Jane Fonda
jdhil
Happiness is knowing that one day she'll be just another fat old pig.
jd
Patdog24
which I am a member) convention in Atlanta in August. For those of you as
outraged at that as I am, I encourage you to e mail your thoughts to the ABA:
abasvcctr.@abanet.org. ( I understand that his posting does not completely fit
within the guidelines for posting on this board, but as Jane's activities
during the war affected Naval personnel, I think it is arguable that the
posting is not inappropriate.) Thanks.
gws
I, too am a lawyer, although no longer an ABA member. The ABA leadership's
choice of Jane Fonda seems pretty typical of what I have observed of its
positions and judgment over the past 10 years or so. They seem to regard
themselves as the liberals from central casting with their anti death
penalty and militant gun control positions. Fonda, it seems to me, will
fit in nicely. The ABA was not always this way. We have had a couple of
Oklahoma City guys, both of whom I knew well, who were ABA presidents.
Neither is a leftist activist. I cannot explain what happened to the
organization but I agree that it has been co-opted by its extreme element
and has lost its way.
Grey Satterfield
SeaWlf777
>From: "gws" <g...@oscn.net>
>Date: 5/2/99 9:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <akYW2.43$Hj2.3...@news.randori.com>
<snip>
>I, too am a lawyer, although no longer an ABA member.
>Grey Satterfield
>
>
I heard it mentioned that you were a Captain;
I'm assuming you were with JAG?
>
Cheers
Brian
Brian D. McCray - Nuclear engineering - US Navy - bdmc...@DOD.navy.org
"To smash the simple atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day, the atom may
return the complement." - Ethel Jacobson _Atomic_Courtesy_
Daniel McCarthy
primary reason I have declined its many invitations to join. A request
for those of you who are old enough to remember Jane's activities during
Vietnam: What exactly did she do on behalf of the the North Vietnamese
other than making the trip to Hanoi and pose for a photo opportunity on
an anti-aircraft gun? I've heard rumors that she taunted American POWs
but I've never had that confirmed.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> I am also a lawyer and the ABA's left wing political slant is the
> primary reason I have declined its many invitations to join. A request
> for those of you who are old enough to remember Jane's activities during
> Vietnam: What exactly did she do on behalf of the the North Vietnamese
> other than making the trip to Hanoi and pose for a photo opportunity on
> an anti-aircraft gun? I've heard rumors that she taunted American POWs
> but I've never had that confirmed.
Jane Fonda proved that the people who believe that we are a special
country because of the First Amendment are correct. She made a stupid
and pointless visit to North Vietnam long after the war was efectively
lost. Im always astonished at the people who claim they are fighting
for freedom who don't understand the importance of protecting the
freedom to dissent.
I have to laugh at the suggestion that the ABA is "left wing" It is pro
lawyer (naturally), it is also pro free speach, etc. I'd be the last to
suggest that what is good for lawyers is good for the country, but I
dont think the concept that even poor people have rights is "left wing".
Vince
Steallight
>for those of you who are old enough to remember Jane's activities during
>Vietnam: What exactly did she do on behalf of the the North Vietnamese
>other than making the trip to Hanoi and pose for a photo opportunity on
>an anti-aircraft gun? I've heard rumors that she taunted American POWs
>but I've never had that confirmed.
>
any incarnation. I was in service when Ms. Fonda chose to be photographed
sitting in the gunners seat in Hanoi. I know of no documented interaction
between her and any of our POW's.
She made an extremely bad choice in traveling to Hanoi and availing herself
of this photo-op. She would have been far better off to have stayed home and
protested the war by other means. Her right to protest the war is after all,
what we were supposedly fighting to protect in that murky little S.E. Asian
conflict. That, along with the other tenets of our constitution that we were
going to inflict on the Vietnamese whether or not their society desired to be
so inflicted.
In the same light I find Jesse Jackson's trip to Serbia very demeaning to our
military structure. While I am happy the three prisoners are now free, I
strongly feel that non-combatants have no place in a combat zone begging for
the release of military prisoners.
Stev
Happily dancing in the Phil Zone and scattering Garcia Ashes!
http://members.aol.com/steallight/STEALL_1.HTM
Healthcare: The bottom line is patients not profits!
Steal...@aol.com is Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) should you care or need to know.
SeaWlf777
>From: steal...@aol.com (Steallight)
>Date: 5/2/99 5:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990502174250...@ng-cr1.aol.com>
<snip>
>In the same light I find Jesse Jackson's trip to Serbia very demeaning to our
>military structure. While I am happy the three prisoners are now free, I
>strongly feel that non-combatants have no place in a combat zone begging for
>the release of military prisoners.
<snip>
This has been addressed several times in the media, and I can't agree more. For
a non-combatant to to show up and intervene on the behalf of our country
weakens both our military and our government as a whole.
Regardless of any type of religious message and regardless of the amount of
"begging" that Jesse Jackson did, does it not seem odd that a country in the
position that they are in would release POW's to a civilian for no reason other
than being asked? The release was most likely meant to embarrass the white
house and the military leadership, and allow Serbia to seem more humane and
rational than they actually are. This doesn't help our situation, in terms of
what our actions look like to the rest of the world. Afterall, wouldn't want to
continue bombing a country that has shown some cooperation (or so they'll say).
Patdog24
Bill of Rights, makes this country special, and Jane Fonda's rights of freedom
of expression are protected under the First Amendment to the Bill of Right.
Because of that, I have never been one to suggest that she should have been
prosecuted for the things she said and did during the war. However, an
invitation for a non lawyer to speak at the ABA convention is an honor,
reserved to special people who have contributed to our society. Other than her
stint as a starlet, the only activities for which she has obtained public
attentionwere her activitites against the war. If she has done nothing else to
deserve an honor, then the ABA must be honoring her for such activities during
the war. As a member of the ABA, I find it offensive for the Association to
so honor her (and probably to spend my dues to pay her for speaking).
By the way, I, too, believe that poor people have rights and spend
time, which could have otherwise been spent profitably, attending to the rights
of those who are less than affluent. Nevertheless, as an expression of my
First Amendment rights, I tell you that the things Jane Fonda did during the
war offended me greatly. I have close friends who opposed the war, but they
expressed their opposition, and, in the course, exercise their First Amendment
rights, appropriately. Jane Fonda went beyond an expression of her first
amenment rights, and, I firmly believe, provided aid and comfort to the other
side. The actions of the ABA in honoring her by having her speak to the annual
convention are beyond the pale. REC
Tim McFeely
>Jane Fonda is scheduled to speak at the annual American Bar Association (of
>which I am a member) convention in Atlanta in August. For those of you as
>outraged at that as I am, I encourage you to e mail your thoughts to the ABA:
>abasvcctr.@abanet.org. ( I understand that his posting does not completely fit
>within the guidelines for posting on this board, but as Jane's activities
>during the war affected Naval personnel, I think it is arguable that the
>posting is not inappropriate.) Thanks.
To make it fit in the Naval sphere, the Submarine Veterans Club in
Groton, CT has Jane Fonda urinal stickers. I'll leave it to you all to
figure out where the 'bullseye' is!
Scope's under...
Tim McFeely
Steallight
>house and the military leadership, and allow Serbia to seem more humane and
>rational than they actually are.
This also puts me in mind of Regan's behind the scenes negotiations for the
Iranian hostages release in direct opposition to Carter's attempts to negotiate
their freedom.
Hostage/prisoner release is best left to the government. Any private
negotiations that delay or prevent government negotiations is to mind breaking
faith with the troops. That is treason of the worst kind.
David K. Bryant
>In the same light I find Jesse Jackson's trip to Serbia very demeaning to our
>military structure. While I am happy the three prisoners are now free, I
>strongly feel that non-combatants have no place in a combat zone begging for
>the release of military prisoners.
If I were one of the three POWs I'd have to give it a lot
of thought before I accepted a Jackson-orchestrated release.
I think I'd rather take the daily ass-kicking from the guards
than stand for a photo-op with that opportunist.
dea...@my-dejanews.com
I would walk out on my hands wearing pink tights if it meant three of
three got to go home. I'd give Jane and Jesse a group hug while I was
at it.
Brian
>
> steal...@aol.com (Steallight) writes:
>
> >In the same light I find Jesse Jackson's trip to Serbia very demeaning to our
> >military structure. While I am happy the three prisoners are now free, I
> >strongly feel that non-combatants have no place in a combat zone begging for
> >the release of military prisoners.
