Re: Memorial Day (OT)

[MagillaGorilla]

Bill C wrote:


> If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
> left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
> for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
> in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
> others.

> Bill C


What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? Last time I
checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.

If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."

Thanks,

Magilla

 

[Bill C]

On May 26, 7:45 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> >  If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
> > left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
> > for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
> > in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
> > others.
> > Bill C
>
> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>
> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
Rose did.
Bill C

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Bill C wrote:

> On May 26, 7:45 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Bill C wrote:
>>
>>> If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
>>>left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
>>>for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
>>>in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
>>>others.
>>>Bill C
>>
>>What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? Last time I
>>checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>>
>>If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
>>to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> Rose did.
> Bill C


It's called free speech and it's protected by the First Amendment.
Fonda never provided "material support."

Publicity = free speech

You're allowed to say you support "the enemy."


Magilla

 

[Andrew Price]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
>> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>>
>> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
>> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Magilla
>
>Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
>enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
>Rose did.

I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
the Vietnam war.

 

[Bill C]

On May 26, 1:03 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On May 26, 7:45 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Bill C wrote:
>
> >>> If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
> >>>left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
> >>>for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
> >>>in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
> >>>others.
> >>>Bill C
>
> >>What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> >>checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>
> >>If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> >>to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>
> >>Thanks,
>
> >>Magilla
>
> > Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > Rose did.
> >  Bill C
>
> It's called free speech and it's protected by the First Amendment.
> Fonda never provided "material support."
>
> Publicity = free speech
>
> You're allowed to say you support "the enemy."
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep, you are here. Going there and doing active propaganda work for
them, and then acting as an agent for them here though crosses the
line. Ask the folks in the Bund, or anyone oriental looking how "The
Great Democrat" FDR dealt with them and 99.9% of them weren't doing
anything or were fighting their asses off for their country, this one,
while FDR interred their families.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/issei.html
Something to be proud of?
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On May 26, 2:13 pm, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>
> >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Magilla
>
> >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> >Rose did.
>
> I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> the Vietnam war.

I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
Bill C

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <02621076-e079-4e02-ad05-f496fe02319f@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 26, 1:03 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > On May 26, 7:45 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >>Bill C wrote:
> >
> > >>> If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
> > >>>left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
> > >>>for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
> > >>>in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
> > >>>others.
> > >>>Bill C
> >
> > >>What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> > >>checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
> >
> > >>If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > >>to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
> >
> > >>Thanks,
> >
> > >>Magilla
> >
> > > Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > > enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > > Rose did.
> > >  Bill C
> >
> > It's called free speech and it's protected by the First Amendment.
> > Fonda never provided "material support."
> >
> > Publicity = free speech
> >
> > You're allowed to say you support "the enemy."
> >
> > Magilla- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yep, you are here. Going there and doing active propaganda work for
> them, and then acting as an agent for them here though crosses the
> line. Ask the folks in the Bund, or anyone oriental looking how "The
> Great Democrat" FDR dealt with them and 99.9% of them weren't doing
> anything or were fighting their asses off for their country, this one,
> while FDR interred their families.
> http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/issei.html
> Something to be proud of?

Funny thing about that: it's the one part of FDR's era that the liberals have
repudiated and rejected while the rightwingers embrace it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Bill C]

On May 27, 2:59 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yep, you are here. Going there and doing active propaganda work for
> > them, and then acting as an agent for them here though crosses the
> > line. Ask the folks in the Bund, or anyone oriental looking how "The
> > Great Democrat" FDR dealt with them and 99.9% of them weren't doing
> > anything or were fighting their asses off for their country, this one,
> > while FDR interred their families.
> >  http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/issei.html
> >   Something to be proud of?
>
>    Funny thing about that: it's the one part of FDR's era that the liberals have
> repudiated and rejected while the rightwingers embrace it.
>
> --
>                               tanx,
>                                Howard
>
>                         Whatever happened to
>                         Leon Trotsky?
>                         He got an icepick
>                         That made his ears burn.
>
>                      remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Like Greg says both parties, and their leadership are the problem. As
for giving him a free pass and still considering him a great man,
after that "one little mistake" just goes to show that the principles
involved don't really matter. It's amazing how he rounds up, locks up,
strips of their possesions massive numbers of American citizens, on
nothing but suspicion, and is still "The Great Democrat".
Even if there's no debate of his other policies that makes him one of
the worst Presidents in US history.
Bill C

 

[[email protected]]

On May 27, 6:28 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 2:59 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Yep, you are here. Going there and doing active propaganda work for
> > > them, and then acting as an agent for them here though crosses the
> > > line. Ask the folks in the Bund, or anyone oriental looking how "The
> > > Great Democrat" FDR dealt with them and 99.9% of them weren't doing
> > > anything or were fighting their asses off for their country, this one,
> > > while FDR interred their families.
> > >  http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/issei.html
> > >   Something to be proud of?
>
> >    Funny thing about that: it's the one part of FDR's era that the liberals have
> > repudiated and rejected while the rightwingers embrace it.
>
> > --
> >                               tanx,
> >                                Howard
>
> >                         Whatever happened to
> >                         Leon Trotsky?
> >                         He got an icepick
> >                         That made his ears burn.
>
> >                      remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>  Like Greg says both parties, and their leadership are the problem. As
> for giving him a free pass and still considering him a great man,
> after that "one little mistake" just goes to show that the principles
> involved don't really matter. It's amazing how he rounds up, locks up,
> strips of their possesions massive numbers of American citizens, on
> nothing but suspicion, and is still "The Great Democrat".
>  Even if there's no debate of his other policies that makes him one of
> the worst Presidents in US history.

