Jane Fonda: Traitor?

[jack spade23]

A relative of mine who is fairly conservative (we have both sides in our family) sent me a forwaded email. I there truth to this? I wasn't around during this time, and Im wondering how this could go without comment on the news (at least that I have heard, I dont watch t.v. a lot, just read the papers really.)


This is for all the kids born in the 70's who do
not remember, and didn't have to bear the
burden that our fathers, mothers and older
brothers and sisters had to bear.


Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the
"100 Women of the Century."
Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still
countless others have never known how Ms.
Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country,
but specific men who served and sacrificed
during Vietnam.





The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot.
The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.
In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF
Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison
the "Hanoi Hilton."
Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell,
cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was
ordered to describe for a visiting American
"Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane
treatment" he'd received.
He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was
dragged away.
During the subsequent beating, he fell forward
on to the camp Commandant's feet, which
sent that officer berserk.
In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from
double vision (which permanently ended his
flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied
application of a wooden baton.


From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the
47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the
"Hanoi Hilton",,, the first three of which his
family only knew he was "missing in action".
His wife lived on faith that he was still alive.
His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and
clothed routine in preparation for a
"peace delegation" visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to
get word to the world that they were alive
and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny
piece of paper, with his Social Security Number
on it, in the palm of his hand.
When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a
cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each
man's hand and asking little encouraging
snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed
babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane
treatment from your benevolent captors?"
Believing this HAD to be an act, they each
palmed her their sliver of paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. At the
end of the line and once the camera stopped
rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs,
she turned to the officer in charge and handed
him all the little pieces of paper.
Three men died from the subsequent beatings.
Colonel Carrigan was almost number four
but he survived, which is the only reason we
know of her actions that day.
I was a civilian economic development advisor
in Vietnam, and was captured by the North
Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in
1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.
I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one
year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year
in a "black box" in Hanoi.
My North Vietnamese captors deliberately
poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a
nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South
Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle, near the
Cambodian border.
At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs.
(My normal weight is 170 lbs.)
We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by
the camp communist political officer if I would
be willing to meet with her.
I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real
treatment we POWs received... and how
different it was from the treatment purported by
the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as
"humane and lenient."




Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky
floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched
with a large steel weights placed on my hands,
and beaten with a bamboo cane.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda
soon after I was released. I asked her
if she would be willing to debate me on TV.
She never did answer me.
These first-hand experiences do not exemplify
someone who should be honored as part
of "100 Years of Great Women."
Lest we forget..." 100 Years of Great Women"
should never include a traitor whose hands are
covered with the blood of so many patriots.
There are few things I have strong visceral
reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in
blatant treason, is one of them.
Please take the time to forward to as many
people as you possibly can.
It will eventually end up on her computer and
she needs to know that we will never forget.
RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron, Chief of
Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431
COMM: 883-6343

["spaceman"Bryce]

summarize for people with ADD in one sentence- ie Jane Fonda is a traitor because.....

[kurto]

She's not a traitor. I think a more accurate term would be an inept protestor.

To paraphrase what I heard someone else say that rang true for me:

If you need to point fingers, the real traitors were leaders in our own government keeping the war going. Very few dispute that the war was wrong. The leadership in our country that sent tens of 1000s of people to get killed/ get maimed, etc for the when we had no good cause. They were the 'bad guys' here.

Jane Fonda was correct in protesting the war. I would argue she went about it the wrong way. Her intentions were in the right place. But she was a little stupid and became a propaganda tool for the enemy.

But since the war was wrong, she was indeed right in protesting it.

[kurto]

For another view from a great site (snopes.com - which looks at emails that go around and researches their claims)...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?once=true&site=http://www.snopes.com

Then search for Jane Fonda. It affirms and disputes part of that email. Its very thorough.

Any time you get a chain-letter email with some fantastical story/claim... search this site and they're likely to have researched it.