>
> If I were one of the three POWs I'd have to give it a lot
> of thought before I accepted a Jackson-orchestrated release.
>
> I think I'd rather take the daily ass-kicking from the guards
> than stand for a photo-op with that opportunist.
I wouldn't agree with Jackson but I'd take the release in a NY minute. I
can always bitch later.
fitter1st
wrote:
>steal...@aol.com (Steallight) writes:
>
>>In the same light I find Jesse Jackson's trip to Serbia very demeaning to our
>>military structure. While I am happy the three prisoners are now free, I
>>strongly feel that non-combatants have no place in a combat zone begging for
>>the release of military prisoners.
>
>If I were one of the three POWs I'd have to give it a lot
>of thought before I accepted a Jackson-orchestrated release.
>
>I think I'd rather take the daily ass-kicking from the guards
>than stand for a photo-op with that opportunist.
>
I agree....but then again., it's kind of hard to say that from the
comfort of home. Of course, I am a rather hard-headed SOB<G>
mov...@xspamx-no.com
Steallight wrote:
> Her right to protest the war is after all,
> what we were supposedly fighting to protect in that murky little S.E. Asian
> conflict.
"Supposedly" being the key word here. We were sticking our noses into a situation
caused by the colonial screwups of France, compounded by Woodrow Wilson's "dis" of
Ho Chi Minh during the post-WWI negotiations, when Wilson wouldn't even give Ho
the time of day regarding his legit entreaties for autonomy.
> That, along with the other tenets of our constitution that we were
> going to inflict on the Vietnamese whether or not their society desired to be
> so inflicted.
Yep.
I'm sure ole Jane is crying in her tea over a bunch of grizzled vets calling her a
traitor.....between having those two nice "best actress" Oscars sitting on the
bookshelf, plus married to a guy who makes more in simple INTEREST, each DAY, than
any 25 former Navy captains with 30 years service, make in pension per YEAR (do
the math, it is pretty humbling). Not to mention Jane has some serious moolah in
her own name.
If nothing else, her audacity in going to North Vietnam served as yet another
"wake up call" to the nation concerning the questionable nature of the "war." One
could never imagine a similar major film star doing such a thing in Germany or
Japan during the Second World War.
The mere fact that she did such a thing, and was acclaimed for it by a significant
portion of the U.S. populace, illuminated just how little underlying support there
was for the Vietnam conflict.
Velovich
>For
>a non-combatant to to show up and intervene on the behalf of our country
>weakens both our military and our government as a whole.
I also agree that Jackson's actions were inappropriate, but do consider that
he got from WJC NOTHING that he wanted as a "gesture" of good faith.
<*> V-Man
A Knight is sworn to Valor
His Heart knows only Virtue
His Blade defends the Weak
His Word speaks only Truth
His Wrath undoes the Wicked
Delete the ".CanDo" from my addy to reply!
Velovich
>Iranian hostages release in direct opposition to Carter's attempts to
>negotiate
>their freedom.
Larry Walsh spent more money and time than Starr did and never proved these
sour grapes.
Velovich
>Ho Chi Minh during the post-WWI negotiations, when Wilson wouldn't even give
>Ho
>the time of day regarding his legit entreaties for autonomy.
Truman, post WW II...
Velovich
>of thought before I accepted a Jackson-orchestrated release.
>
It *is* a POW's obligation to get out of his captivity.
But I agree otherwise.
Steallight
> I also agree that Jackson's actions were inappropriate, but do consider
>that
>he got from WJC NOTHING that he wanted as a "gesture" of good faith.
>
Prisoner releases and exchanges are normally arranged to coincide. We
obviously hadn't captured our third prisoner to make it an even trade. I'd be
curious to hear John McCain's take on this item
Steallight
Steallight
>The mere fact that she did such a thing, and was acclaimed for it by a
>significant
>portion of the U.S. populace, illuminated just how little underlying support
>there
>was for the Vietnam conflict.
>
When you don't declare war and mobilize the nation, it is easy to slough off
any concern unless you or someone you know is belly down in the mud. Call up
the reserves? Horrors! They all have lives that will be interrupted.
Genocide is wrong, regardless of the target.
gws
news:19990502143837...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
| >Subject: Re: Jane Fonda
| >From: "gws" <g...@oscn.net>
| >Date: 5/2/99 9:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
| >Message-id: <akYW2.43$Hj2.3...@news.randori.com>
| <snip>
| >Grey Satterfield
| >
| >
|
| I heard it mentioned that you were a Captain;
| I'm assuming you were with JAG?
I get accused of that all the time. (>: Actually, I am an NROTC graduate of
the University of Oklahoma. I was commissioned as a line officer and served
30 years, active and reserve, as a SWO.
Grey Satterfield
gws
news:372D44D0...@xspamx-no.com...
. . .
| I'm sure ole Jane is crying in her tea over a bunch of grizzled vets calling
her a
| traitor.....between having those two nice "best actress" Oscars sitting on
the
| bookshelf, plus married to a guy who makes more in simple INTEREST, each
DAY, than
| any 25 former Navy captains with 30 years service, make in pension per YEAR
(do
| the math, it is pretty humbling). Not to mention Jane has some serious
moolah in
| her own name.
|
| If nothing else, her audacity in going to North Vietnam served as yet
another
| "wake up call" to the nation concerning the questionable nature of the
"war." One
| could never imagine a similar major film star doing such a thing in Germany
or
| Japan during the Second World War.
|
significant
| portion of the U.S. populace, illuminated just how little underlying support
there
| was for the Vietnam conflict.
Jane Fonda is a typical middlebrow Hollywood leftist. Like most artists she
operates at an emotional, not an intellectual, level. That anyone takes her
seriously enough to care about her political positions, pro or con, is a
source of constant amazement to me. I submit that what Jane thinks about any
significant national or international issue, including Viet Nam and the
appropriateness of using the "Tomahawk Chop" at Atlanta Braves games, is about
as meaningful as what my garbage man thinks of these issues. Like my
garbageman, Jane does good work in her chose field but her political opinions
are irrelevant. Looking good on the silver screen has nothing to do with
learning and judgment.
Grey Satterfield
Joseph M Guthrie
jdhil <jd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7gggd7$rlc$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Eugene Griessel
>Jane Fonda is a typical middlebrow Hollywood leftist. Like most artists she
>operates at an emotional, not an intellectual, level. That anyone takes her
>seriously enough to care about her political positions, pro or con, is a
>source of constant amazement to me. I submit that what Jane thinks about any
>significant national or international issue, including Viet Nam and the
>appropriateness of using the "Tomahawk Chop" at Atlanta Braves games, is about
>as meaningful as what my garbage man thinks of these issues. Like my
>garbageman, Jane does good work in her chose field but her political opinions
>are irrelevant. Looking good on the silver screen has nothing to do with
>learning and judgment.
Grey, you've said it all. I for one have *never* understood the logic
that allows people to take Hollywood types stands on environmental or
political issues seriously. Why in hell should I vote for Willie
Stealabuck merely because Veronica Vavoom supports him? Knowing full
well that the buxom Veronica has not two brain cells to rub together
most of the time and the two assets that *did* get her stardom don't
do much thinking.
Eugene L Griessel
Support the Ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide now!
http://www.cis.udel.edu/~way/DMRD/
It is better to be the object of a noisy demonstration than
a quiet assassination.
Velovich
>garbageman, Jane does good work in her chose field but her political opinions
>are irrelevant. Looking good on the silver screen has nothing to do with
>learning and judgment.
>
>
While I agree, Grey, do rememebr that your garbageman does not have the
ability to get infront of the cameras just to make a statement. Jane F does.
She says she wants to make a statment on the Kossovo conflict, the cameras will
line up, simply because of who she is. Her fame makes her newsworthy.
Look at the congressional hearings of Agar, what was put on apples for some
time to help keep them fresh... Who was that actress they trotted out that was
crying "What are we doing to our children!?" over and over??? Not that there
was any hard evidence that agar was harmful...
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in article
<372e1d79...@news.mweb.co.za>...
> "gws" <g...@sct.state.ok.us> wrote:
> I for one have *never* understood the logic
> that allows people to take Hollywood types stands on environmental or
> political issues seriously.
