welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (01/08/84)
x In response to an article I wrote Scott Pector asked the question Do the ends justify the means? and answered it with Sometimes, if the ends can be guaranteed. I disagree with this as a general statement of truth. Sometimes, they do and sometimes they don't. For example, everyone wants peace on earth. Now, I have a sure fire means of guaranteeing peace. Just make me president and there won't be another war for 10000 years. I guarantee it. Simple, I will just order an all out preemptive attack on every country on earth. Believe me there will be peace! Lets look at Jackson's ends and means. The only method or means Jackson had available was speech. What is so awful about speech? Freedom of speech is a first amendment right. Is Mr. Pector suggesting that private U.S. citizens don't have the right to speak to foreign leaders. Perhaps Mr. Pector has forgotten that during the Carter administration Nixon traveled to China to talk to their leaders. If it is wrong for a presidential candidate to talk to foreign leaders it is worse for a "pardoned ex-president" to talk to to foreign leaders. There was nothing wrong with Jackson's means. He did not violate any law or make any commitments for the U.S. As for Jackson's ends, well he freed the flier and more importantly he got Reagan and Assad communicating with each other. Pretty impressive for someone with such limited means. Yes, the ends justify the means in this case. Another statement of Scott's was: Would you justify some lunatic going in and shooting up Assad and his buddies, freeing the serviceman, and doing whatever else he could do? (Somehow I get the feeling that someone is going to accuse Reagan of planning or being capable of doing this given Grenada!) Scott does not recall how the present regime in Chile came to power. A certain infamous secretary of state along with the CIA organized a military coup in which Allende, Chile's duly elected leader was machine gunned to death. Following the coup was a blood bath. Those of you who don't recall should see the documentary movie "Missing." Those people who remember the early sixties will recall that the CIA urged the generals of Vietnam to depose and murder Diem, granted a dictator who had outlived his usefulness, but my point is the U.S. has a history of arranging for the assassination of leaders who the U.S. doesn't care for. I don't need Grenada to believe Reagan is capable of planning assassination or overthrow of governments. Grenada, by the way is a place where the ends did not justify the means. The means was an invasion of a foreign country. The ends was to get rid of an unpopular leader who the U.S. didn't like and more importantly to provide the U.S. with a military victory to raise spirits both within the armed services and the civilian population. Some final comments. Jackson did not usurp anyone's prerogatives. He made no promises. He negotiated with nothing to offer. Might haves at this point are unimportant. Larry Welsch ihnp4!houxu!welsch
pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) (01/10/84)
Larry, I don't think you really addressed my point in my response to you. Does a private citizen have the right to interfere directly in on-going actions between our government and others? Should that individual be that closely involved, given that person is a US citizen but is not authorized by the US government to act in such affairs? I think you might be saying that these questions are irrelevant since it is not against the law to do what Jackson did. If this is so, I guess my first sentence here does not apply. My point is that if someone believes they can accomplish something in this situation, that is NOT reason enough for them to go out and try to do so! This is so for two reasons. First, they are risking others' lives or property or whatever if things do not go as they hope. Second, if just anyone can go off and do this, will their methods always be as successful and safe. Many people have many different ideas of how to get things done. Some people are crazy, too. In this case, Jackson was successful. In fact, maybe the US government wanted him to go in the way he did in order to provide an outlet for getting Goodman released. It doesn't sound that way in the news, but I suppose it's possible. I just don't think it was right for Jackson to do what he did without US government sanction or approval. Why was Jackson allowed to go then? After all, the US government could have stopped him. I believe the US government let him go for several reasons. One is political: how would it look to have Jackson or other candidates crying how Reagan prevents well-meaning men and women from trying to peacefully free a prisoner. I think it would have been a bad ploy on Reagan's part to stop Jackson, particularly as there was no law to prevent Jackson from going. Another reason is possibly the one I suggested earlier: it gives the US government and the Syrians more options particularly since Jackson has seen them before. (I think this is unlikely, but after seeing the "Crisis Game" on Nightline, it is feasible.) Yet another reason is that the US government was caught unprepared by Jackson and didn't really know quite what to do, and so did the thing that it thought would have the least amount of harm. I suppose there are more possible reasons, but I will stop here. A question for further thought: If you or I tried to do what Jackson did, do you think that we should have been allowed to do so? Why or why not? Last question: who is paying for Jackson's stay in Syria? (this includes airfare, meals, hotels, phone bills, etc.) Scott Pector
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/10/84)
#R:houxu:-27200:inmet:7800047:000:901 inmet!nrh Jan 9 21:21:00 1984 ***** inmet:net.politics / houxu!welsch / 10:46 am Jan 8, 1984 Lets look at Jackson's ends and means. The only method or means Jackson had available was speech. What is so awful about speech? Freedom of speech is a first amendment right. Is Mr. Pector suggesting that private U.S. citizens don't have the right to speak to foreign leaders. There was nothing wrong with Jackson's means. He did not violate any law or make any commitments for the U.S. I believe you are incorrect. After Jackson's return, there was speculation in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (a newspaper) that Jackson had violated the Logan act, which makes it a crime for private citizens to treat with foreign governments. You are not as free as you think you are..... P.S. I'm against the Logan act, but Congress should not be able to pass laws like it without the law's BAD effects being noisily pointed out.
andrew@inmet.UUCP (01/12/84)
#R:houxu:-27200:inmet:7800048:000:61 inmet!andrew Jan 10 07:02:00 1984 Jackson violated the Logan Act? Tell it to Henry Kissinger!