• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

Grant said:
Only if you insist on them being vague. Otherwise they are understood by every English speaking person.
Click to expand...

If words meant exactly what they said there wouldn't be the need for Supreme Court cases in order to decide if something was constitutional. More on that point: Presidents both right and left wouldn't appoint people to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution as they themselves understand it. And finally, if words meant exactly what they said there wouldn't be over twenty thousand denominations of Christianity. So the idea that "aid and abet" is immune to interpretation is beyond silly. And that's why I asked for a legal precedent, because treason in this case is a legal term and without precedent to cite all anyone's going to do here is toss out their opinions, and frankly I'm not interested in those.
 
Last edited:
ItAin'tFree said:
Do you have a hard time understanding documents that are very clear in meaning? Or do words mean nothing to you, like an -ist?
Click to expand...

Documents are not immune from evolution and reinterpretation. Do you understand the need for a word like "parse"?
 
I'm not a Vietnam veteran, so I admit I've never fully understood what all the fuse was about over Jane Fonda's visit to N. Vietnam or the photos that were taken of her amongst the N. VC troops. Part of me understands the impression she left, certainly. But there's another side that always believed perhaps there was another side to the story folks either didn't know, didn't want to know (because of their hatred for the war along with their personal emotional investment in the war, i.e., they fought in it, knew someone who went over their or lost a friend or loved one).

Now, call me a liberal if you wish, but as I said since I'm not of that era nor am I a Vietnam vet I don't claim to fully understand the emotional fall out that resonates with Vietnam vets to this day. Nonetheless, I have tried to learn about this moment in time and seek to understand from the Vietnam vet's point of view why her visit and subsequent photo shot still leaves a bitter taste in their mouths. And with that in mind, I did a quick online search on the matter and found Jane Fonda's website which contains a blog entry from 2011 where she recounts events of that day and as Paul Harvey was famous for saying (paraphrasing), tells her side of the story.

I'm in no way taking her side or saying folks should forgive her. But what I am saying is read her words, try to see things from her perspective and understand where she was coming from at the time and maybe some perspectives will change. Then again, maybe some won't because the mental and emotional wounds are just too great. And that's okay. But as my mentor, Stephen A. Covey, is fond of saying, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood". That's all I'm saying.

The Truth About My Trip To Hanoi | Jane Fonda
 
APACHERAT said:
Alinsky like most radical leftist used the poor to further their socialist agenda. They need the poor to gain political power.

>" Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the tactics of infiltration ......
Click to expand...

"....Alinsky did not join political parties. When asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a Communist party member, he replied:

Not at any time. I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide...."
Saul Alinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its interesting that leftists are criticized as un-democratic subversive revolutionaries when they work outside of the mainstream political system, but then get criticized as being subversive infiltrators when they work within the system and with an establshed political political party.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Is there precedent for posing with enemy combatants being categorized as treason? So if, today, an American civilian traveled to Pakistan, posed with one arm around a member of Al Qaeda and with his other hand gave a thumbs up sign while grinning, but didn't take part in any military action or transfer military secrets helping Al Qaeda, would that legally be defined as treason?

It's the precedent question I'm particularly interested in, though.

I know if somebody is able to successfully answer that in the affirmative that Gaugingreate will probably do a five hour end zone dance, but well those are just the chances one takes.
Click to expand...

Since the post 9/11 Bush-Obama loss of limits on the powers of military and intelligence agencies, there wouldn't be a trial or any discussion of whether that action amounts to treason, he would be killed by a drone or taken to a secret prison and given a military mock trial at best. The anti-Jane Fonda faction won and got their way. Not with Fonda herself, but by influencing current policy.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
"....Alinsky did not join political parties. When asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a Communist party member, he replied:

Not at any time. I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide...."
Saul Alinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its interesting that leftists are criticized as un-democratic subversive revolutionaries when they work outside of the mainstream political system, but then get criticized as being subversive infiltrators when they work within the system and with an established political political party.
Click to expand...

Who said that Alinsky belonged to any political party ? You could say he was an independent who leaned heavily to the left.

It's that Marxist, todays progressives, etc. uses Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as a guide book. Even Obama used it to get elected, it works on the uninformed and the misinformed and especially with stupid people.

BTW: Wikipedia isn't really a reliable source when it comes to politics and political figures. A lot of bias editing and reediting and reediting the reedited. In fact the Wiki article on Alinsky was been called a editing war that's been going on.
 