Because most people, even those who vote, don't have much in the way of
brains, and some make rutabagas look good in the brain department. This is
true for the majority of voters who support both major parties and the
swing voters. THESE are the people that the ads are pointed at, not me,
and presumably, not you. Both sides do it (Robert Redford vs Charton
Heston) because these are the people that matter on election day. They
also cater to special interest groups because these fund the ads to get to
the other people.
> Why in hell should I vote for Willie
> Stealabuck merely because Veronica Vavoom supports him? Knowing full
> well that the buxom Veronica has not two brain cells to rub together
> most of the time and the two assets that *did* get her stardom don't
> do much thinking.
Mainly because most of the voters have even fewer neurons than Veronica,
and care more about her bloated sweat glands and what they can get out of
her than anything else. Maybe the founding fathers were on to something
giving voting rights only to landowners. Not a perfect system, but how
much worse than the one we have now (assuming equal access for all, which
was definitely absent at that time).
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Support the Ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide now!
> http://www.cis.udel.edu/~way/DMRD/
>
> It is better to be the object of a noisy demonstration than
> a quiet assassination.
Dan "You guys are nothing but a pack of cards" Hannah
Glenn Dowdy
>Like my
>garbageman, Jane does good work in her chose field but her political
opinions
>are irrelevant. Looking good on the silver screen has nothing to do with
>learning and judgment.
>
Jane appeared on screen in a preview (you don't think I'd go to see one of
her movies, do you), I'd yell out "American Traitor Commie Bitch".
--
Glenn Dowdy
BlackBeard
>
>Jane Fonda proved that the people who believe that we are a special
>country because of the First Amendment are correct. She made a stupid
>and pointless visit to North Vietnam long after the war was efectively
>lost. Im always astonished at the people who claim they are fighting
>for freedom who don't understand the importance of protecting the
>freedom to dissent.
She has all the right in the world to dissent. She had all the right to
demonstrate against the war in Washington, or Chicago or anywhere else in
our country. When she goes to the nation we are at war or in martial
conflict with, and gives aid and comfort to the enemy she is a traitor.
Whether through advocating their cause, or attempting to convince our
POW's to confess crimes.
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
""Bless those who serve beneath the deep, Through lonely hours their vigil keep, May peace their mission ever be, Protect each one we ask of thee.
Bless those at home who wait and pray, For their return by night or day."
-Rev. Gale Williamson
Two Wheels
Two Wheels
David Bofinger
> She has all the right in the world to dissent. She had all the right to
> demonstrate against the war in Washington, or Chicago or anywhere else in
> our country. When she goes to the nation we are at war or in martial
> conflict with, and gives aid and comfort to the enemy she is a traitor.
Perhaps the "aid and comfort" part is the key issue here. It seems
unlikely that Jane Fonda meant much to the average Vietnamese. The
major effect of her visit, and the intended effect, was on Americans.
That puts it more in the "dissent" box than in the "aid and comfort"
box, I think. Admittedly on these grounds you'd have to let off Lord
Haw-Haw.
I'm reminded of the phases David Hackworth said he went through on
first arriving in Vietnam:
1. I'm not sure we should be here.
2. I'm sure we shouldn't be here.
3. We should be here but we're fighting on the wrong side.
4. It doesn't matter whether we should be here, I should just do my job.
That last decision is arguably admirable in a soldier. In a civilian
it boils down to abdicating political responsibility to the current
government, and I don't think it should be required in a democratic
state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
M.J.Powell
BlackBeard <Black...@call.for.prices.com> writes
>In article <372CCE...@umail.umd.edu>, vb...@umail.umd.edu wrote:
>>
>>Jane Fonda proved that the people who believe that we are a special
>>country because of the First Amendment are correct. She made a stupid
>>and pointless visit to North Vietnam long after the war was efectively
>>lost. Im always astonished at the people who claim they are fighting
>>for freedom who don't understand the importance of protecting the
>>freedom to dissent.
>
>
>demonstrate against the war in Washington, or Chicago or anywhere else in
>our country. When she goes to the nation we are at war or in martial
>conflict with, and gives aid and comfort to the enemy she is a traitor.
>POW's to confess crimes.
We hanged William Joyce for doing only a little more...
Mike
gws
news:7gl3j9$an3$1...@ocean.cup.hp.com...
ROFL! No wonder she is your ex-wife. (>:
Grey Satterfield
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> >
> > She has all the right in the world to dissent. She had all the right to
> >demonstrate against the war in Washington, or Chicago or anywhere else in
> >our country. When she goes to the nation we are at war or in martial
> >conflict with, and gives aid and comfort to the enemy she is a traitor.
> >Whether through advocating their cause, or attempting to convince our
> >POW's to confess crimes.
>
> We hanged William Joyce for doing only a little more...
>
state. There is of course a huge constitutional difference between free
speach and the overt acts required by the constitution as Justice
Douglas stated in his personal statement in EPTON v. NEW YORK 390
U.S. 29; 88 S. Ct. 824; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2631; 19 L. Ed. 2d 808
"Although the Court has indicated that the overt act requirement of the
treason clause ensures that "thoughts and
attitudes alone cannot make a treason" ( Cramer v. United States, 325
U.S. 1, 29), it has never decided whether activities protected by the
First Amendment can constitute overt acts for purposes of a conviction
for treason. The matter was adverted to in Cramer v. United States:
"Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the
enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or
emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions
disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits
no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the
other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the
enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its
measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work,
and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our
strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there
is no intent to betray, there is no treason." (Italics added.) Id., at
29. In the same case, the four dissenters noted that: "It is plain . .
. that the requirement of an overt act is designed to preclude
punishment for treasonable plans or schemes or hopes which have never
moved out of the realm of thought or speech." Id., at 61.
The lower federal courts have considered the question in a few cases,
the most exhaustive treatment probably being found in Chandler v. United
States, 171 F.2d 921 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1948). Treason, of course, is not
the charge here. Yet the use of constitutionally protected activities to
provide the overt acts for conspiracy convictions might well stifle
dissent and cool the fervor of those with whom society does not agree at
the moment. Society, like an ill person, often pretends it is well or
tries to hide its sickness. From this perspective, First Amendment
freedoms safeguard society from its own folly. As long as the exercise
of those freedoms is within the protection of the First Amendment, the
question is presented whether this Court should permit criminal
convictions for conspiracy to stand, when they turn on that exercise."
Vince
Jeff Crowell
Glenn Dowdy wrote:
>I used to really piss off my ex-wife when we went to the cinema. Whenever
>Jane appeared on screen in a preview (you don't think I'd go to see one of
>her movies, do you), I'd yell out "American Traitor Commie Bitch".
Heh heh heh. Miss Piggy made the mistake of showing up at a
small shop back to home, run by a guy I knew who happened
to have been a vet of the Viet era. He ran her off with a shotgun.
Although local legend has it he fired a couple shots in the air to
get her attention, he told me he hadn't even racked the action.
Damn shame.
Jeff
--
"There's only two things in life, but I forget what they are."
John Hiatt
M.J.Powell
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> writes
>M.J.Powell wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > She has all the right in the world to dissent. She had all the right to
>> >demonstrate against the war in Washington, or Chicago or anywhere else in
>> >our country. When she goes to the nation we are at war or in martial
>> >conflict with, and gives aid and comfort to the enemy she is a traitor.
>> >Whether through advocating their cause, or attempting to convince our
>> >POW's to confess crimes.
>>
>> We hanged William Joyce for doing only a little more...
>>
>Of course we fought a war to get away from your ideas of treason and
>state. There is of course a huge constitutional difference between free
>speach and the overt acts required by the constitution as Justice
>Douglas stated in his personal statement in EPTON v. NEW YORK 390
>U.S. 29; 88 S. Ct. 824; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2631; 19 L. Ed. 2d 808
>
>
>"Although the Court has indicated that the overt act requirement of the
>treason clause ensures that "thoughts and
>attitudes alone cannot make a treason" ( Cramer v. United States, 325
>U.S. 1, 29), it has never decided whether activities protected by the
>First Amendment can constitute overt acts for purposes of a conviction
>for treason. The matter was adverted to in Cramer v. United States:
>"Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the
>enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort.
This latter is all that Joyce did. Many broadcasts favouring the enemy
view. Attempting to subborn servicemen from their duty. He was hanged.
Are we not in agreement?
