Well she's at it again

[Hangtime]

Laser, we did NOT 'lose' the war. We handed the place over for the political salvation of a criminal.

Every military campaigin launched by the north while we were in the south was broken. Every one.

The 'world' has gotten into the habit of seeing the conflict in a political light rather than judging the conflict on it's military campaigns. Our politicians withdrew our military ground units, and then broke their treaty obligations with the south for logistical and air support of their military. The north then completed it's takeover of the terrain. That happened AFTER we left.

Our political leaders failed. Not our Military.

[Maverick]

Hang,

Don't go dumping on Nixon for the war. It wasn't lost, it was sold down the river by the one who preceded him. By the time he got it the entire nation was too caught up in the idea of just getting out because of the screwups by lbj and kennedy's wunderkinds.

This was a war brought to you by the demos, screwed royally by the demo pres. and finally ended by nixon.

nixon screwed up other things but viet nam was not his fault, he just inherrited the pile of fecal matter from lbj.

[Seagoon]

So let me make sure I understand this, Lord Haw Haw was a "dissenter" exercising his rights to free speech?

You know, it used to be the case that those who used "Free Speech" to demoralize the troops, and incite the enemy to commit attrocities against civilians were called "fifth columnists" or simply "traitors." When did this catagory become entirely null and void in the West? At this point, I don't see how we could possibly coherently apply it.

In what way will Jane helping to hand the Jihadis yet another victory quell Islamic terrorism? In what way will the world be improved when the preferred place to put an IED to kill Westerners will be in American and European Cities and holiday resorts, rather than the streets of the Suni Triangle and the villages of Afghanistan?

When exactly will people like dear Jane wake up and figure out that there are several million Muslims out there who want us  all either dead (preferably) or converted or oppressed by them. This includes Christians, Jews. Atheists, Agnostics, Nominal Catholics, Socialists, Democrats, Republicans,  Christians, and yes, even socialist American Actresses.

The very fact that she couldn't "visit one of their training camps" in this particular war without eventually having her head sawn off should tell her there is good possibility she's definitely backing the wrong side.

WTG Jane, support the side that kidnapped and executed this woman:

Margaret Hassan the Head of CARE in Iraq.


I'm sure they'll stop once you help to facilitate our surrender. The seem like reasonable people, open to negotiation.

- SEAGOON

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Maverick
Hang,

Don't go dumping on Nixon for the war. It wasn't lost, it was sold down the river by the one who preceded him. By the time he got it the entire nation was too caught up in the idea of just getting out because of the screwups by lbj and kennedy's wunderkinds.

This was a war brought to you by the demos, screwed royally by the demo pres. and finally ended by nixon.

nixon screwed up other things but viet nam was not his fault, he just inherrited the pile of fecal matter from lbj.

Disagree, Mav.. he ran for his first election of the platform of 'End the War'. While LBJ may have messed up the works, it was still possible for Nixon to have won it.

The re-elcetion, 'Peace with Honor'.  What honor?

How about Jerry Fords cold denial of support for the ARVN troops; troops counting on us to survive after we pulled out.

Nope.. sorry; can't buy into exonerating Nixon for the way the war was ended.

[Maverick]

HHHMMM and exactly how did the war end? We got a treaty with the nv's who violated it later. His hemorhoidness lbj couldn't get them to the table. You know darn well congress wouldn't fund a dime to help the south after we left.

I still say it wasn't nixon who screwed the pooch, it could have been over years before if lbj hadn't decided he was a freaking military genius and master of the "asian mind set" who would bring an end to the war by causing the enemy to stop fighting because we didn't bomb their main harbor etc. through out his "administration".

Like I said nixon is no saint and he screwed up enough but that conflict wasn't his doing. He did what he said and got us out.

[Hangtime]

and I think yer far more intrested in salvaging Nixons (and hence republican) 'honor' than you are in taking a non-partisan look at the war.

No problem.. we won't be changing each others minds in a Hanoi Jane thread.

Cheers, buddy!