Cardinal said:
Precedent is crucial because "aid and comfort" are vague terms. What is "cruel and unusual"? As vague as "aid and comfort" are, you could argue that libertarians and conservatives arguing for the secession of Texas weakens us as a union and therefore gives Al Qaeda strength (and therefore aid and comfort) over us.
Click to expand...

Participating in propaganda is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Joan Baez is more guilty of treason than Jane Fonda. I can't wait for that bitch to die, too.
 
Cardinal said:
If words meant exactly what they said there wouldn't be the need for Supreme Court cases in order to decide if something was constitutional. More on that point: Presidents both right and left wouldn't appoint people to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution as they themselves understand it. And finally, if words meant exactly what they said there wouldn't be over twenty thousand denominations of Christianity. So the idea that "aid and abet" is immune to interpretation is beyond silly. And that's why I asked for a legal precedent, because treason in this case is a legal term and without precedent to cite all anyone's going to do here is toss out their opinions, and frankly I'm not interested in those.
Click to expand...

Have you not read anything I've written?

Treason is a crime. You do not ask for "precedent" on the fact pattern when trying a crime. "Precedent" is irrelevant. Do the facts fulfill the elements or not? The jury decides. You do not EVER need to cite earlier cases with similar fact patterns. That is not a concern at the trial level. If jury decides the facts fulfill the elements, then they do.
 
Objective Voice said:
I'm not a Vietnam veteran, so I admit I've never fully understood what all the fuse was about over Jane Fonda's visit to N. Vietnam or the photos that were taken of her amongst the N. VC troops. Part of me understands the impression she left, certainly. But there's another side that always believed perhaps there was another side to the story folks either didn't know, didn't want to know (because of their hatred for the war along with their personal emotional investment in the war, i.e., they fought in it, knew someone who went over their or lost a friend or loved one).

Now, call me a liberal if you wish, but as I said since I'm not of that era nor am I a Vietnam vet I don't claim to fully understand the emotional fall out that resonates with Vietnam vets to this day. Nonetheless, I have tried to learn about this moment in time and seek to understand from the Vietnam vet's point of view why her visit and subsequent photo shot still leaves a bitter taste in their mouths. And with that in mind, I did a quick online search on the matter and found Jane Fonda's website which contains a blog entry from 2011 where she recounts events of that day and as Paul Harvey was famous for saying (paraphrasing), tells her side of the story.

I'm in no way taking her side or saying folks should forgive her. But what I am saying is read her words, try to see things from her perspective and understand where she was coming from at the time and maybe some perspectives will change. Then again, maybe some won't because the mental and emotional wounds are just too great. And that's okay. But as my mentor, Stephen A. Covey, is fond of saying, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood". That's all I'm saying.

The Truth About My Trip To Hanoi | Jane Fonda
Click to expand...

Should we look at things from the perspective of a concentration camp guard, too? The Gastapo? The KGB? Jeffery Dalmer? Ted Kazinski? The Khmer Rouge?
 
apdst said:
Should we look at things from the perspective of a concentration camp guard, too? The Gastapo? The KGB? Jeffery Dalmer? Ted Kazinski? The Khmer Rouge?
Click to expand...

Yes, because clearly she's just as much of a monster as those people. :roll:
 
APACHERAT said:
BTW: Wikipedia isn't really a reliable source when it comes to politics and political figures.
Click to expand...

Neither is that bull**** "Networks" crap you cited earlier.
 
apdst said:
Should we look at things from the perspective of a concentration camp guard, too? The Gastapo? The KGB? Jeffery Dalmer? Ted Kazinski? The Khmer Rouge?
Click to expand...

As I stated, Jane Fonda's blogpost won't change the mind of some people and clearly, you're one among them. Still, I'll reiterate: I'm not endorsing her one way or another. I've merely provided the link to her blogpost for those reading this thread so they can read her account for themselves and make up their own minds how to feel about it.
 
Harshaw said:
Have you not read anything I've written?

Treason is a crime. You do not ask for "precedent" on the fact pattern when trying a crime. "Precedent" is irrelevant. Do the facts fulfill the elements or not? The jury decides. You do not EVER need to cite earlier cases with similar fact patterns. That is not a concern at the trial level. If jury decides the facts fulfill the elements, then they do.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read what you've written, and all you're doing is repeating that aiding and abetting is aiding and abetting. That does not specify which actions fall under such a broad category.