> A citizen intellectually or
>emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions
>disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits
>no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the
>other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the
>enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its
>measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work,
>and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our
>strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there
>is no intent to betray, there is no treason."
Joyce did it from enemy transmitters. There were many who did it at
home, including the House of Commons. This was not treason, although not
popular.
Mike
Hannah Family
Dan "Wondering about small minds" Hannah
--
Dna Dan
Jeff Crowell <jeff_crow...@hp.com> wrote in article
<7gmt3j$i1...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com>...
TMOliver
>
Prof. Vincent Brannigan writes..
(Powell)> >> We hanged William Joyce for doing only a little more...
> >>
> >Of course we fought a war to get away from your ideas of treason and
> >state. There is of course a huge constitutional difference between free
> >speach and the overt acts required by the constitution
> >"Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the
> >enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort.
>
> This latter is all that Joyce did. Many broadcasts favouring the enemy
> view. Attempting to subborn servicemen from their duty. He was hanged.
> Are we not in agreement?
>
> > A citizen intellectually or
> >emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions
> >disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits
> >no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the
> >other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the
> >enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its
> >measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work,
> >and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our
> >strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there
> >is no intent to betray, there is no treason."
>
> Joyce did it from enemy transmitters. There were many who did it at
> home, including the House of Commons. This was not treason, although not
> popular.
>
But even in British precedent, treason is one of those crimes like
mutiny in which "situational ethics" and the reality of politics become
major players.
Throughout the American Revolution/Rebellion/Whatever, the British Crown
carefully avoided treating those involved in the insurrection, by its
very occurrence providing those who took up arms treasonous status, as
traitors. Although it involved the callous standards of the time,
prisoners were generally accorded the status of belligerents, the
proprieties of war were observed (mostly) and even after the conflict's
conclusion/resolution, Britain made only modest efforts to secure
compensation for the dispossessed Loyalists (while the new US in many
cases treated them as traitors, attaindered felons and the like).
The postWWII Allied treatment of war criminals makes an interesting
comparison. Lower ranking committers of atrocities tended to be
ignored, retribution was harshest in the middle grades of officers and
functionaries, while the surviving commanders and "public figures"
tended to receive full benefit of a strangely contrived, highly
artificialized system of justice and public trial from which many
emerged with quite light punishments (relatively). Treatment of
"traitors" by the various allies was unique, with the "conquered
nations" adopting embarassed postures in which the bar for "treason" was
raised substantially (except in eastern Europe where Soviet
standards/lack of standards/Stalinist pragmatism prevailed, and
"potential usefullness" was the requirement for
denazification/decriminalization.
One of the most interesting discussions to which I've ever been privy
was a debate between a former OSS agent and a Chinese lawyer on the outs
with both the Kuomintang and the Chicoms on the treatment of folks who
had aided and abetted the Japanese in Occupied China. Apparently, if
one could hide out through the first couple of violent weeks, all sorts
of crimes and iniquities were forgiven.
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
From a small observatory overlooking McLennan Crossing
- VESPER ADEST IUVENES CONSURGITE -
Catullus
Jeff Crowell
Hannah Family wrote:
>And people wonder why there are those that would restrict firearms...
Get a life. And while you're at it, try to at least borrow or rent a sense
of humor.
Jeff
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
>
> This latter is all that Joyce did. Many broadcasts favouring the enemy
> view. Attempting to subborn servicemen from their duty. He was hanged.
> Are we not in agreement?
>
Not on the deinition of treason.
> > A citizen intellectually or
> >emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions
> >disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits
> >no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason.
>
> Joyce did it from enemy transmitters. There were many who did it at
> home, including the House of Commons. This was not treason, although not
> popular.
The constitution requires an "overt act" unless speach is an "act" e.g.
disclosing secret dcuments etc.
I know of no case where speach alone constitutes an act.
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
I know of no case where speach alone constitutes an overt act.
Vince
B F Lake
>snip good stuff re law etc<
I thought the thing was, she was not over there handing out Red Cross
parcels, she sat in that AA Gun and pretended to be killing Americans! Or
at least expressing "solidarity" with the gunners who killed Americans.
This is bound to irritate certain other Americans! She was saying,
constitutionally it seems, "the government is wrong" and then crossing some
line, constitutionally or not, seemed to say, " Navy pilots who obey the
government deserve to die, and I'm glad when they get theirs!" Wow. I
bet if she weren't a girl, somebody would have punched her out at least.
Regards,
Barry
gws
news:7gmt3j$i1...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com...
|
| Glenn Dowdy wrote:
| >I used to really piss off my ex-wife when we went to the cinema. Whenever
| >Jane appeared on screen in a preview (you don't think I'd go to see one of
| >her movies, do you), I'd yell out "American Traitor Commie Bitch".
|
| Heh heh heh. Miss Piggy made the mistake of showing up at a
| small shop back to home, run by a guy I knew who happened
| to have been a vet of the Viet era. He ran her off with a shotgun.
| Although local legend has it he fired a couple shots in the air to
| get her attention, he told me he hadn't even racked the action.
|
| Damn shame.
A close friend of mine was a door gunner in Viet Nam. He had a very hard war.
He is a lawyer and used to work where I do. A colleague, a woman lawyer, was
present when my friend, who is a bird hunter, gave several birds he had shot
to one of the secretaries in our offices. When the woman lawyer learned that
my friend had shot the birds she started berating him about participating in
"blood sport." My friend looked her in the eye and said, "I fought in Viet
Nam, I don't know how many people I have killed, and you want me to worry
about birds?" The conversation ended soon thereafter.
Grey Satterfield
gws
Unremitting literal-mindedness is a curse. (>:
Grey Satterfield
M.J.Powell
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> writes
>M.J.Powell wrote:
>>
>>
>> This latter is all that Joyce did. Many broadcasts favouring the enemy
>> view. Attempting to subborn servicemen from their duty. He was hanged.
>> Are we not in agreement?
>>
>
>Not on the deinition of treason.
>
>> > A citizen intellectually or
>> >emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions
>> >disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits
>> >no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joyce gave aid to the enemy by attacking our war aims, attempting to
subborn citizens and troops. He was actively assisiting them. Did that
not comfort them? Not all fighting is done with weapons.
>>
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Under British law perhaps, but not under american law. The US
constitution requires an overt act. 200 years of constitutional theory
says that overt acts do not include opinions and the related speech. Im
sure that a congresswoman voting against the declaration of war was of
some "comfort" to our enemies, as were bad admirals and profiteering war
contractors. I agree that speech can be action under the clear and
present danger doctrine.
Vince
BShimp3003
>When the woman lawyer learned that
>my friend had shot the birds she started berating him about participating in
>"blood sport."
I suppose wacking a cow on the head with a sledgehammer is ok to her?
We're all here 'cause we ain't all there!
BShimp3003
>Under British law perhaps, but not under american law.
You're mistaken. Check out Tokyo Rose. Broadcasting from the US your own
opinion is free speach. Going to the enemy country and willingly broadcasting
_their_ ideas in an attempt to demoralize troops is giving aid and comfort to
the enemy
Gary
>M.J.Powell wrote:
>>
>> In article <372F6D...@umail.umd.edu>, Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>> <vb...@umail.umd.edu> writes
>> >M.J.Powell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This latter is all that Joyce did. Many broadcasts favouring the enemy
>> >> view. Attempting to subborn servicemen from their duty. He was hanged.
>> >> Are we not in agreement?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not on the deinition of treason.
>> >
>> >> > A citizen intellectually or
>> >> >emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions
>> >> >disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> >> >no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Joyce gave aid to the enemy by attacking our war aims, attempting to
>> subborn citizens and troops. He was actively assisiting them. Did that
>> not comfort them? Not all fighting is done with weapons.
>
Wasn't Joyce born in New York, to a naturalized US Citizen.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> opinion is free speach. Going to the enemy country and willingly broadcasting
> the enemy
>
As many commentators over the eyars have pointed out the First amendment
issue was not raised in the D'Aquino case. Therfore the issue was not
decided.
Vince
Peter Skelton
what they've earned on some dessert island.
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/389-1705
pske...@home.com
M.J.Powell
>Wasn't Joyce born in New York, to a naturalized US Citizen.
He travelled on a British passport.