[BCPVP]

Yes, Jane Fonda is a traitor by the definition of it in our Constitution. She should be executed.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
She's not a traitor. I think a more accurate term would be an inept protestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats like saying Someone holding up a bank is inept at using the ATM.

I was (and still am) against the war in Iraq, and I have voiced my opinion quite frequently. However, I didn't go over there and encourage the Baathist to torture captured americans.

Melch

[kurto]

"Thats like saying Someone holding up a bank is inept at using the ATM." No its not.

By the way, I was a kid when all this was happening. So I'll not pretend to be an expert on the subject. But from what little I've read--

She crossed a line. Her heart was always in the right place if her head wasn't. She sounds a bit stupid though.

I don't particularly like her or what she did. I am just constantly shocked and amazed by people who would demonize her rathar then focus on the people in our government who put the soldiers needlessly in harm's way.

So many seem to agree the war was wrong. And we were 'bombing babies' and such. Yet those same people who agree it was wrong, rathar then focus on those who kept America there, will aim their wrath at stupid Jane Fonda.

Just ignore the man behind the curtain... if you know what I mean.

Jane Fonda was an idiot. She believed our country was wrong to be fighting this war. Many would argue she was right. If she was right, then good for her for trying to fight for her cause. She wasn't an 'enemy of the US,' though.

She's a strawman target.

[jack spade23]

[ QUOTE ]
She wasn't an 'enemy of the US,' though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the stories in the letter are true, don't you think she became an enemy of the U.S. when she exposed their SSNs on the slips of paper? Thats what confuses me. This resulted in the death of American soldiers. (I guess one could make the stretch and say the government did the same thing, however, this was certain death, not just sending boys to a war they could die in.)

This isn;t about "was her heart in the right place." This is about the consequences of her actions. Thats what makes me more inclined to believe that she became a traitor at that point.

[Dead]

Hi, can you tell me what right we had to go into Vietnam?

You're scapegoating Fonda. How come there is no talk about all of the murders and rapes of South Vietnamese civilians by US soldiers?

[kurto]

"Assuming the stories in the letter are true, don't you think she became an enemy of the U.S. when she exposed their SSNs on the slips of paper?" If you read snopes, that's the one part of the story that, when researched, appears false.

"This isn;t about "was her heart in the right place." This is about the consequences of her actions. Thats what makes me more inclined to believe that she became a traitor at that point. " There was no evidence that her actions led to anyone dying. The results of her actions was she became a propaganda tool for the enemy.

I'm kind of torn about the whole issue (and I'll say again... I'm no expert on the subject. I won't pretend to be well read in the subject) But I get very irritated by people who immediately (I'm not saying this is you) who thinks anyone who protests the actions of their country (whether its about war or anything else) is a traitor. It is very brave and noble to take a stand, an unpopular stand, if your country is in the wrong. There is an appearance that Fonda went a little farther then what I would think is generally accepted... but if the war was indeed wrong, then I'm not sure that its easy to judge what's wrong about opposing it. I'm somewhat of an idealist.

I don't like Jane Fonda. I'll repeat what I tried to articulate before... Jane Fonda may have been wrong. But whatever she did pales in comparison to the people who perpetrated a war we shouldn't have been in. Perhaps she deserves scorn, but she is not near the greatest offender. Yet she appears to be where everyone directs their scorn.

That's my 2 cents.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But whatever she did pales in comparison to the people who perpetrated a war we shouldn't have been in. Perhaps she deserves scorn, but she is not near the greatest offender. Yet she appears to be where everyone directs their scorn.

[/ QUOTE ]
These kind of statements make no sense to me. Of course when discussing Jane Fonda's actions, she will be the center of the attention. A defense attorney wouldn't seriously stand up in court and say the jury should ignore (much less forgive) his client's behavior because it pales in comparison to what Hitler did. Yet that is what the Fonda-apologists here are trying to say.

[Chris Alger]

I understand that former POW Driscoll is pissed about his name being used to defame Fonda.