And repeating that no earlier cases or precedents are required is basically broadcasting to the whole planet that you have nothing to base your position on.
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
Yes, because clearly she's just as much of a monster as those people. :roll:
Click to expand...

I know, right?

But as the saying goes, "One 'Ah, [expletive]' takes away from all the 'At a boys'". Hanoi Jane's "Ah [expletive]" was in placing herself in a position to have such a "suggestively sympathetic to the enemy" picture taken from which all such anti-American sentiments apparently sprung from. I honestly don't know enough about her efforts with the military; as I said I really have never taken the time to learn more about the activist side of her life beyond her film career. But I can certainly see how people - Vietnam vets in particular - would have a lasting negative impression of her. It's kinda like discovering that MLK posed for pictures with the Rebel Flag in the background or shook hands with the Grand Wizard of the KKK while talking up Civil Rights. It just doesn't gel right in the hearts and minds of those most impacted by his civil rights struggle.
 
Objective Voice said:
I'm not a Vietnam veteran, so I admit I've never fully understood what all the fuse was about over Jane Fonda's visit to N. Vietnam or the photos that were taken of her amongst the N. VC troops. Part of me understands the impression she left, certainly. But there's another side that always believed perhaps there was another side to the story folks either didn't know, didn't want to know (because of their hatred for the war along with their personal emotional investment in the war, i.e., they fought in it, knew someone who went over their or lost a friend or loved one).

Now, call me a liberal if you wish, but as I said since I'm not of that era nor am I a Vietnam vet I don't claim to fully understand the emotional fall out that resonates with Vietnam vets to this day. Nonetheless, I have tried to learn about this moment in time and seek to understand from the Vietnam vet's point of view why her visit and subsequent photo shot still leaves a bitter taste in their mouths. And with that in mind, I did a quick online search on the matter and found Jane Fonda's website which contains a blog entry from 2011 where she recounts events of that day and as Paul Harvey was famous for saying (paraphrasing), tells her side of the story.

I'm in no way taking her side or saying folks should forgive her. But what I am saying is read her words, try to see things from her perspective and understand where she was coming from at the time and maybe some perspectives will change. Then again, maybe some won't because the mental and emotional wounds are just too great. And that's okay. But as my mentor, Stephen A. Covey, is fond of saying, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood". That's all I'm saying.

The Truth About My Trip To Hanoi | Jane Fonda
Click to expand...

She sanitized all that so she could be excused for her treason. Once again here's some of her words, un-sanitized: " "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism".

She went there to raise their morale and fighting spirit against our soldiers. To show them some solidarity and support in their attempts to bring South Vietnam under control of the murdering communists led and sanctioned by Ho. She should have been tried, convicted and executed when she returned to the states.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
She sanitized all that so she could be excused for her treason. Once again here's some of her words, un-sanitized: " "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism".

She went there to raise their morale and fighting spirit against our soldiers. To show them some solidarity and support in their attempts to bring South Vietnam under control of the murdering communists led and sanctioned by Ho. She should have been tried, convicted and executed when she returned to the states.
Click to expand...

Is that a quote from an interview she gave some time ago or a reference from a book she authored? If so, can you provide a link or the reference source? I'm just curious as to it's origin.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, I've read what you've written, and all you're doing is repeating that aiding and abetting is aiding and abetting. That does not specify which actions fall under such a broad category.

And repeating that no earlier cases or precedents are required is basically broadcasting to the whole planet that you have nothing to base your position on.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't understanding a word I'm saying.

THE JURY decides if the facts fulfill the elements - period. No precedent is needed.
 
Objective Voice said:
I know, right?

But as the saying goes, "One 'Ah, [expletive]' takes away from all the 'At a boys'". Hanoi Jane's "Ah [expletive]" was in placing herself in a position to have such a "suggestively sympathetic to the enemy" picture taken from which all such anti-American sentiments apparently sprung from. I honestly don't know enough about her efforts with the military; as I said I really have never taken the time to learn more about the activist side of her life beyond of film career. But I can certainly see how people - Vietnam vets in particular - would have a lasting negative impression of her. It's kinda like discovering that MLK posed for pictures with the Rebel Flag in the background or shook hands with the Grand Wizard of the KKK while talking up Civil Rights. It just doesn't gel right in the hearts and minds of those most impacted by his civil rights struggle.
Click to expand...