Mike
Ken Young
mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk (M.J.Powell) wrote:
> Joyce gave aid to the enemy by attacking our war aims, attempting to
> subborn citizens and troops
If I remember correctly the Joyce's main defence at the trial was
that he was an Irish citizen and therefore could not be guilty of
treason.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
M.J.Powell
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>In article <BuEDKFAh...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>,
>mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk (M.J.Powell) wrote:
>
>> Joyce gave aid to the enemy by attacking our war aims, attempting to
>> subborn citizens and troops
> If I remember correctly the Joyce's main defence at the trial was
>that he was an Irish citizen and therefore could not be guilty of
>treason.
So he claimed, but he was using a British passport.
Mike
JerryLee
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
:Daniel McCarthy wrote:
:>
:> I am also a lawyer and the ABA's left wing political slant is the
:> primary reason I have declined its many invitations to join. A request
:> for those of you who are old enough to remember Jane's activities during
:> Vietnam: What exactly did she do on behalf of the the North Vietnamese
:> other than making the trip to Hanoi and pose for a photo opportunity on
:> an anti-aircraft gun? I've heard rumors that she taunted American POWs
:> but I've never had that confirmed.
:
:Jane Fonda proved that the people who believe that we are a special
:country because of the First Amendment are correct. She made a stupid
:and pointless visit to North Vietnam long after the war was efectively
:lost. Im always astonished at the people who claim they are fighting
:for freedom who don't understand the importance of protecting the
:freedom to dissent.
:I have to laugh at the suggestion that the ABA is "left wing" It is pro
:lawyer (naturally), it is also pro free speach, etc. I'd be the last to
:suggest that what is good for lawyers is good for the country, but I
:dont think the concept that even poor people have rights is "left wing".
:
I reserve my right under the first amendment to curse and otherwise
say unkind things about a woman who is so stupid as to sit on a 37
mikemike while guys I knew were getting their *sses blown away. Prime
example of a razor cutting both ways. Free speech says she can say
what she wants to, and us Viet vets can discuss her simian and
obviously unmarried and unintroduced antecedents, as well as the
indescretion(s) her mother was obviously guilty of. chuckle..
I'm the sort of person who, while cursing the American Civil Liberties
Union in the worst language possible, would invent it should it not
exist. The framers of the Constitution must have been divinely
inspired or uniformly possessed of a genius that doesn't exist in this
time. We should be _extremely_ cautious about amending it, even given
the difficulty in doing so as built into the system. Any difficulties
would seem to fall to a fallable (and sometimes politicized) Supreme
Court. In example, the various decisions prior to 1860 attempting to
swallow the camel of slavery..Dred Scott(????)
One does not get to pick and chose the portion of the constitution one
keeps..Current confrontation.. Right to bear arms and freedom from
censorship... hmmmm
Chuckle.., "free speech" and lawyers.. Did anyone note the bond
issuance by the law firm that handled the tobacco thing. Those #$%*(&
are not only going to get their piece of the pie long before anyone
else, but in the literal BILLIONs, thats thousands of millions of
dollars folks.. What's the Menckin(?) quote, "If somebody says it
isn't about money, it's about money"..
rgds j.
Merlin Dorfman
: >This also puts me in mind of Regan's behind the scenes negotiations for the
: >Iranian hostages release in direct opposition to Carter's attempts to
: >negotiate
: >their freedom.
: Larry Walsh spent more money and time than Starr did and never proved these
: sour grapes.
I don't believe Walsh investigated the hostage situation...but I'm
prepared to be proven wrong.
Merlin Dorfman
DOR...@COMPUTER.ORG
Merlin Dorfman
: M.J.Powell wrote:
: >
: >
: > This latter is all that Joyce did. Many broadcasts favouring the enemy
: > view. Attempting to subborn servicemen from their duty. He was hanged.
: > Are we not in agreement?
: >
: Not on the deinition of treason.
:
: > > A citizen intellectually or
: > >emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions
: > >disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits
: > >no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason.
: >
: > Joyce did it from enemy transmitters. There were many who did it at
: > home, including the House of Commons. This was not treason, although not
: > popular.
: The constitution requires an "overt act" unless speach is an "act" e.g.
: disclosing secret dcuments etc.
: I know of no case where speach alone constitutes an overt act.
In Jane's case, I think the main reason that she cannot be charged
with treason is that we were not at war (officially; no declaration of
war) and thus we did not have any "enemies" to give aid and comfort to.
You could make the case that it is impossible to commit treason in
peacetime, and that includes undeclared wars.
Merlin Dorfman
DOR...@COMPUTER.ORG
Velovich
Yeah, the Famous "October Suprise"... It is what started the IP
investigation, which spread to Iran Contra...
<*> V-Man
A Knight is sworn to Valor
His Heart knows only Virtue
His Blade defends the Weak
His Word speaks only Truth
His Wrath undoes the Wicked
Delete the ".CanDo" from my addy to reply!
JerryLee
wrote:
:
Dunno, they just had that docu on the boy nuke spy on the history
channel again. Kid gave the soviets the A bomb back in the late 40's,
got away with it actually. Think he's still living in England, or
perhaps died naturally.
I could, given all the damned grief that happened because of this naif
and his buddy, make a reasonable arguement to lock his skinny little
butt up for a good number of years.
Airhead Fonda for treason? A little like getting rid of rodents in
one's garden by using napalm. Expensive, ticks of the neighbors, and
in the end not close to worth it. You really can't tell me she gave
her actions any thought.. Just "Gee, really keen, cool, like wow.. and
more or less blew her career over it. She can't show up publicly
without some Vietvets picketing her, and it's hurt her 'salability' as
an actress. She is probably a talented actress, OTOH, it is probably
easy to act when there is nobody home upstairs in the first place.
rgds j.
Brad Meyer
> You are certainly correct that our Constitution, particularly the
>Bill of Rights, makes this country special, and Jane Fonda's rights of freedom
>of expression are protected under the First Amendment to the Bill of Right.
Amen and may it ever be so.
> By the way, I, too, believe that poor people have rights and spend
>time, which could have otherwise been spent profitably, attending to the rights
>of those who are less than affluent.
It seems to me the rich are every bit as busy telling others how they
should live. I doubt any economic class predominates in this area.
>Nevertheless, as an expression of my
>First Amendment rights, I tell you that the things Jane Fonda did during the
>war offended me greatly.
I remember I was at Tripler having just left VN. I was a well chewed
over topic (hell, we had hours and hours of enforced idleness --
everything was well chewed over). What seemed to most to set her apart
was that, until that time, virtually all of the criticism was directed
at the administration for being stupid enough to be sending us there.
We didn't have much problem with this, infact many of us more then
half agreed that it was stupid to have us there under the conditions
and constraints imposed on operations. Jane, seemed to us at least,
was criticising _us_ , Joe common enlisted man, for being stupid
enough to accept induction and go there. This came especially hard
coming from someone who was not even subject to induction. Kind of
like her arguing about the virtues of poverty in $800.00 designer
bluejeans.
Without arguing the merits of a deaft, or that particular draft, one
thing it did was force virtually every 18 year old male in this
country to face an honest to God, life and death, (what we at the time
called a no-shitter) decision that would indelibly mark the rest of
one's life. The kind of decision that people seem to be able to
nowadys survive without have to make until their 30's or even 40's.
>The actions of the ABA in honoring her by having her speak to the annual
>convention are beyond the pale.
An association, like a man, is known by the company it keeps.
Brad Meyer
"It is history that teaches us to hope"
-- R.E. Lee
Merlin Dorfman
: >: >This also puts me in mind of Regan's behind the scenes negotiations for
: >the
: >: >Iranian hostages release in direct opposition to Carter's attempts to
: >: >negotiate
: >: >their freedom.
: >
: >: Larry Walsh spent more money and time than Starr did and never proved
: >these
: >: sour grapes.
: >
: > I don't believe Walsh investigated the hostage situation...but I'm
: >prepared to be proven wrong.
: > Merlin Dorfman
: > DOR...@COMPUTER.ORG
: >
: Yeah, the Famous "October Suprise"... It is what started the IP
: investigation, which spread to Iran Contra...
Are you sure?? The "October Surprise" (October 1980) never
happened, and Reagan was elected in November 1980. Simultaneously
with his inauguration, January 20, 1981, the hostages were released.