[jack spade23]

[ QUOTE ]

Hi, can you tell me what right we had to go into Vietnam?

You're scapegoating Fonda. How come there is no talk about all of the murders and rapes of South Vietnamese civilians by US soldiers?

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm this isn't about whether the war was right or not. I don't agree with that war or why it happened. This is about whether or not she was a traitor. Also, dont blame the U.S. as a country for individuals actions. You can be opposed to Vietnam without making every veteran look evil, like you just did.




[/ QUOTE ] I'm kind of torn about the whole issue (and I'll say again... I'm no expert on the subject. I won't pretend to be well read in the subject) But I get very irritated by people who immediately (I'm not saying this is you) who thinks anyone who protests the actions of their country (whether its about war or anything else) is a traitor. It is very brave and noble to take a stand, an unpopular stand, if your country is in the wrong. There is an appearance that Fonda went a little farther then what I would think is generally accepted... but if the war was indeed wrong, then I'm not sure that its easy to judge what's wrong about opposing it. I'm somewhat of an idealist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, am very happy that someone made a coherent point without resorting to name calling or defamination, etc in this forum. Good post. That said, I am confused about this part:


[ QUOTE ]
that's the one part of the story that, when researched, appears false

[/ QUOTE ]. I may have to be a bit nitpicky here. If this is true, does this make her a traitor? i mean technically, im not sure what this country defines as a traitor. she may have gotten through a loophole or something.

[andyfox]

The fact that Fonda is seen as somebody who should be tried as a traitor, and that the millions who died as a result of our government's treachery in Vietnam are forgotten, is powerful testament to both the Orwellian nature of politics even in a democracy and the wisdom of heeding I.F. Stone's warning that all politicians are liars.

[jack spade23]

Sooo, you just read the title and then made a post? Did you read the folliwing posts? Who here is forgetting the victims of vietnam? Im confused. Is this about me? Maybe Im just too self centered. [ QUOTE ]

The fact that Fonda is seen as somebody who should be tried as a traitor, and that the millions who died as a result of our government's treachery in Vietnam are forgotten

[/ QUOTE ]

[Chris Alger]

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded for "especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interest of the United States, World Peace or cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." If anyone deserves one of these, it's Jane Fonda.

From 1967, Fonda was perhaps the most high-profile activist fighting against the war in Vietnam. Her efforts to expose the war as a criminal act of aggression against a peasant society helped educate Americans, including hundreds of thousands of servicemen, about the nature of the war. They were instrumental in terminating the political careers of both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon (whose fear of the antiwar movement led to the first presidential abuses later known as "Watergate"), forced the U.S. to pull back troops, forced the U.S. to end the draft, forced the U.S. to the negotiating table and ultimately to forced Congress to terminate support for the war.

The years and decades following the U.S. defeat have only vindicated her. For decades, U.S. officials and pundits (almost without exception including those on the right) insisted that a communist Vietnam would spell disaster for the U.S. by creating intolerable threats to SE East Asia, the Pacific basin and eventually the U.S. itself. When people like Fonda succeeded in pointing out the absurdity of these arguments and their attendant optimistism, support for the war began its terminable slide.

None of the threats that purported to justify the war ever came close to materializing after the war was lost. In fact, they materialized in reverse: rather than a puppet of "Red China," China attacked communist Vietnam and was repulsed. The U.S., in the meanwhile, has been at peace with Vietnam for 30 years and is now a full-fledged trading partner. Commercial airliners between the two countries land every day. The U.S. suffered no direct or indirect strategic or moral threat as a result of losing the war in Vietnam. History has proven Jane right and her opponents wrong. They can't get over it.