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by FuBaR
Just curious...how many of you were actually alive and old enough to know what Jane Fonda did? And did it really affect you?

Other question...If she really did commit "treason" why is she still alive? Or is the use of "treason" just  an opinion? I am all for personal opinions...but thats a pretty large statement if not used correctly.

I am. Did it really affect me?  I guess it affected me personally no more than Osama bin Laden. But Osama is on the run and Hanoi Jane is doing book tours. She should be in prison.

Why is she still alive? Because she is rich and famous with a rich and famous Dad. If it had been Joe Average in North Vietnam sitting in a North Vietnamese anti aircraft gun saying our flyers were criminals during wartime she wouldn't be, or at least spent a good amount of time in prison.

[Chairboy]

I think there should be some delineation here:

1. Sitting on AA gun, providing succor to North Vietnamese: Sounds like treason.

2. Calling the returning flyers 'criminals' when she's back in the US: Free speech.

Free speech is not the same as popular speech.  She's an ass, but let the facts stand on their own without muddying the water (see #1).

Conversation point: Does treason case-law require a formal declaration of war?  I don't know the answer, just curious if the 'police action' status might have been part of why she wasn't prosecuted.

[Charon]

I just had an epiphany -- Hillary/Fonda 2008

Charon

[midnight Target]

So Seagoon...

If I were to say that I disagreed with Bush's stupid decision to go to war in Iraq, and that I thought the continuing and growing insurrection was a direct result of that stupid decision and that I thought we should do everything in our power to reverse that stupid decision and get back to the business of tracking down Al Queda.... I would be a fifth columnist or even a traitor?

Seems to me that the real traitors are the folks who want to shut the opposition up. Dissent is part of the freedom we enjoy and part of the freedom our fathers fought and died to protect. Shutting the mouths of dissenters by calling them traitors or fifth columnists is as insidious as any erosion of rights I can think of. Shame on you.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Chairboy
I think there should be some delineation here:

1. Sitting on AA gun, providing succor to North Vietnamese: Sounds like treason.

2. Calling the returning flyers 'criminals' when she's back in the US: Free speech.

Free speech is not the same as popular speech.  She's an ass, but let the facts stand on their own without muddying the water (see #1).

Conversation point: Does treason case-law require a formal declaration of war?  I don't know the answer, just curious if the 'police action' status might have been part of why she wasn't prosecuted.

Item 2.. you may want to review the transcripts of her radio addresses and the transcript of her 'chat' with the POW's at the Hanoi Hilton while in North Vietnam. An interesting read.

Next, lest there be no mistake about 'who's side' she's always been on there's this little missive from Hanoi Jane: "Its my fondest wish, that some day, every American will get down on their knees and pray to God that some day they will have the opportunity to live in a Communist Society."

From another source..

"To get an idea for the extent of Hanoi Jane's obsession with Communism, you have to understand how she chose her son's name. Hanoi Jane returned to Vietnam shortly after the war ended in 1975, with her small son, Troy, to attend a special service being held in her honor. This event was not just to recognize and honor Hanoi Jane. Her newborn son was formally christened and named for the Communist hero Nguyen Van Troi. Troi was a Viet Cong Sapper who was executed by the South Vietnamese in 1963 for attempting to assassinate U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara."

Her behavior can be easily characterised is 'seditious' at best, but treason?

Yah, I think so.

[Seagoon]

Hi Chairboy,

Originally posted by Chairboy
I think there should be some delineation here:

1. Sitting on AA gun, providing succor to North Vietnamese: Sounds like treason.

2. Calling the returning flyers 'criminals' when she's back in the US: Free speech.

Free speech is not the same as popular speech.  She's an ass, but let the facts stand on their own without muddying the water (see #1).

Conversation point: Does treason case-law require a formal declaration of war?  I don't know the answer, just curious if the 'police action' status might have been part of why she wasn't prosecuted.

Treason is actually covered in the Constitution under Article 3, section 3:

" Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.  