Iran/Contra did not occur until 1985-86, became public in 1987, and
AFAIK Walsh started his investigation in 1988 and sort of ran out of
time when Bush left office in 1993. 1981 to 1988 is a long time for
a prosecutor to just kind of hang out waiting for a new case.
Merlin Dorfman
DOR...@COMPUTER.ORG
Merlin Dorfman
: : In Jane's case, I think the main reason that she cannot be charged
: :with treason is that we were not at war (officially; no declaration of
: :war) and thus we did not have any "enemies" to give aid and comfort to.
: :You could make the case that it is impossible to commit treason in
: :peacetime, and that includes undeclared wars.
: : Merlin Dorfman
: : DOR...@COMPUTER.ORG
: :
: Dunno, they just had that docu on the boy nuke spy on the history
: channel again. Kid gave the soviets the A bomb back in the late 40's,
: got away with it actually. Think he's still living in England, or
: perhaps died naturally.
I expect he was tried/jailed for espionage, not treason. The
Constutution does not define espionage, leaving it to Congress to
define, and espionage can certainly take place in peactime. (The
Rosenbergs, by the way, were executed for espionage, and Pollard is
in jail for "unauthorized disclosure of classified information,"
which is the equivalent of espionage if you have legal access to the
info, while a spy gets it illegally.)
: I could, given all the damned grief that happened because of this naif
: and his buddy, make a reasonable arguement to lock his skinny little
: butt up for a good number of years.
: Airhead Fonda for treason? A little like getting rid of rodents in
: one's garden by using napalm. Expensive, ticks of the neighbors, and
: in the end not close to worth it. You really can't tell me she gave
: her actions any thought.. Just "Gee, really keen, cool, like wow.. and
: more or less blew her career over it. She can't show up publicly
: without some Vietvets picketing her, and it's hurt her 'salability' as
: an actress. She is probably a talented actress, OTOH, it is probably
: easy to act when there is nobody home upstairs in the first place.
: rgds j.
One of the few good reasons that maybe we should have declared
war on N. Viet. is that Jane could then have been tried for treason...
Velovich
>happened, and Reagan was elected in November 1980. Simultaneously
>with his inauguration, January 20, 1981, the hostages were released.
I am sure that Walsh included this in the scope of his investigation. When,
or if it was the point of the investigation,I am less sure of that. But the
"October Suprise" was that Iran was willing to give the hostages up in October,
but Reagan's people convinced them to wait till he was elected.
>1981 to 1988 is a long time for
>a prosecutor to just kind of hang out waiting for a new case.
Yeah, they needed so much support. Prior to that, there was a lot of
opposition. But with Iran-Contra, they were able to include it. My bad on the
dates, but Walsh *did* include it, and nothing was ever found.
Keith Willshaw
Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ...
>>: Dunno, they just had that docu on the boy nuke spy on the history
>: channel again. Kid gave the soviets the A bomb back in the late 40's,
>: got away with it actually. Think he's still living in England, or
>: perhaps died naturally.
>
> I expect he was tried/jailed for espionage, not treason. The
>Constutution does not define espionage, leaving it to Congress to
>define, and espionage can certainly take place in peactime. (The
>Rosenbergs, by the way, were executed for espionage, and Pollard is
>in jail for "unauthorized disclosure of classified information,"
>which is the equivalent of espionage if you have legal access to the
>info, while a spy gets it illegally.)
>
Klaus Fuchs was the man in Question. He was a British Citizen
who was tried in the UK for Espionage. Probably under the
Official Secrets Act.
Keith
CEEJAY
> "Article 88 of the UCMJ, Active Duty personnel criticizing the
> President, SecDef, SecTrans, and senior DoD operatives."
<snipped>
Answer to both inquiries? We protect democracy, not practice it...Don't like
it? Get out.
jay lonhis
Half the posts on here lately are from people who "didn't like something or
other" about the Navy (one or two politically related) so they took your advice
to "get out." Then they got roundly grilled for it.
Janson Zimack
"Article 88 of the UCMJ, Active Duty personnel criticizing the
President, SecDef, SecTrans, and senior DoD operatives."
I was just at the bookstore yesterday and saw a mag with an article
about this subject....discussing the Major General in the USAF who was
bounced out a few months after Clinton took office, for (truthfully)
calling him a draft-dodging, pot smoking womanizer. Whether or not the
statements were TRUE was irrelevant; they were disrespectful, so fell
within the UCMJ guidelines.
Same with the Marine Majors who recently wrote newspaper Op-Ed/letter
pieces criticizing Clinton.
I have two questions relating to this, for the newsgroup:
1) What do you think of that policy, in general? Is it too much of a
free speech restriction on active duty personnel--as it pretty much
forbids them from having any substantive input into national policy
issues?
2) Regardless of (1), isn't it a good idea for active duty, reserve and
etc. servicepeople to post to USENET and such ANONYMOUSLY, to prevent
any problem arising from this? In other words, wouldn't it suck if
some asshole wanted to screw with a forum participant, and tried to dig
up old posts to get him/her in trouble??
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Velovich
Since Officers are the ones that must pass on the orders (faithfully) of the
Commander in Chief, and must do so regardless of their opinions, it is a good
rule. If an officer gets the freedom, without restriction, to criticise his
Commander in Chief, how long before he begins to lose some of his military
bearing and sabotage operations that originated in the White House, just
because he does not like the CiC?
Officers do not get the luxury to pick and choose what orders they follow.
It gets down to that. If they wish to have a political opinion, they *are*
encouraged to vote.
>2) Regardless of (1), isn't it a good idea for active duty, reserve and
>etc. servicepeople to post to USENET and such ANONYMOUSLY, to prevent
>any problem arising from this? In other words, wouldn't it suck if
>some asshole wanted to screw with a forum participant, and tried to dig
>up old posts to get him/her in trouble??
If I was an ROTC cadet this week, and got commissioned next, anything I said
previous to becoming subject tot the UCMJ would not apply. Only those things I
said later, while subject to the UCMJ...
BShimp3003
statements publicly, speaking as a member of the US Armed Forces. For me to
tell my buddy that I think Clinto sux is ok, for me to do so publicly is
borderline... if I make it clear that I'm speaking as a private citizen then
it's better but still shady.
In general such statements are unprofessional and shouldn't be made about any
superior by anyone in uniform. When people find out I'm a soldier and ask me
such questions I just say something like "It would be unprofessional, and maybe
illegal, for me to publicly criticize the Commander in Chief."
BShimp3003
>well....Duh!
>Half the posts on here lately are from people who "didn't like something or
>other" about the Navy (one or two politically related) so they took your
>advice
>to "get out." Then they got roundly grilled for it.
Get out properly, not AWOL... the "Duh" fits.
Moses Lambert
I remember being taught that it was only _officers_ who were muzzled/gagged by Article 88.
IIRC, the only restriction on us enlisted scum was that we couldn't take part in anything political in uniform, except
such things as Honor Guards, Color Guards et cetera.
When I was at a Staff Command, the Enlisteds used to do a *lot* of discussing and cussing political creatures - we were
in Virginia, so we had plenty to talk about. I know for a fact that the Commodore and the CoS knew we did. Nothing ever
came down to us, telling or hinting we should stop.
--
Moses Lambert
Proud Conspiracies Member: IJC, Vast Right-Wing, Hiramite, Cabalistic, Circuit Mayflower & Y2K
(didn't think all those programs got screwed up all by themselves, did you?)
BShimp3003
>Has it changed since I retired?
>I remember being taught that it was only _officers_ who were muzzled/gagged
>by Article 88.
That's true... I use the illegal bit only so they won't persist in asking....
but it could be theoretically charged as disrespect I suspect.
M.J.Powell
> If I was an ROTC cadet this week, and got commissioned next, anything I said
>previous to becoming subject tot the UCMJ would not apply. Only those things I
>said later, while subject to the UCMJ...
Just like a politician..
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Patrick Pemberton
On 11 May 1999, Velovich wrote:
> If I was an ROTC cadet this week, and got commissioned next, anything I said
> previous to becoming subject tot the UCMJ would not apply. Only those things I
> said later, while subject to the UCMJ...
But you may lose your scholarship if you have one, and/or be kicked out of
ROTC. We had a female midshipman who almost went bye-bye because MTV's
rock-the-vote special came to our campus during the 96 campaign, and asked
her in uniform what she thought of the president...and she told them! She
went back (after losing some skin to the XO) and got them to not air it
later, which kept anything else from happening. But if she had been
unable to stop them, she would have been gone.