The real culprits are the cowards and weaklings who supported the war and its attendant slaughter of millions for no better reason than to keep up their warped pretense of "patriotism." These are the ones we can blame for the carnage they supported and therefore caused: two million Vietnamese dead, a tenth of the population a casualty of war, 60,000 dead U.S. servicemen, 300,000 U.S. casualties, decades of suffering from unexploded ordinance, the undermining and subversion of the Sihanouk government and Khmer Rouge takeover, exposure to defoliants, unhealable psychic scars, and of course the torture of prisoners that occurred on all sides. They fully know if enough Americans had heeded Jane Fonda's advice, countless lives would have been saved. The rage these traitors vent toward the antiwar movement is better understood as as welling up from their intense, bottomless and well-deserved feelings of guilt and shame rather than any rational complaint about Fonda or her conduct. Indeed, as the post above shows, they actually have to fabricate stories in order to have something to complain about.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
She should be executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, what she should have done is used her connections to enlist in the Texas Air National Guard, do a bunch of cocaine, go AWOL, hook up with her daddy's oil friends, run a few businesses into the ground, then eventually run for office and outright steal her way into the presidency of the United States by the single biggest campaign of election fraud in U.S. history.

Then, she could be a national hero and a "Godly President", instead of, apparantly, being marked for execution by BC and his fellow Party Members.

Yes, thank God we have BC and his fellow Republicans here to show us the way.


q/q

[jack spade23]

Quads, I am in favor of everyone having their opinion, but,


PUT THAT $hit IN ANOTHER THREAD! NO ONE HERE ADVOCATED GWB. Keep it on topic please.

[QuadsOverQuads]

With all due respect: no. BC is a hardcore partisan Republican, and that is very relevent context with regard to his comments on this thread.


q/q

[jack spade23]

well, you're hogging all the......ugly!!

ha, i got him good.

ok, fine, you two go at it and hijack the thread

[QuadsOverQuads]

No hijacking intended, continue the discussion as you please. Just putting in my two cents to match BC's, nothing more, nothing less. Next hand.


q/q

[jack spade23]

nah, apparently the thread is dead. I would like some other responses, but until then Ill keep it going with these kind of reponses so people will check it out. Bump.


btw quads, i consider myslef a conservative, doesn't mean i support that war

[vulturesrow]

Alger,

You have the best gimmick accoutn going on this site. Kudos. By the way, how'd that Vietnamese reeducation work out after the US pulled out of Vietnam? And regardless of how you felt about the war, Fonda's actions were clearly out of line. You can protest the war without posing for Vietnamese propaganda and taking an active part in the effort to demoralize American soldiers. By the way, your Chomsky-lite schtick is getting old, you neeed to get some new material.

[Dead]

You didn't refute any of Chris's points.

[Dead]

And I didn't make every veteran look evil. Just the bad ones. And they should be made to look evil, because they are.

[jack spade23]

My bad. Thought you were saying something along the lines of "All U.S. soldiers acted like this in Vietnam, therefore the war was wrong." True, these particulars are bad, but dont you thnk that Fonda was saying something along those lines? That all the soldiers in Vietnam were "babykillers"etc?

[Dead]

No, I don't think she was.

And I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. US troops had no right to be in Vietnam. Fonda thought that the war was wrong, so she went over there to protest US policy. She never called all troops murderers or war criminals, although there WERE a ton of war crimes committed in Vietnam. Vietnamese women being raped and murdered, for example. It happened a lot. Don't deny it.

[jack spade23]

Sigh.... to repeat what I said earlier: "I don't agree with that war or why it happened."

[ QUOTE ]
there WERE a ton of war crimes committed in Vietnam. Vietnamese women being raped and murdered, for example. It happened a lot. Don't deny it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dead]

Yeah, Dude, I'm sure you don't, dude.

You're such a Republican, it's obvious. That's why you made this post.

[vulturesrow]

Dead,

Refutation is besides the point. Like I said, Fondas actions were clearly wrong, whether she agreed with the Vietnam war or not. She gave aid and comfort to the enemy, consistenlty denounced American troops, and was the direct cause of the the brutal beatings of several POWs.

