clarification on the remaining reasons isn't being argumentative.
Fonda's just an actress. Just like all the other ones who have used their easy access to the media to vent their political pollution to the masses. The problem with Fonda, though, is that she had her day back during Vietnam and like a junkie she's got to keep going back for more. She is no more an authority to hold court with the public about a war now than she was back in the 60s. She'll cart her dog and pony show out on the road and people will watch them and some will listen to what she has to say and they'll clap and tell their friends they saw her, but she really doesn't matter. Not in the big scheme of things. It won't make any difference where she goes or what she says.
When she went to North Vietnam and posed with the VC, you could say that she commited treason. Maybe not by today's looseygoosey standards but back during WWII if she had done the same in Germany there would have been hell to pay. Even though she commited treason, the only thing that happened was that she ticked off a lot of Veterans and made herself known as an ass around the world. Nothing else really happened. She was just another shadow on the wall joining in with a lot of others who were spitting on soldiers and protesting the war. You know, just trying out their new-found Constitutional freedoms except that it was at the expense of our returning Military personnel. That left deep scars on a lot of people. Let's hope that the citizenry does not do the same to the returning Middle East Vets.
So if Jane Fonda wants to get in a van powered by vegetable oil and go around the country singing kumbaya and preaching about something that she has no experience with, She has the right. Too bad for her, though, It won't have any effect on anything that she's about. She's not going to end the war. She is going to use the war to travel around and talk a bunch of crap. Big deal. I suppose in a way she is just trying to relive past glories, but these past glories for her are surely going to rub salt in wounds that she contributed to in the past. Yeah, she knows it. What a bitch.
Paul did a pretty good job of expressing my opinions. The Snopes and other articles detail what I object to, like sitting in the anti-aircraft position, etc. etc. and her specific statements in support of the NVA. She did, in fact, commit treason, it would SEEM but I am no legal scholar.
But I consider John Kerry's characterization of American troops and his descriptions of their actions in his Congressional testimony as similarly treasonous as well, but maybe worse, because he was a soldier not a movie star. He was there for a short time, then came back and made heinous accusations against his supposed brethren-in-arms, while they were still on the battlefield. Fonda is prepping to do it again. I wonder if she will visit a Sunni insurgent squadron and talk about their brave heroism against the Americans?? Just kidding.
In those days, there was so much discontent and alarm about Vietnam, that both of them got away with it without the kind of reaction that would have happened in WWII, as Paul pointed out. I still can't believe Kerry got as far as he did recently running for President considering how he back-stabbed American soldiers. I fully expected a Vietnam Vet to pop him, frankly, and had he won the Presidency it might have actually happened.
But I am afraid that Fonda's activities, as well as the daily demonizations of Bush and his policies that go on here and around the country, are going to be individualized against returning American soldiers. I pray it won't and I know that it is not the intent of the Bush-whackers.
But I also understand that it is a possible consequence of free speech and we have to accept it, but not necessarily agree with it, or accept it silently. And yes, it's a consequence of Bush' decisions, too, I want to make that clear.
Stepping back, we have: an unpopular Republican President reviled by many, a growing chorus against the war ( including most of the celebrities), the first movies and television shows starting to come out on this specific topic, returning crippled vets (physically and emotionally), etc. etc. It really does have the deja vu effect and as I said before, along comes Jane Fonda to stoke the memories. It's at this point that I have the least respect for her, as Paul alluded to. Maybe we'll have CSN&Y reunion, too.....Country Joe is availalble over in Berkeley I am sure...
Last edited by The Weekenders on Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Constitution defines treason as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."
Section Three also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same "overt" act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. In Cramer v. United States, the Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses". In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are only required to prove that the overt act actually occurred.
Furthermore, Section Three permits Congress to determine the punishment for treason. However, this punishment may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. In other words, the descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" (i.e., their blood could not be corrupted) by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, the clause permits Congress to confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted. - Wikipedia
The first sentence you quoted, with millions of witnesses. If it wasn't comfort for a very famous American celebrity to go there and legitimize that government, I don't know what is....
But, of course, you don't see it that way, I reckon. Do tell us why not...
Last edited by The Weekenders on Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Weekenders wrote:But I consider John Kerry's characterization of American troops and his descriptions of their actions in his Congressional testimony as similarly treasonous as well, but maybe worse, because he was a soldier not a movie star. He was there for a short time, then came back and made heinous charges against his supposed brethren-in-arms, while they were still on the battlefield.
All Kerry did was report to Congress the testimony of the soldiers at a meeting he had just attended. Kerry didn't make the accusation himself, that's how it was spun in order to use it against him.
"I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.
...In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart..." - Full text
AID AND COMFORT - The U.S. Constitution, Article VIII, Section III, declares, that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement. The word aid is explained by Lord Coke as comprehending all persons counselling, abetting, plotting, assenting, consenting, and encouraging to do the act, (and he adds, though not applicable to treason; who are not present when the act is done).
According to this definition, Fonda's action wouldn't meet the test: nothing she has been accused of would amount tocounselling, abetting, plotting, assenting, encouraging or consenting to anything the VC might have done.
She went to hanoi and bore witness to what she saw. She wasn't a very astute witness, she isn't a great brain and she got most of it wrong, but then again, the same can be said about the president.