ROTC'ers aren't subject to the UCMJ (except during summer training or
other TAD) but there's still a lot of gray areas of overlap that they have
to watch out for. Up until '96 they still did command drug
screens including midshipmen, and it might come back...
Victor
100...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, patr...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu says...
> ROTC'ers aren't subject to the UCMJ (except during summer training or
> other TAD) but there's still a lot of gray areas of overlap that they have
> to watch out for. Up until '96 they still did command drug
> screens including midshipmen, and it might come back...
>
Up until? Why the hell did they stop?
-Victor
Patrick Pemberton
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Victor wrote:
> > ROTC'ers aren't subject to the UCMJ (except during summer training or
> > other TAD) but there's still a lot of gray areas of overlap that they have
> > to watch out for. Up until '96 they still did command drug
> > screens including midshipmen, and it might come back...
>
> Up until? Why the hell did they stop?
Probably because a.) it's logistically difficult, done through the
University Health Center or whatever that unit can do, unlike the active
duty tests which are mailed elsewhere and b.) the mids go through big
drug sweeps when they go TAD during the summer for cruises. Other than
that, who knows why? The letter of the policy is for yearly drug sweeps
of active duty sailors and Marines, so it's not "wrong."
Katana
not poor enlisted pukes that dont know any better.
Show me an E-1 to E-10 thats been busted for it.
Janson Zimack wrote in message <7h833c$en$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Hope I got everything aligned, I meant to make a subject line conveying
>"Article 88 of the UCMJ, Active Duty personnel criticizing the
>President, SecDef, SecTrans, and senior DoD operatives."
>
>I was just at the bookstore yesterday and saw a mag with an article
>about this subject....discussing the Major General in the USAF who was
>bounced out a few months after Clinton took office, for (truthfully)
>calling him a draft-dodging, pot smoking womanizer. Whether or not the
>statements were TRUE was irrelevant; they were disrespectful, so fell
>within the UCMJ guidelines.
>
>Same with the Marine Majors who recently wrote newspaper Op-Ed/letter
>pieces criticizing Clinton.
>
>I have two questions relating to this, for the newsgroup:
>
>1) What do you think of that policy, in general? Is it too much of a
>free speech restriction on active duty personnel--as it pretty much
>forbids them from having any substantive input into national policy
>issues?
>
>2) Regardless of (1), isn't it a good idea for active duty, reserve and
>etc. servicepeople to post to USENET and such ANONYMOUSLY, to prevent
>any problem arising from this? In other words, wouldn't it suck if
>some asshole wanted to screw with a forum participant, and tried to dig
>up old posts to get him/her in trouble??
>
>
J.D. Baldwin
Patrick Pemberton <patr...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> ROTC'ers aren't subject to the UCMJ (except during summer training or
> other TAD) but there's still a lot of gray areas of overlap that they
> have to watch out for. Up until '96 they still did command drug
> screens including midshipmen, and it might come back...
Actually, ROTC cadets and midshipmen can, technically, be subject to
the UCMJ -- see Article 2 (c) on the issue. RCM 204 also applies.
In practice, courts-martial or NJP of NROTC midshipmen (when not on
active duty for training) is pretty much a non-issue, but in theory it
*could* happen.
Article 88 is moot, however, because NROTC midshipmen are not
"midshipmen" under federal law unless they are on active duty (i.e.,
summer training). ROTC cadets of other services are not, even when on
active duty, "cadets" for the purpose of the UCMJ. In this respect,
as in other UCMJ provisions, the Navy is a special case.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Baldwin
<bshim...@aol.com> wrote:
> That's true... I use the illegal bit only so they won't persist in
> asking.... but it could be theoretically charged as disrespect I
> suspect.
It could be charged, but the charges would have no substance. All
disrespect offenses specify that the "victim" of the disrespect must
have a particular military status (e.g., "superior non-commissioned
officer" or "superior commissioned officer"). None of the politicians
specified by Article 88 have this status, which is why the article
exists at all.
steven j forsberg
>Hope I got everything aligned, I meant to make a subject line conveying
>"Article 88 of the UCMJ, Active Duty personnel criticizing the
>President, SecDef, SecTrans, and senior DoD operatives."
I usually suggest to military people that they imagine what the
military would be like with no restrictions on such speech. If you can do
it to the President, why not your CO? DivO? Chief?
Imagine a sailor standing outside the main gate with a sign like "My
loser CO got a DUI" or "Chief Jones is an adulterer and fornicator!"
These statements may be true, (the CO got a DUI while a JO, you read
a copy of the Chiefs divorce proceedings) --- but they are not good for
morale and discipline. In addition, you talk about speaking the "truth".
Most people use adjectives which do not have precise legal definitions,
however. If you scored in the bottom half on an advancement test, can your
juniors refer to you as "Stupid"? If a CPO is over the weight limit, can
you call him "Fatty"?
regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
sfor...@prodigy.net Wizard 87-01
BShimp3003
>Article 88 is moot, however, because NROTC midshipmen are not
>"midshipmen" under federal law unless they are on active duty (i.e.,
>summer training).
Hmmm... reminds me of something. A few years ago I was looking into attending
the California Maritime Academy. The catalog and tour guide mentioned that
midshipmen interested in active duty Naval (and therefore took a minor in
Naval Science... similar to NROTC but not the same thing I guess) were
"commissioned" as midshipmen in the USNR their sophomore year.
What is the difference (if any) between a "commissioned" mid and any other mid?
Any "technical" differences that don't see the light of day in practice?
Patrick Pemberton
BShimp3003 says:
> What is the difference (if any) between a "commissioned" mid and any other
mid?
> Any "technical" differences that don't see the light of day in practice?
Must be a typo cause there ain't any such thing. What they probably meant
to get across was that the mids were committed after the second year to
service in the Navy; the rest of NROTC will almost invariably send a junior
or senior to the fleet if they drop out of the program for other than
medical reasons. (That sentence you read probably was a better recruiting
hook than "screw up and you're on a train for Great Lakes!") But all
midshipmen who stay in after their first training cruise are indebted to the
Navy either monetarily or through service.
Midshipmen are sworn in, but (I think) it's the enlisted oath...I don't
recall what it was really, but I know for a fact it's not the commissioning
oath. Furthermore, Mids don't receive or sign any "commission" signed by
anybody. Instead, we sign enrollment papers and a bunch of enlistment stuff
(probably to avoid having to print up new versions for all I know), and our
files are kept as ESR's until commissioning.
All those non-Annapolis maritime academies are ROTC commissioning sources in
disguise, so their stuff is the same as ours.
-Patrick
gws
. . .
J.D. Baldwin and I had a looooong discussion on this topic a couple of
months ago. You could probably find it in dejanews. We cited statutes and
everything. The practical differences between the service obligations of
USNA mids and NROTC mids who do not graduate are nil but there are some
technical distinctions because of differences in the authorizing
legislation for each program. The practical implications of the
differences are approximately akin to those related to the question, How
many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Grey Satterfield -- who wonders how many angels *can* dance on the head of
a pin.
BShimp3003
>a pin.
Which sort of angel? :)
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
> There is one exception, and I happen to be acquainted with a couple of
> cases in which it made all the difference. For the purpose of
> assigning veterans' benefits, USNA midshipmen are on "active duty" for
> their entire four years. NROTC midshipmen are never on "active duty,"
> even during summer training.
>
> Thus, a USNA mid can get hit by a bus while at home on summer leave,
> and an NROTC midshipman can be injured by a malfunctioning elevator on
> a warship at sea, and the former will be eligible for DVA disability
> payments and the latter will get nothing whatsoever.
The NROTC Middie will get veterans benefits under your scenario:
Begin quote
Jonathan Brown, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. United States of America,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
151 F.3d 800 November 19, 1997, Submitted August 4, 1998, Filed
A veteran is a person who has "served in the active military, naval, or
air service," and who has been discharged under conditions other than
dishonorable. 38 U.S.C. § 101(2). Senior ROTC training exercises
constitute "active military, naval, or air service." See id. §
101(22)(D) (Senior ROTC training programs of four weeks or greater
duration constitute "active duty for training"); id. § 101(23)(C)
(Senior ROTC training programs of fewer than four weeks' duration
constitute "inactive duty for training"); id. § 101(24) (the term
"active military, naval or air service" includes both "active duty for
training" and "inactive duty for training"). Brown's participation in
inactive duty training constituted "active military, naval or air
service," and he is therefore a veteran, having been discharged under
honorable conditions.