Here are a few gems for you:

"[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done."

"not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

[jack spade23]

Bingo. Did you come up with that when I said "im a conservative?" Im not denying who I am. Is it wrong for me to disagree with the Vietnam war if Im a republican? To me, the Dems started it, not the Republicans. But thats not the reason I disagree w/ it. The reason is that there was no threat involved there. Communism wasn't going to spread, as someone already said in this thread. I dont want this to turn into something nasty, dude, dont jump to conlcusions.
Dammit, now you have the dude calling others dude.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, how'd that Vietnamese reeducation work out

[/ QUOTE ]
How's the rhetorical-question-instead-of-argument working out?

[ QUOTE ]
You can protest the war without posing for Vietnamese propaganda . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody should care. And perhaps not as effectively given the mainstream line about a "good war gone bad." When respectable opinion, like the NY Times, Democratic Senators, and so forth, began to oppose the war, they usually framed their objections along tactical lines, such as how the cost of the war in blood and treasure would exceed likely benefits. It was important for those who opposed the war on principled instead of pragmatic grounds -- that undisputable facts annhilated any rational moral argument for the war -- to point out that the morally neutral category of error wasn't an option. Fonda didn't care about the geoplotical advantages that the U.S. might eke out if victory proved more affordable. You can't justify aggression on pragmatic grounds. The U.S. deserved to lose and the Vietnamese deserved to win. If one believes and says that, you hardly need your snapshot taken in Hanoi to merit the charge of promtoing Vietnamese propaganda.

[ QUOTE ]
. . . and taking an active part in the effort to demoralize American soldiers

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't get it: the soldiers should have been demoralized because what they were doing was wrong. Nobody thinks that we should protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or Hitler's invasion of Poland short of the point where the invading troops are "demoralized." It's a dumb guy argument. If they're demoralized to the point of refusing to fight, great.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
It was important for those who opposed the war on principled instead of pragmatic grounds -- that undisputable facts annhilated any rational moral argument for the war -- to point out that the morally neutral category of error wasn't an option. Fonda didn't care about the geoplotical advantages that the U.S. might eke out if victory proved more affordable. You can't justify aggression on pragmatic grounds. The U.S. deserved to lose and the Vietnamese deserved to win. If one believes and says that, you hardly need your snapshot taken in Hanoi to merit the charge of promtoing Vietnamese propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great paragraph! I agree with it 100%.

I opposed the Vietnam War on principled grounds as well. I didn't buy the humanitarian arguments and I didn't buy the anti-communist arguments.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
How's the rhetorical-question-instead-of-argument working out?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt rhetorical, it had a point which you chose to ignore even though I am sure you knew what I was getting at. The North Vietnamese were not the happy go lucky peasants as you and those of your ilk try to portray. They were a movement made up of brutal men who had ambitions of power. And they proved it after the fall of Saigon. And that right there is reason enough why the NV didnt deserve to win.

I felt like writing more but Ill just wrap up quickly. I think your anything goes attitude towards protest to be quite ironic and when I spoke of demoralization, I referring mostly to the POWs and I have to wonder what you think about the treatment that they received.

The bottom line is that Jane Fonda provided aid and comfort to the the enemy. That is the very definition of treason. Its against the law of the United States.

[Dead]

Perhaps Fonda thought that she was doing the moral thing by seeking to sabotage the US mission in Vietnam(if that's what you believe she was doing). Maybe she thought that she was obeying the laws of God by assisting the North Vietnamese, and not the laws of man.

[andyfox]

Not you, sir. In general.