I'm guessing, but after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there was
not only hatred-- and just a whole lot of plenty of it, that carries
on to this day-- but fear that Japan would strike mainland USA, aided/
abetted by spies and agents living here.

Also guessing, but things might have gone better for Japan if they'd
just gone ahead and declared war on the USA prior to Pearl Harbor. The
perception was that their diplomats' apparent deception somehow made
the Pearl Harbor attack "worse".

The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.

How many ships were sunk by German Uboats before coastal cities in the
USA finally went to blackout status?

From uboat.net:

<The magnitude of the disaster for the Allies, and in particular for
the United States, is in the record. During the United States first
year in the war, 1,027 Allied ships were lost to the U-boats, most of
these in the American defense zone. This number represents more than
half of all ships lost to the U-boats in the whole period of the war
from 1939 to 1945.>

Lotta ships lost and lives wasted while they were busy rounding up
"terrorists" (to put a modern perspective on it) (and slide a comment
in kinda sideways).

Simple (at least to get the ball rolling) as a phone call from the
White House.

Jane Fonda IMHO is proof you don't have to be blonde to be dumb. Dumb
dumb dumb. I saw her on Cavett or some talk show just parroting the
Party Line ("the North will negotiate if you stop bombing" IMS).
Dumber than Robert McNamara, and that's saying a ton, there.

It's funny (ha ha, not really) when my daughter expresses envy for my
growing up in the 60's-- "you had all the good music" and so forth.

Bunch of ****, we all paid a big stupid price for it and for what? The
War Machine has repaired itself and no one will ever be held
responsible for what has been done. "Mission Accomplished" --D-y

 

[Bill C]

On May 27, 10:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Bunch of ****, we all paid a big stupid price for it and for what? The
> War Machine has repaired itself and no one will ever be held
> responsible for what has been done.  "Mission Accomplished"    --D-y- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And unfortunately we just never seen to learn from it either. How the
hell the GAO and other arms of the government can keep finding
contractors guilty of everything from fraud to illegally firing on
civilians and still keep handing them money and extending the
contracts just goes to show what it's really about in Iraq.
You've got the problem nailed to D-y. Generations of people, here and
there are going to pay for this administrations lies.
I've got no problem with charging Bush and Cheney with treason for
the cooked intelligence, and causing the US to go to war under what
they KNEW were false pretenses. There's NO good way out now, no matter
who's in charge, and the damage is already irreparable in terms of
lost goodwill, power, money, and lives.
Bill C

 

[Andrew Price]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 14:35:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
>> >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
>> >Rose did.
>>
>> I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
>> what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
>> the Vietnam war.
>
>I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
>Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.

No doubt, from your perspective. But what one person thinks (in this
instance, you) doesn't define "consensus".

 

[Ted van de Weteringe]

MagillaGorilla schreef:
> Why do you talk in such generic terms? What does "crossing the line"
> mean? Who drew the line? Where is the line?

You are so far over the line, you can't even SEEE the line anymore! The
line is a dot to you!

Candyass.

 

[Kyle Legate]

Bill C wrote:
>

> I've got no problem with charging Bush and Cheney with treason for
> the cooked intelligence, and causing the US to go to war under what
> they KNEW were false pretenses. There's NO good way out now, no matter
> who's in charge,

For Bush, there's always Paraguay. Get him before he steps through the door.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> Get him before he steps through the
> door.

Is that like crossing the line?

Bob Schwartz

 

[Bill C]

On May 27, 12:36 pm, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> No doubt, from your perspective.  But what one person thinks (in this
> instance, you) doesn't define "consensus".

Consensus doesn't mean **** in law, uless it's by one vote on the
Supreme court. If it meant anything in society there wouldn't be tens
of thousands of people locked up for marijuana "crimes", or the
government wouldn't be taking people's land by eminent domain and
handing it over to commercial developers.
Bill C

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3eb6@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
> prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.

Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
Yorktown sank.

--
Michael Press

 

[Bill C]

On May 27, 6:08 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
> > prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.
>
> Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
> a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
> our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
> they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
> willing.  Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
> attack.  USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
> traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
> force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
> notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
> was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
> were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
> of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
> Yorktown sank.
>
> --
> Michael Press

You can add to that, that while the US was "neutral" and a "non-
combatant" our ships and planes were spotting Nazi subs and ships for
the British, and we sank a couple of U-Boats, all well before Pearl
Harbor but that usually doesn't make it to the discussion either.
Bill C

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article
> <2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3eb6@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
>>prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.
>
>
> Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
> a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
> our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
> they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
> willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
> attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
> traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
> force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
> notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
> was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
> were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
> of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
> Yorktown sank.
>


Sounds to me like you think the World Trade Center was a government
implosion too.


Magilla

 

[[email protected]]

On May 26, 2:35 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 26, 2:13 pm, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>
> > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>
> > >> Thanks,
>
> > >> Magilla
>
> > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > >Rose did.
>
> > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > the Vietnam war.
>
> I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
>  Bill C

"Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
an actress who later made exercise videos. She isn't,
and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
Hayden. Man up and say _they_ should have been
tried for aid and comfort, etc.

Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
here. As you know, there was never a declaration of war
during the Vietnam "War." Clearly, the US was fighting
North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
homegrown VC insurgency. Given that there was no
official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
treason just for palling around with some country that
we weren't officially at war with? In theory, people can
be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
family, the Rosenbergs). More recently, even John
Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
charges rather than treason.

So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
and Hanoi Jane. However, if you want to give her the
retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. Excepting
Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.

Ben

 

[Paul G.]

On May 27, 4:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
> that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos.

Right. On the other hand, here's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Or if Saddam was such a great threat, let's execute Bush's father for
not finishing him off in the Gulf War.
-Paul