Veterans receive benefits under § 1131 only for service-connected
disabilities--i.e., disabilities incurred or aggravated "in [the] line
of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service." 38 U.S.C. §
1131; see also id. § 101(16). Because Brown's injury occurred during a
mandatory ROTC Army Physical Fitness Test, the Secretary determined that
it was service-connected, and correctly concluded that Brown is entitled
to veterans benefits under § 1131.
end quote
The key section is 38 USC 101 (24) "The term "active military, naval, or
air service" includes active duty, any period of active duty for
training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from
a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and any
period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned
was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of
duty."
Vince
Tim McDermott
BShimp3003 wrote:
>
> >Grey Satterfield -- who wonders how many angels *can* dance on the head of
> >a pin.
>
> Which sort of angel? :)
>
What sort of pin?
What sort of dance? Reels tend to require more room than set dances.
Tim
J.D. Baldwin
<bshim...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Article 88 is moot, however, because NROTC midshipmen are not
> >"midshipmen" under federal law unless they are on active duty (i.e.,
> >summer training).
>
> Hmmm... reminds me of something. A few years ago I was looking
> into attending the California Maritime Academy. The catalog and
> tour guide mentioned that midshipmen interested in active duty Naval
> (and therefore took a minor in Naval Science... similar to NROTC
> but not the same thing I guess) were "commissioned" as midshipmen in
> the USNR their sophomore year.
>
> other mid? Any "technical" differences that don't see the light of
> day in practice?
Sounds to me like someone was being a little sloppy with his
terminology. Midshipmen are not "commissioned" in any sense
whatsoever. NROTC midshipmen enlist in the USNR (but are not
"enlisted" personnel), and USNA midshipmen are appointed by the
President, but an appointment is *not* the same thing as a
"commission."
In short, it's not possible, in the US armed forces, to be
"commissioned" as a midshipman. Unless, of course, someone smashes a
magnum of champagne over your head and sends you sliding down a rail
into the harbor. Outside of plebe summer hazing, however, this is
exceedingly rare.
J.D. Baldwin
<g...@oscn.net> wrote:
> J.D. Baldwin and I had a looooong discussion on this topic a couple of
> months ago. You could probably find it in dejanews. We cited
> statutes and everything.
Actually, I cited statutes. Your argument consisted of saying
something like "That doesn't make sense." (As if a practicing
attorney should need to be reminded that the law doesn't have to make
a damn bit of sense.) But never mind . . .
> The practical differences between the service obligations of USNA
> mids and NROTC mids who do not graduate are nil but there are some
> technical distinctions because of differences in the authorizing
> legislation for each program.
I'd go ever farther than that: the practical differences in all
respects except one are nil, not just service obligations.
> The practical implications of the differences are approximately akin
> to those related to the question, How many angels can dance on the
> head of a pin?
There is one exception, and I happen to be acquainted with a couple of
cases in which it made all the difference. For the purpose of
assigning veterans' benefits, USNA midshipmen are on "active duty" for
their entire four years. NROTC midshipmen are never on "active duty,"
even during summer training.
Thus, a USNA mid can get hit by a bus while at home on summer leave,
and an NROTC midshipman can be injured by a malfunctioning elevator on
a warship at sea, and the former will be eligible for DVA disability
payments and the latter will get nothing whatsoever.
gws
news:baldwinF...@netcom.com...
| In article <CbF%2.183$vm.11...@news.randori.com>, gws
| <g...@oscn.net> wrote:
| > J.D. Baldwin and I had a looooong discussion on this topic a couple of
| > months ago. You could probably find it in dejanews. We cited
| > statutes and everything.
|
| Actually, I cited statutes. Your argument consisted of saying
| something like "That doesn't make sense." (As if a practicing
| attorney should need to be reminded that the law doesn't have to make
| a damn bit of sense.) But never mind . . .
J.D.'s memmory fades, as I cited statutes too, but never mind, indeed.
|
| > The practical differences between the service obligations of USNA
| > mids and NROTC mids who do not graduate are nil but there are some
| > technical distinctions because of differences in the authorizing
| > legislation for each program.
|
| I'd go ever farther than that: the practical differences in all
| respects except one are nil, not just service obligations.
|
| > The practical implications of the differences are approximately akin
| > to those related to the question, How many angels can dance on the
| > head of a pin?
|
| There is one exception, and I happen to be acquainted with a couple of
| cases in which it made all the difference. For the purpose of
| assigning veterans' benefits, USNA midshipmen are on "active duty" for
| their entire four years. NROTC midshipmen are never on "active duty,"
| even during summer training.
|
| Thus, a USNA mid can get hit by a bus while at home on summer leave,
| and an NROTC midshipman can be injured by a malfunctioning elevator on
| a warship at sea, and the former will be eligible for DVA disability
| payments and the latter will get nothing whatsoever.
Agreed on all counts.
Grey Satterfield
gws
news:374022BC...@draper.com...
|
| BShimp3003 wrote:
| >
| > >Grey Satterfield -- who wonders how many angels *can* dance on the head
of
| > >a pin.
| >
| > Which sort of angel? :)
| >
| What sort of pin?
|
| What sort of dance? Reels tend to require more room than set dances.
Wait a minute, wait a minute! Heretofore only Vince admitted to having
received a Jesuitical education. I am beginning to wonder about you guys. By
the way the OED defines "Jesuitical" as, "Having the character ascribed to the
Jesuits; deceitful, dissembling; practising equivocation, prevarication, or
mental reservation of truth. Often used in sense 'hair-splitting', keenly
analytical." That particular definition was no doubt written by an Anglican.
But speaking of Vince . . . (>:
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
Patrick Pemberton
J.D. Baldwin said:
> There is one exception, and I happen to be acquainted with a couple of
> cases in which it made all the difference. For the purpose of
> assigning veterans' benefits, USNA midshipmen are on "active duty" for
> their entire four years. NROTC midshipmen are never on "active duty,"
> even during summer training.
>
> Thus, a USNA mid can get hit by a bus while at home on summer leave,
> and an NROTC midshipman can be injured by a malfunctioning elevator on
> a warship at sea, and the former will be eligible for DVA disability
> payments and the latter will get nothing whatsoever.
That's not true. NROTC mids are on active duty for their cruises on TAD
orders - we're eligble for SGLI and the whole ball of wax.
BShimp3003
a commission: NROTC, MARTEP (for the CG), and Student Incentive Payment (for
the Merchant Marine Reserve)... it also mentions that all graduates are
eligible to apply for a direct commission in any of the US armed forces... but
doesn't mention commissioned midshipmen... so I guess I either made it up or
heard it somewhere, maybe during the tour.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
> | That's Jesuitical
>
> Of course. Vince should write definitions for the OED. (>:
>
As I've said before the OED is a guide to how words are used, not
historical or toher reality. look at how people use the word
"sanction"
Vince
ran...@notatnetcom.com
ROTFLMAO.
An education is a pure thing and not to be confused with humor. Lord
the OED has defined a lawyer down to the t without any sign of irony,
sarcasm or,,,,,,,,,,,humor.
random
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> By
> the way the OED defines "Jesuitical" as, "Having the character ascribed to the
> Jesuits; deceitful, dissembling; practising equivocation, prevarication, or
> mental reservation of truth. Often used in sense 'hair-splitting', keenly
> analytical." That particular definition was no doubt written by an Anglican.
> But speaking of Vince . . . (>:
I have to strongly protest the suggestion of "deceitful". Jesuitical
logic in no way relies on being untruthful. Anyone can do that.
jesuitical logic involves the shifting of premeses in mid argument.
Like sleight of hand, you pull the switch while the opponent is focussed
on somethign else. The supreme court's treatment of homosexual rights
is Jesuitical. i.e. the supreme court protect the rights of sexual
privacy of unmarried heterosexuals, but not homosexuals on a theory that
homosexuals never had any right of privacy. of course prior toe Holmes
and Brandeis Neiterh did heterosexuals, but the court lets that slide
by.
That's Jesuitical
Vince
gws
news:374181...@umail.umd.edu...
Of course. Vince should write definitions for the OED. (>:
Grey Satterfield