That's neither aid nor consent.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
Well, that was clever of him. He had his eye on higher office since Yales days (see Medved's "Right Turns" for interesting account of Kerry's political activities and personal nature) and I guess this was a way to argue that it wasn't "he that was he."
As for Simon's assertion, I guess it would be up to the lawyer who argued it, had it been tried in court. But maybe it wasn't actionable treason...
The Weekenders wrote:The first sentence you quoted, with millions of witnesses. If it wasn't comfort for a very famous American celebrity to go there and legitimize that government, I don't what is....
Weekenders, a regular Chiff & Fipple message board contributor has empowered Jane Fonda to legitimize governments around the world. He was also quoted as saying, "It really does have the deja vu effect and as I said before, along comes Jane Fonda to stoke the memories. It's at this point that I have the least respect for her, as Paul alluded to. Maybe we'll have CSN&Y reunion, too.....Country Joe is availalble over in Berkeley I am sure..." but legal experts point out that those comments were really made off the record and shouldn't be taken seriously. Fonda has been notified and will comment later this evening. Sources report that she is thrilled and can't wait to begin legitimizing governments around the world right away.
JG, She was giving the enemy aid and comfort in appearing with them on TV and fraternizing with them in the face of the war. She was an international celebrity protesting the war behind enemy lines for all the world to see. I really don't think her intentions were malicious or anything but it was a treasonous act. If it had been during WWII or WWI it would have been treated as such, you can bet your bottom dollar. But things changed after WWII... Some things got better and some got worse. Our agreements changed.
Like I said, though it doesn't really matter because besides hurting a lot of people's feelings, nothing really happened. Some of us are sick of watching the antics of people like that. That's all. It doesn't make them evil or even wrong. Some of us are just sick of seeing it and hearing about it all the time. My mother-in-law, in China, has a saying that I love for people who do things like that:
Paulypoos Mother-in-law wrote:you don't have to pull down your pants and f*rt.
Testimony of Michael D. Benge before the House International Relations Committee Chaired by the Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, November 4, 1999.
To whom it may concern:
I was a civilian economic development advisor in Viet Nam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Viet Nam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.). We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals." When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs were receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a piece of steel rebar placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane every time my arms dipped. Jane Fonda had the audacity to say that the POWs were lying about our torture and treatment. Now ABC is allowing Barbara Walters to honor Jane Fonda in her Feature "100 Years of Great Women." Shame, shame on Jane Fonda! Shame, shame on Barbara Walters! Shame, shame on 20-20. Shame, shame on ABC. And, shame, shame on the Disney Company.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me, her husband, Tom Hayden, answered for her. She was mind controlled by her husband. This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as "100 Years of Great Women." After I was released, I was asked what I thought of Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement. I said that I held Joan Baez's husband in very high regard, for he thought the war was wrong, burned his draft card and went to prison in protest. If the other anti-war protesters took this same route, it would have brought our judicial system
to a halt and ended the war much earlier, and there wouldn't be as many on that somber black granite wall called the Vietnam Memorial. This is democracy. This is the American way.
Jane Fonda, on the other hand, chose to be a traitor, and went to Hanoi, wore their uniform, propagandized for the communists, and urged American soldiers to desert. As we were being tortured, and some of the POWs
murdered, she called us liars. After her heros--the North Vietnamese communists--took over South Vietnam, they systematically murdered 80,000 South Vietnamese political prisoners. May their souls rest on her head forever. Shame! Shame!
Respectfully,
Michael D. Benge
2300 Pimmit Dr., #604-W
Falls Church, VA 22043
(202) 712-048 (W)
(703) 698-8256 (H)
Well, that was clever of him. He had his eye on higher office since Yales days (see Medved's "Right Turns" for interesting account of Kerry's political activities and personal nature) and I guess this was a way to argue that it wasn't "he that was he."
I have no stake in this, but it strikes me that you are being too clever by half here, Weeks. If Kerry was reporting actual war crimes, certainly that would not be treason: pointing out violations of law to the proper authorities isn't exactly attempting to overthrow government, is it. Also that fact that he had his eyes on higher office is neither here or there. Or would you make a it a job requirement of those who aspire to higher office to condone warcrimes and sit still while the military comits them?
About treason: It entails the intent to overthrow government (read: the system of government of the U.S.). That is different from working to achieve political change. Otherwise anyone who gave money to the Kerry campaign in would have been committing treason (I know it feels that way to you sometimes). Treason is not "failing to respect the sensibilities of soldiers." At common law, by the way, treason meant killing the King or Queen or trying to, and it carried an automatic death sentence involving that the culprit be: hung by the neck, cut down alive, have his entrails taken out and burned before his face, his head cut off, his body quartered and "his head and quarters disposed of at the king's pleasure."
Thanks for lawyerly contribution, Bloo. I was hoping you would clarify. Kerry has been pretty scheming for a long time for high office, though, similar to Clinton. So it seemed possible.
Paul wrote:JG, She was giving the enemy aid and comfort in appearing with them on TV and fraternizing with them in the face of the war. She was an international celebrity protesting the war behind enemy lines for all the world to see. I really don't think her intentions were malicious or anything but it was a treasonous act. If it had been during WWII or WWI it would have been treated as such, you can bet your bottom dollar. But things changed after WWII... Some things got better and some got worse. Our agreements changed.
I think if she was really guilty of treason she would have been tried and convicted. Only US presidents and their Administrations can commit treason and somehow avoid being tried for it, let alone convicted.