Oh, I fully understand why people don't like her. Hell, I don't like her. But when people up there start mentioning her in the same breath as the goddamn Khmer Rouge, then maybe it's time for a little perspective.
 
Objective Voice said:
As I stated, Jane Fonda's blogpost won't change the mind of some people and clearly, you're one among them. Still, I'll reiterate: I'm not endorsing her one way or another. I've merely provided the link to her blogpost for those reading this thread so they can read her account for themselves and make up their own minds how to feel about it.
Click to expand...

Funny how you didn't provide any opposing view so people could make up their minds on how to feel about it.
 
Objective Voice said:
Is that a quote from an interview she gave some time ago or a reference from a book she authored? If so, can you provide a link or the reference source? I'm just curious as to it's origin.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Here's another from the link of her words: ""To the U.S. servicemen who are stationed on the aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin, those of you who load the bombs on the planes should know that those weapons are illegal. And the use of those bombs or condoning the use of those bombs, makes one a war criminal."

Read more: Hanoi Jane's apology - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

She should have been hung or shot within days of her returning from Vietnam.
 
Harshaw said:
Then you aren't understanding a word I'm saying.

THE JURY decides if the facts fulfill the elements - period. No precedent is needed.
Click to expand...

Yes, and until there are court decisions mandating what constitutes giving aid and comfort OR legal precedents, your opinion that Jane Fonda is guilty of treason remains solely in the realm of your opinion.

Here's one example of what I'm talking about.

Aid and ComfortTo render assistance or counsel. Any act that deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of the United States, or that weakens or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies is characterized as aid and comfort.
Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of Treason. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support; actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there was a great deal of concern expressed about terrorist "sleeper cells" in the United States. Sleeper cells can be individual terrorists or groups of terrorists who blend in with society at large; they remain inactive, even for years, until they receive orders to carry out their mission. Some of the perpetrators of the september 11 attacks belonged to such sleeper cells.
Widespread concern over terrorist sleeper cells fueled suspicion that some U.S. citizens were knowingly providing aid and comfort to terrorist cells located in the United States. Aid and comfort was allegedly provided by shielding the identities of terrorists from U.S. authorities, and providing funds, transportation, and other forms of assistance to terrorists who plotted against U. S. interests.
In the subsequent U.S. military action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan and members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization located there, which started in October 2001, U.S. forces captured John Walker Lindh, a 20-year-old American citizen who was trained by and was fighting for the Taliban against the U.S. government. The Walker Lindh case garnered enormous coverage in the press, with many claiming that Walker Lindh's role as a combatant for the Taliban was tantamount to treason as it gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.
Click to expand...

Aid and comfort legal definition of Aid and comfort. Aid and comfort synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Notice the use of examples of what constitutes giving aid and comfort? Not so straight forward, is it? Not especially when it's so hard to quantify or qualify the exact results of the damage Jane Fonda was or was not responsible for.
 
Hard Truth said:
Its interesting that leftists are criticized as un-democratic subversive revolutionaries when they work outside of the mainstream political system, but then get criticized as being subversive infiltrators when they work within the system and with an establshed political political party.
Click to expand...

Either way they are subversive.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, and until there are court decisions mandating what constitutes giving aid and comfort OR legal precedents, your opinion that Jane Fonda is guilty of treason remains solely in the realm of your opinion.

Here's one example of what I'm talking about.



Aid and comfort legal definition of Aid and comfort. Aid and comfort synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Notice the use of examples of what constitutes giving aid and comfort? Not so straight forward, is it? Not especially when it's so hard to quantify or qualify the exact results of the damage Jane Fonda was or was not responsible for.
Click to expand...

Easy to quantify, qualify and anything else to me.

But to an -ist, words mean only what they want them to mean when they want them to.
 
APACHERAT said:
Who said that Alinsky belonged to any political party ? You could say he was an independent who leaned heavily to the left.

It's that Marxist, todays progressives, etc. uses Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as a guide book. Even Obama used it to get elected, it works on the uninformed and the misinformed and especially with stupid people.

BTW: Wikipedia isn't really a reliable source when it comes to politics and political figures. A lot of bias editing and reediting and reediting the reedited. In fact the Wiki article on Alinsky was been called a editing war that's been going on.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why Alinsky called himself a Community Organizer, why Barrack Obama said that was his singular qualification as well and why Hillary Clinton did her thesis on the man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom