What's the difference between Anwar al-Awlaki and Jane Fonda?

[Zalatix]

Anwar al-Awlaki was accused of training terrorists to attack America. But that's about the only difference. Both of them are/were U.S. Citizens. Both of them were accused of spreading anti-American propaganda overseas. Both of them were unarmed. Both were accused of being a danger to US troops. Neither were convicted of the crimes they were accused of.

What would stop a Republican successor to President Obama from sending a combat drone to kill the next Jane Fonda... abroad or in America?

[malthaussen]

1. Nothing. So what's your point?

n/t

[Zalatix]

6. That our use of drones is a huge violation of human rights

and that when the Republicans get control of the White House one day we will all come to sorely regret their use.

[quaker bill]

21. Yes, it was far better when we did it the old fashioned way...

[Zalatix]

35. Yeah, when we summarily executed people the old fashioned way...

The Democratic Party used to be against summary executions. Whatever happened to the anti-war party, anyway?

Oh yeah we shifted TO THE RIGHT.

[quaker bill]

48. There are many ways to end up dead

hanging out in a terrorist convoy is only one of them. It is pretty effective though.

There are many ways to not end up prematurely dead. Avoiding terrorist convoys is somewhere on that list.

[Zalatix]

52. ALLEGEDLY hanging out in a terrorist convoy.

That's the beauty of summary executions. You don't need to supply any proof. You just need to put the person on your enemies list.

Which is what could have happened to Jane Fonda.

[quaker bill]

54. Do you actually think Nixon actually considered her civil rights?

Or did he just not do it because he thought she was no threat? I don't for a minute think Nixon paused a moment to contemplate such things, thus the secret war in Cambodia. Ever read into Nixon's later involvement in the death squads and contra war?

The use of drones does not make a violation of human or civil rights any worse, or really any different. A death is a death regardless of the delivery mechanism.

The other curious thing to me in this never ending argument, is that the other folks in that convoy are just as dead. However the only one that seems to matter is the US citizen. Accident of birth apparently makes all the difference.

[Zalatix]

56. Point made, none of those deaths were acceptable.

After all they were also bombing weddings out there on the thought that they were a terrorist event.

[quaker bill]

58. Agreed

shooting civilians at checkpoints because they did not obey instructions given in english... Dropping 800 1 ton bombs on a city of 4 million people on one night to just kick things off... Using depleted uranium munitions whenever they felt like it... The list is far too long my friend.

[ProSense]

2. Clearly

Jane Fonda is a terrorist in that scenario.

Maybe you should start a campaign: "I am Anwar al-Awlaki."

Could be effective by the OP logic.

[Tom Ripley]

3. al-Awlaki really sucked in that remake of "Cat Ballou"

[MineralMan]

4. And we won't even mention "Barbarella."

Seriously. We won't mention it. It was the bomb.

Barbarella

Box Office
Budget: $9,000,000 (estimated)
Gross: $613,285 (USA)

[gratuitous]

5. Oh, such alarmist alarmism!

Don't you know how disrespectful noticing stuff is to the "real" victims of "true" oppression? Now stop it right this instant, or you're, like, just totally Not Rational or Sensible. (Insert heavy, minor-key organ chord here: Da-dah-daaaahhhhh!)

[Roselma]

7. I wonder what Russ Feingold knew about Al-Awlaki.

Feingold was strangely not bothered by his death via drone:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/russ-feingold-anwar-al-awlaki_n_1291593.html

That said, operational involvement in a terrorist organization is different than Jane Fonda making as a$$ of herself in Hanoi. How many terrorist attacks did she promote against the United States?

[malthaussen]

8. Well, it's an "aid and comfort" thing.

Publicly wishing you could kill the military of your own country crosses the line from making an ass of oneself into openly supporting an enemy. How many deaths did she "promote?" Who can say? I can't even imagine how one would go about answering that question. Insofar as her actions may have improved the morale and dedication of the enemy -- however microscopically -- and undermined the morale and dedication of our own people -- however microscopically, what penalty should have been imposed? I would think having her and her family and a few dozen innocent bystanders blown apart would be verging on overkill. But the question does need to be asked, what should a democracy do when one of its citizens is openly supporting an enemy? (Setting aside, for the nonce, the issue of the appropriateness of the war to begin with, which is supposed to be decided by the People in Congress Assembled)

-- Mal

[sudopod]

9. The entire anti-war movement started because

not everyone agreed on the definition of "the enemy."