Clause 2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Corruption of blood referred to the automatic association of relatives in the crimes of a traitor, while forfeiture was the automatic handing over of all a traitor's real property to the state on his conviction. Both of these were part of English Common Law at the time the Constitution was penned.

Regarding whether or not Congress must declare war for "treason" to take place, the Supreme court has held that a declared state of war need not exist in order for a citizen to give "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the USA. For instance, the Rosenbergs were convicted of treason and sentenced to death for handing over A-Bomb secrets to the USSR despite the fact that the US technically had "friendly relations" with that nation at the time.

Additionally, these enemies, need not be an organized nation, so that it would be treasonous activity to support any organization that has as its declared intent the violent overthrow of the laws, government, and people of the USA. This would include Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.

Legal precedent has determined that for a successful prosecution for treason aid must be direct, in other words, direct assistance rendered to the enemy and its agents, including meeting with them, rather than merely expressing a preference for their cause.

- SEAGOON

[Raider179]

1) It was a political and military loss in vietnam. Military could not win the war in the manner the politicians demanded of them and the politicians could not take the political fallout that would have been needed to allow the Military to win Vietnam. Both are at fault, though I place larger blame on the politicians for not opening up the North to widespread bombing earlier.

2)Looks like JF going to Iraq could have just been for publicity. So far no information has been brought to light regarding this "trip". Anyone got a link? Surely something this big would be easy to find, yet there is nothing behind the link where she talked about it. I don't believe she is going or has any plans of going.

[Raider179]

Here is what the judge in the Rosenberg trial said at sentencing.

Judge Kaufman's Statement Upon Sentencing the Rosenbergs
Citizens of this country who betray their fellow-countrymen can be under none of the delusions about the benignity of Soviet power that they might have been prior to World War II. The nature of Russian terrorism is now self-evident. Idealism as a rational dissolves . . .
I consider your crime worse than murder. Plain deliberate contemplated murder is dwarfed in magnitude by comparison with the crime you have committed. In committing the act of murder, the criminal kills only his victim. The immediate family is brought to grief and when justice is meted out the chapter is closed. But in your case, I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country.
No one can say that we do not live in a constant state of tension. We have evidence of your treachery all around us every day--for the civilian defense activities throughout the nation are aimed at preparing us for an atom bomb attack. Nor can it be said in mitigation of the offense that the power which set the conspiracy in motion and profited from it was not openly hostile to the United States at the time of the conspiracy. If this was your excuse the error of your ways in setting yourselves above our properly constituted authorities and the decision of those authorities not to share the information with Russia must now be obvious . . .
In the light of this, I can only conclude that the defendants entered into this most serious conspiracy against their country with full realization of its implications . . .
The statute of which the defendants at the bar stand convicted is clear. I have previously stated my view that the verdict of guilty was amply justified by the evidence. In the light of the circumstances, I feel that I must pass such sentence upon the principals in this diabolical conspiracy to destroy a God-fearing nation, which will demonstrate with finality that this nation's security must remain inviolate; that traffic in military secrets, whether promoted by slavish devotion to a foreign ideology or by a desire for monetary gains must cease.
The evidence indicated quite clearly that Julius Rosenberg was the prime mover in this conspiracy. However, let no mistake be made about the role which his wife, Ethel Rosenberg, played in this conspiracy. Instead of deterring him from pursuing his ignoble cause, she encouraged and assisted the cause. She was a mature woman--almost three years older than her husband and almost seven years older than her younger brother. She was a full-fledged partner in this crime.
Indeed the defendants Julius and Ethel Rosenberg placed their devotion to their cause above their own personal safety and were conscious that they were sacrificing their own children, should their misdeeds be detected--all of which did not deter them from pursuing their course. Love for their cause dominated their lives--it was even greater than their love for their children."


Sorry but Jane Fonda might have been of slight use to the enemy propaghanda but not on the level that this judge uses in the sentence of death. To me it comes down to whether she actually could have done something to hurt this Country and I gotta say its a big fat No. She only makes herself and those who surround her look bad.

[FuBaR]

Tonight on Fox News...Jane swapped messages with Karl Rove...