Treason,

Post #104,353 by Ashton 6/1/03 4:32:28 AM Reply	Treason, like history, is defined by the more powerful / the 'winner' of the moment. I don't know how (given the tenets of Nuremburg) one separates individual performance of illegal orders with.. the illegal orders. Maybe (even today re 1972 events) analysis is mostly one form or another of the problem expressed, The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism" via mmoffitt Next to all flavours of religiosity - surely Patriotism (and it's polar mate, Treason) is second in the slathering-on of conformity with the mob - at risk of stoning, literal or worse. Ashton
Post #104,359 by jbrabeck 6/1/03 9:09:42 AM Reply	Points taken I agree with most of what you stated. Kill the prisoners - illegal order. Doing so would be illegal act. Kill all the civilians - illegal order. Doing so would be illegal act. Attack that village, where resistance originated - legal. Intentional killing non-combatants during or after would be illegal. Invade Iraq 'cuz I don't like Saddam, illegal order. Top commanders should have resisted. Once that order gets down to grunts, it's no longer up to them to refuse. Now it's politics. Can't really speak to the Air Force. However, using '70s technology, drop bombs at this location would be a wide area. Deliberately targeting a non-combatant building (on one without military significance) may be illegal. Don't know. Everyone, even Jane Fonda, has the right to resist and oppose what is perceived as wrong. No disagreement there. Treason? Nah, Dubya has committed more acts of treason. What is/was "wrong" "inflammatory" with her remarks is/was the attack on the individual soldiers. They were obeying their legal orders, they suffered and died. And she dissed them. Her statements contributed to public sentiment that the soldiers were wrong and should be vilified. That stigma is still strong today. Most Vietnam vets are wary of identifing themselves as such. Our troops were not Nazi SS deliberately killing civilians. Yes, there are documented cases of such things occurring, but those were the anomalies. Fonda's actions were a disservice to the troops fighting. Restore honor and dignity to the US. Impeach Bush, NOW!
Post #104,735 by Ashton 6/4/03 2:00:01 AM Reply	Agreed, then. One of the crass stupidities of the Vietnam era was precisely this opprobrium against mere pawns in the larger ugly political scam -- and the mania of [Again!!] One Man at the top + a hierarchical system for power dispensation - fostering the kind of corruption seen livid in '03. It's a small excuse that - Vietnam was the first blatant example of such a travesty.. to continue, even enhanced, for many years. By the end, even in their splendid isolation sans battlefied cel-fones: one has to presume that Something of public unrest + reasons for same did reach these troops. But at first, excesses were inevitable - people, mostly young ones + the few; the older wiser who saw the scam, had to improvise. Callow youth, yet not so callow as the sheep they meant to wean from the flock IMhO. Public presure was ignored then resisted by the same mindless propaganda slogans as the farRight puts out -unmodified- today. And many believe, also today - "Hey We Coulda WON That!" - (whatever the fuck that might actually mean). No idea how 'we' will get out of the monentum that Rove has successfully built - against all Reason. There must be a critical mass of insouciant marlowes: only that could explain the present (and loaded) "polls" being believed. I have no idea, as each day brings the threat of a next escalation into Empire-space. Pshaw. Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!