[Chris Alger]

1. The U.S. policy of precluding Vietnamese self determination:
"It is U.S. policy to maintain a friendly non-Communist Free Vietnam: to assist Free Vietnam to maintain (a) military forces necessary for internal security, and (b) economic conditions conducive to the maintenance of the strength of the non-Communist regime; and to prevent a Communist victory through all-Vietnam elections." Draft Statement and National Security Council Staff Study on U.S. Policy on All-Vietnam Elections, General Considerations 1, May 17, 1955

2. The human cost (civilian only) of keeping Vietnam divided
"Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged." Vietnam War Casualties (http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/)

[ QUOTE ]
The North Vietnamese were not the happy go lucky peasants as you and those of your ilk try to portray. They were a movement made up of brutal men who had ambitions of power. And they proved it after the fall of Saigon. And that right there is reason enough why the NV didnt deserve to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Happy-go-lucky?"
Now try an argument: exactly what did the "North Vietnamese" do after unifying Vietnam that justified the U.S. means of keeping it divided?

[ QUOTE ]
I have to wonder what you think about the treatment that they received.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was awful, but nothing compared to the treatment they dished out. After all, who do you think created the lion's share of civilian casualties in North Vietnam, where no major U.S. ground force ever ventured?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Fonda thought that she was doing the moral thing by seeking to sabotage the US mission in Vietnam(if that's what you believe she was doing).

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't matter. She's still a traitor. Giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" doesn't require that you think what you're doing is immoral. So regardless of your feelings on the justness of the Vietnam War, the nation was still at war and the laws against treason still apply.

[Dead]

It may be treason, technically, but I don't see anything really wrong with it.

And her workout videos are +EV.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be treason, technically, but I don't see anything really wrong with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you don't see anything wrong with treasonous activity... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I am glad that people have gotten off of the "well other people did worse things, so let's leave Hanoi Jane alone..." strawman.

[Dead]

BCPVP, your problem is that you don't see how protesting an unjust war is not necessarily treason, and how this applies to Jane Fonda. I won't use the term Hanoi Jane because I think that it is an obvious pejorative.

Let's say that the US decided that it didn't like Canada anymore, and decided to invade it.

If I then went to Canada, and helped the Canadian govt gain information from United States POWs, would that mean I had committed treason? Maybe so, but if my goals were to have the United States be defeated in this endeavor, and to save Canada, then I would say that I had just tried to accomplish said goals, and to do what was right.

Jane Fonda viewed the imperialistic US atrocities in Vietnam as evils, and she probably wanted to stop them in any way she could. You can't do much to stop it by typing about it on a computer, or going out in the streets and protesting. Sometimes, more severe action is required.

[Chris Alger]

I think his point is that you can't be taken seriously: under your (apparent) definition, all forms of war protest are crimes if "the enemy" takes comfort or exploits them, a definition of treason that no U.S. Supreme Court ever has or, barring a total Republican takeover, ever will accept. You sound like one of those cranks who insists the income tax is unconstitutional.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP, your problem is that you don't see how protesting an unjust war is not necessarily treason, and how this applies to Jane Fonda.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this is not my problem. She may have thought what she was doing was protesting, but that isn't the point. The point is that she crossed the line between protesting and treason. The nobility of her intentions are up for debate, but whether she legally committed treason is not. Treason is treason, regardless of intentions.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say that the US decided that it didn't like Canada anymore, and decided to invade it.

If I then went to Canada, and helped the Canadian govt gain information from United States POWs, would that mean I had committed treason? Maybe so, but if my goals were to have the United States be defeated in this endeavor, and to save Canada, then I would say that I had just tried to accomplish said goals, and to do what was right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your "goals" are irrelevant. How just you view the war is irrelevant. Who we attack is irrelevant. You have, by definition, committed treason and that is that. If you don't want to be charged with treason, you better hope that Canada wins and crushes the U.S. and that you never return there.

[ QUOTE ]
Jane Fonda viewed the imperialistic US atrocities in Vietnam as evils, and she probably wanted to stop them in anyway she could. You can't do much to stop it by typing about it on a computer, or going out in the streets and protesting. Sometimes, more severe action is required.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is irrelevant. If you can't protest without helping the enemy than expect consequences. It's that simple.

[jokerswild]

more so than Jane Fonda.