Posted on 10/30/2001 10:05:08 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
"AID AND COMFORT":
JANE FONDA IN NORTH VIETNAM McFarland & Co. is now accepting pre-publication orders for
"Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda in North Vietnam.
Please visit www.hanoijane.net to view a flyer containing information about the book, a pre-publication order form, and ordering information. I encourage those of you who want this book to succeed to promptly forward this notice to your email lists, and to ask the recipients to promptly forward it to others, and so on down the line. Also, feel free to print, copy, and distribute the flyer/order form, and ask libraries to purchase "Aid and Comfort." I cannot stress enough the importance of pre-publication orders. For one thing, they will affect the quantity of the book's first printing. For another, pre-publication orders may influence the publisher's promotional and related efforts on behalf of the book. Thus, it will be very helpful if those of you who intend to purchase "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda in North Vietnam order it now, and encourage others to do so. Thanks. HANK AND ERIKA HOLZER
A member of the New York Bar and a First Amendment Fellow of the National Press Club, Henry Mark Holzer is professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School and co-author of “AID AND COMFORT”: JANE FONDA IN NORTH VIET NAM. Erika Holzer, author most recently of EYE FOR AN EYE and co-author of “AID AND COMFORT”, is a lawyer, novelist, and essayist. They may be contacted at Hankholzer@aol.com.
Jane Fonda is at it again.
Nearly thirty years ago, she went to North Viet Nam and aided a Communist anti-American propaganda campaign. (See www.hanoijane.net) Now, in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, she is once again undermining the United States — this time, by blurring a crucially important distinction.
On September 20th, Fonda reportedly told an Atlanta radio station that Americans should “try to understand the underlying causes” of the terrorist attacks which, in her view, must “be dealt with as a crime. And when there’s a crime, you don’t bomb a city or a country — you use very, very clever intelligence, undercover-type operations to get the criminals and punish them. . . .” It would be a mistake, she opined, for America to retaliate militarily.
Put aside that Fonda characterized American response as “saber rattling” and “calls for vengeance.” Put aside her implication that the “underlying causes” of the attacks were poverty and hunger rather than hatred for Western values and culture. Put aside that Fonda knows nothing about intelligence operations. What Fonda is saying is that the terrorists are not soldiers to be attacked militarily, but mere criminals.
There is a profoundly important distinction to be made between an act of war and the commission of a criminal act. Indeed, that Fonda blurred this distinction is far less important than why she did.
President Bush has consistently characterized the terrorism as an act of war against the United States. By any customary definition of “war,” he is correct. War is armed military combat, regardless of whether the combatants have issued an official declaration (which, incidentally, the terrorists have done). Let Fonda tell the dead, the missing, the wounded veterans from Korea, that they were not at war with the North Koreans and Chinese Communists. Let her tell the mourners at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall that their loved ones were not at war with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. And let her tell the dead beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center that they were not killed in a radical Islamic “holy war.”
Declared or not, a war exists when armed belligerents mount an attack — as in killing stewardesses and pilots, hijacking aircraft, and crashing them into buildings filled with thousands of people.
A “crime” is very different. It is a violation of domestic law punishable by fine and/or imprisonment and sometimes death. It is prosecuted in court, and the proceedings are hedged with constitutional and other safeguards — notably, due process of law, non-self incrimination, search warrants supported by probable cause, etc.
It is this important distinction between a state of war and the commission of a crime that is being blurred by Fonda and likeminded Leftists. If the terrorist killings are not treated as acts of war but rather as the commission of mere domestic crimes, the terrorists would be entitled to the safeguards ensured by our criminal justice system — with the outcome as uncertain as O. J. Simpson’s trial for the brutal murder of two people. On the other hand, if the attacks on American soil are considered acts of war, military response, unhampered by the safeguards afforded criminals, is necessary and justified.
Based on this war/crime dichotomy, the radical Islamic terrorists would stand a far better chance in our criminal justice system than on the receiving end of the military’s smart bombs and special forces operations. That is what Fonda and people of her ilk want: an escape hatch for the terrorists. And that is why, when she equates the killing of thousands of Americans by the soldiers of radical Islam with the domestic crime of murder, and when she rails against a military response to an act of war waged against the United States of America, Jane Fonda stands exposed as being soft on terrorists.
The picture on the cover of the book reminds me of Herbert W. Armstrong's old TV show, "The World Tomorrow," which always opened with a montage of films showing the old boy shaking hands with world leaders. They seem to be asking: "So, you President USA? No? Uhh...you Vice-President USA? No? Yooouuuuu Senator of USA congress? No? HHmmmm...who you are???"
Fonda won't do much good for the Taleban either.
It's not. The reality is she's just as paralyzingly stupid as Barbra Streisand.
My favorite movie of hers is "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" Not because I enjoyed the film, but because she takes a round in the head at the end of it.
I do not have to understand my enemy to kill him, just his tactics.
Eaker
Eaker
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Somewhere down the line these animals decide how they want to make their mark - coming up with a justification comes pretty easy after that.
Listen to someone who's been in prison when they get busted again - not their fault.
Listen to someone like the unibomber - the 'reasons' don't even have to make sense.
Listen to the rationale that follows OJ Simpson or Rodney King, Mike Tyson, or Jane Fonda - no two alike but all quite justified in their minds and in the minds of the underground that defends them.
If they really wanted understanding they'd be explaining why they are such loons.
A bump to the crystal clear logic stated before - understand the Taliban, Bin Laden, et al just well enough to kill them because that's all they'd offer any of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.