I don't think you'd want to live in a country where we can kill -- without trial or any further offense -- someone who is sympathetic to "the enemy."

[malthaussen]

10. No, I don't.

My question is, what response is appropriate?

As for the anti-war movement, there is this about that: individual conscience is one thing. Those who are in institutional positions, however, be they soldiers, police, or even politicians, are expected to enforce the conditions as they exist at the time. Only in cases where an order is clearly unlwaful does one have a right (a duty, in fact) to disobey.

I make this point because Jane Fonda or anyone else has the right to say and do anything she wants, but it is for the authorities of the country to decide if she crosses the line. Do you contend that it is in your interest or mine for a citizen to openly support and encourage an enemy with whom we are involved in a military conflict? And I ask again, if not, what is the appropriate response?

-- Mal

[sudopod]

13. I'm going to have to completely disagree here:

"I make this point because Jane Fonda or anyone else has the right to say and do anything she wants, but it is for the authorities of the country to decide if she crosses the line. Do you contend that it is in your interest or mine for a citizen to openly support and encourage an enemy with whom we are involved in a military conflict? And I ask again, if not, what is the appropriate response? "

That statement doesn't illuminate how the authorities, whoever they may be, make that decision. If she is doing something really foolish such as passing information or openly calling for people to kill soldiers, that is pretty much equivalent to calling for the murder of someone, which is illegal and for which we already have agreed upon laws and procedures. Even in this case, using a hidden, opaque "system" to determine whether or not she is a terrorist, and therefore a military target to be assassinated, is wrong and disturbing.

Merely saying, "It is wrong for us to bomb $THOSE_PEOPLE and I sympathize with their plight." should never be punishable, especially with death, especially using a system or method that lies outside of the justice system that has served us for over two centuries.

No, I do not contend that it would be in the interest of you, me, or the United States for a citizen to do what Fonda did, but she has the right to do it anyway. "National interest" is not a compelling argument for constructing a framework for the punishment of thought crime.

[malthaussen]

14. Ms Fonda did not just say bombing NVN was wrong

She openly expressed a desire to shoot down American pilots. You will agree, I hope, that there is a difference of degree here?

And the question I am trying to get at is that of aid and comfort. Disagreeing with policy is one thing. Openly supporting the opposition is another. I think some sort of discouragement should be applied to the latter, but what that discouragement should be is hard to say.

-- Mal

[sudopod]

17. You seem to believe that "the opposition" is always worthy of

death, AHEM, "discouragement," because the government has determined both the nature of the "opposition" and the level of protest that requires "discouragement," all without external oversight or judicial review.

You don't see the problem with that? You don't see how such a system could be easily abused?

Should we just swallow it for the sake of the Father/Mother/Homeland?

[malthaussen]

25. No, I don't

I think there are guidelines that exist outside of political definitions, and I actually am not using "discourage" as a euphanism for "kill." I don't mince words.

In point of fact, I do not think either Anwar al-Awlaki nor Jane Fonda should have been killed. (Ms Fonda, obviously, was not) The former deserved a trial, the latter deserved contempt. Not because she opposed the war, which was her right, but for expressing the wish to kill her own people.

Like it or not, the administration does decide who the "enemy" is, since Congress has cravenly abdicated the responsibility entrusted to it in the Constitution. When our people are put at risk, right or not, it is not appropriate to express the wish that they be killed. I don't see a problem with that.

Of course the system can be abused. It is being abused. But the abuse of the system is a separate offense from the actions of Fonda or al-Awlaki: because our government chooses to war against the will of the people, it does not make those who attack the instruments of the war (physically or psychologically) innocent of all offense. This is especially true of Vietnam, which was fought by conscripts, but it is also true of the current conflict, because one signs up to "defend the Constitution," not to undertake wars of imperialism or revenge.

-- Mal

[sudopod]

27. I can agree with all of that.

I think where the confusion comes is where folks are saying it's an offense.

Everyone can feel free to hate their faces and say so publicly. However, unless it rises to the level of something legally actionable (ex: threatening a federal official, or calling on someone else to), I don't believe the state should get involved at all.

[malthaussen]

29. I think much of the problem comes when an action is part right and part wrong

If I may raise the spectre of Bradley Manning, here we have a case where the action of blowing the whistle and exposing the corruption of the war in Afghanistan is right, and commendable, but the (alleged) release of material that could expose our own agents to enemy attack was wrong, and borders on treason. I say "borders" only because there is some dispute as to whether or not PFC Manning knew he was disseminating such information: if he did so knowingly, he crossed the border. It seems that people love to be partisan, so when an action is ambiguous, they "accentuate the positive" and do not even admit to the negative. Life's usually more complicated than that.

But it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Look at it this way: if in WWII, a citizen openly supported the Axis, made statements encouraging them, tried to persuade fellow citizens not to serve against them, and gathered food and non-military supplies for them, should the government not have interfered with such activities because they violated no law? At what point does popping off one's mouth cross the line to giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, or undermining our own efforts? Now, I choose WWII as an example, because most (not all) agree that was a necessary and justified war. Are the rules different for a war you or I might think is unnecessary and unjustified? And if so, who decides?

-- Mal

[sudopod]

30. While I agree on the need for balance,

"gathered food and non-military supplies for them, should the government not have interfered with such activities because they violated no law?"

That would be supplying material aid to the enemy, which is illegal.

We did have some pro-Axis sorts around in those days, but they knew to keep quiet, for the most part.

Notably, a law was passed during WW1 that made any such speech illegal. Union organizer Eugene Debs was convicted under it for speaking out against the war, before it was ruled unconstitutional.

I think we could also have an interesting discussion about what counts as a war, too, but that might be straying a bit, heh.

I guess I just feel that, as a free society (lol), that we can endure a small minority of loud jerks. If they are wrong, they will allow us to validate our reasoning for going to war through argument. If they are right, then it may turn out that they are, in fact, heroes.

[malthaussen]

36. It's a gray area

The Society of Friends supplied food, medicine, and doctors to the VC (and probably NVN as well), and were not taken to court. Although probably, legally speaking, they were providing the aid to the GVN and not the VC. There were of course many in the US who didn't like that... but I doubt anyone in 1967 would have conceived of bombing the local Friend's Meeting House because of it.

Of course there are always special "war emergency acts" during time of "war." Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, and so on. Which is why your proposed segue into what constitutes a "war" is particularly apt. We currently live, in the USA, in a vaguely-defined "state of emergency" in which we are endlessly assured that extraordinary and extra-constitutional measures are necessary for our nation's security. Which is horse puckey, of course, and Orwell predicted it long ago. But since, as I noted above, Congress has failed to due its duty as defined in the Constitution, war is whatever ya got.

We aspire to be a free society... or we did once. I agree about the loud jerks. In times like these, we need all the jerks we can get. But Jane Fonda loses my respect because she lost her perspective. As for al-Awlaki, given that he will never undergo a trial, all we have are allegations. I rather suspect he didn't like us much. But exactly to what extent he did overtly make war on the US will never be known, I fear.

-- Mal

[sudopod]

44. I think we've reached a synthesis. :) nt

[malthaussen]

45. Great! Then we need a new antithesis

So we can keep arguing!

-- Mal

[sudopod]

46. lol nt

[treestar]

20. Still she didn't actually plan an attack, physically on Americans

[malthaussen]

26. This is true.

Do you argue, therefore, that she committed no offense against the people who were stuck with fighting the war in Vietnam?

-- Mal

[treestar]

59. Not really

No, was she charged with any offense? Is there any statute she violated? There's freedom of speech. What kind of military would give up because one girl doesn't agree with the war?

[Zalatix]

57. We don't know what Anwar al-Awlaki was doing.

We are TOLD he was planning a physical attack on Americans, but where's the evidence?

We also knew for sure that Saddam was about to launch a nuclear war on America.

[Zalatix]

37. We the People ARE the authorities.

I as a voter would decide that she's not crossing the line.

[malthaussen]

39. We the people

In Congress Assembled are the authorities. Your personal decision is not the question: what is enshrined in law is what matters.

There is, however, the question of... shall we call it good taste? Is it appropriate to wish to kill military men of your own country, and to express that opinion in the country with which yours is in conflict?

-- Mal

[Zalatix]

40. We can agree it's in bad taste. However if it is treason

then we should have a trial. Not a summary execution like we're doing now.

[malthaussen]

42. Couldn't agree more

But if we held trials, then, you know, the administration might have to adduce proof that treason has been committed.

-- Mal

[lunatica]

11. Jane Fonda did no such thing

What a horrid thing to say. She never plotted to kill Americans, nor did she encourage anyone to kill Americans. What a disgusting thing to say.

[Cleita]

15. I'm with you.

She was against the VietNam occupation. Many of us were back then because our soldiers were being subjected to an awful war that didn't make sense. She made a mistake and was used as propaganda.

[malthaussen]

16. Someone's memory is playing tricks

It was reported that when she was in Hanoi she visited an AAA battery, sat at one of the guns, and said "I wish I had one of those bastards in my sights right now." How would you interpret that statement?

Many years later, she apologized and said the comment was "not appropriate."

-- Mal

[treestar]

19. +1

Only right wingers would even say a thing like that - or at least that was the case until today!

[SomethingFishy]

23. No? Then why did she apologize for the photo of her

sitting behind a Vietnemese anti-aircraft gun?

"Fonda's visit to enemy territory ignited fury at home. She criticised US policy on North Vietnamese radio and earned the nickname "Hanoi Jane" after posing for a photo atop an anti-aircraft gun, an incident that Fonda later said she regretted"



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/19/vietnam-hanoi-metropole-bunker-discovered


I happen to like Jane Fonda and I happen to think she was right. But sitting there denying what is in print and photo because of your "Obama can do no wrong" attitude is bullshit. The way the law is written Fonda sitting behind an enemy anti-aircraft gun could be grounds for assassination.

You trust the government enough to allow them to use "secret evidence" to kill people? As long as they assure you the target is a bad person it's ok?

Good fucking luck with that if the Democrats are out of office.

[malthaussen]

28. Thanks for the link

I don't like what Ms Fonda did, although I do think she was right to oppose the war. There is a difference between opposing the war and attacking the instruments of it, though, and I marvel that it is so hard for some to discern.

And it is true, the way the law is written, Jane and all the Fondas could be staring at a drone right now. I happen to think that is not right, either.

-- Mal

[uponit7771]

32. Sitting behind AA gun = openly advocating killing of US troops? That's a stretch

...along with working with the enemy with the intent to destroy US.

[malthaussen]

43. I'll ask it again

She is quoted as having said "I wish I had one of those bastards in my sights right now." How do you interpret that statement?

-- Mal

[Scurrilous]

33. And the OP claimed she was unarmed...

[uponit7771]

31. Nah, it's against Obama so it's ok to just make shit up

[Zalatix]

41. You're going to regret that statement when a GOP administration takes power

and they start using those drones to take out people summarily. Mark my words you will regret that.

[Zalatix]

38. It's not what she did, it's what she could be ACCUSED of doing.

She reportedly "sat upon the guns of enemy forces".

That could EASILY be interpreted as combat drone-worthy today by a Republican administration.

[bemildred]

12. Nothing, that's the point. nt

[Shankapotomus]

18. Jane Fonda turned out to be right

about what was going on in Vietnam as was shown by the release of Defense Department documents a few years ago. There WAS systemic abuse of civilians and violations of the Geneva Convention across multiple American units in Vietnam.

So fuck anyone calling for Jane Fonda's head. THEY are the traitors!

[quaker bill]

22. I believe one is dead.

[KamaAina]

24. One's a barbarian and the other one's Barbarella?

[slackmaster]

34. Mr. al-Awlaki can't dress like this

[pinboy3niner]

50. Not anymore, he can't nt

[slackmaster]

51. But I'll bet Jane Fonda still can.

[Honeycombe8]

47. Fonda didn't commit any crimes. She was only "accused" anti-American propaganda (which is not

illegal, BTW) by certain groups.

The other guy....he's on tape instigating hate crimes (murder) against ordinary American citizens. He admitted he was a member of Al Qaeda (a terrorist group in the business of killing innocent Americans, wherever they are, and trying to destroy America). He was on record admitting to crimes. He was a wanted man, who had an opportunity to turn himself in, but didn't.

You don't see the difference? Seriously?

[Octafish]

49. Paul Wellstone opposed the war on Iraq.

Wolf Blitzer argued with his own CNN reporter on the scene to state the weather was awful and the plane probably iced up.

And Sen. Kennedy had been on the plane earlier that day.

[tabasco]

53. LOL.

That "training terrorists" thing is just a minor difference, eh?

[Zalatix]

55. How do you know WHAT he was doing? There was no trial, no discovery of evidence