pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (01/11/84)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Phil Polli, > >I think that you are taking my statement out of context. As you have >shown it, it is a brief statement. But there were other clauses and >sentences that went with it. Unfortunately, it probably was not well- >stated. So, here goes one more effort: I thought that demolishing your main argument against the trip (that it was wrong) was sufficient, but since you want a response to everything you say, I will answer your argument in its entirety. >I guess the issue (at least for me) is becoming when is it acceptable >for someone to go without solid approval from the US government to negotiate >some issue (here, the release of a prisoner) directly related (here, as a >consequence) to a set of disagreements (over people, land, ideas, etc.) >with another government. By solid approval, I mean prior acceptance by Con- >gress and/or the President and/or their representatives. Whew! What a mouthful! Here goes: 1) What do you mean by "acceptable"? There are a lot of things that people do that other people find unacceptable. If you are trying to say that our government should have prevented him from performing this unacceptable act, then you are advocating a totalitarianism that *I* find unacceptable. If you mean that you personally can't stand him, and are trying to convince other people that what he did was stupid, dumb, or immoral, then you're entitled to your opinion, such as it is. 2) There have been many cases where what the Congress approves is not what the President wants, is not what the Supreme Court finds acceptable under our Constitution. How does a person go about getting prior acceptance from the government to do something like this? Did you want him to get a resolution passed by Congress? Does he need a simple majority vote or a two-thirds majority? Does the President have veto power? Again, you seem to be advocating that people in the U.S. must obtain prior government approval of their actions. That is why I am reacting like this. I don't want my freedom taken away from me here like it is in other countries! 3) You keep using the term negotiate. Jackson was not able to commit the United States to do anything. That fact was well known. All he could do was try to convince Assad that it was in the best interests of Syria to release the pilot. I fail to understand the difference between what Jackson did, and writing letters to Andropov to release Soviet Jews. > I don't have problems >with people writing letters to the US government, or even traveling to other >governments. Then why are you protesting Jacksons trip so much? > If such efforts convince the opposing government to do >something "nice" or "good," and to do it through negotiations or steps >with the US government, then so much the better. Didn't it? > But I have a problem >when such efforts are not at any time coordinated with US government actions, >i.e., when such efforts are not voluntarily accounted for as a policy option >by the US government, and when such efforts produce the desired result which >is executed through a third party without US government approval, partici- >pation, or concurrence. I simply cannot relate this statement in any manner whatsoever to a free and democratic society. Are you sure you are in the right country? How big a step is it from this position to putting people who disagree with the government in jail, or in insane asylums? Or are you saying that people who disagree with the government only have the right to *talk* about it, but not to take any action? I'm sorry to have to disappoint you. It happens to be a feature of a democratic society that people do not have to get approval from the government to do what they think is right. The civil disobedience paracticed by the Civil Rights movement is probably a prime example of that restriction on our government. The rednecks were able to arrest the blacks after the fact, but they couldn't put them in jail beforehand to prevent it. And you might remember that a lot of people were upset over the sitins and boycotts, and thought that it was a shame that they couldn't throw those troublemakers in prison. > The former occurred, in my opinion, when the US >government (apparently) reluctantly let Jackson go on his mission. You seem upset that our government had to *let* Jackson go. Perhaps you would like to pass some laws that would have given Reagan the power to prevent him? Try looking at the Soviet legal system. I'm sure you can get all sorts of good ideas for new laws there. Of course, first you'll have to repeal the Bill of Rights. > As I said >in my last article, it is possible that Reagan wasn't reluctant privately, >but it doesn't sound that way from the news. The latter occurred when >the Syrians agreed to release Goodman without US government negotiators >participating and more or less in the custody of Jackson. (I think I've >descibed this correctly, but I may well be mistaken on this: correct me >if I'm in error about this detail.) To be more specific, when Goodman >was released directly to Jackson, it appears (at least to me) that it was >also done as a jab at the US government, at least as far as the manner in >which it was done. Of course it was a jab at the U.S. government by Assad. Of course he did it for propaganda value. Of course he did it to enhance his public image in the United States. The last time I looked in the paper, lots of other people and countries were doing the same things. Israel, for example, spends lots of money enhancing its image in the U.S. Mobil Oil spends lots of money in newspapers taking jabs at the U.S. government. Lots of people on netnews take jabs at the U.S. government. Again, if you don't like to hear your government being criticized, you're living in the wrong country. Why don't you try the Phillipines? I hear they exile critics of the government, and shoot them if they try to return. Why is it so important to you that U.S. negotiators be involved in the release? Would you prefer that Goodman still be in Syria if Rumsfeld couldn't get him out? >A second concern, to me, is that Jackson is not just a private citizen; >he's a Presidential candidate. I'm sorry to hear that you're concerned that he's a presidential candidate. Should we pass a law against that too? > By going over to Syria to negotiate as >a third party without US government support, he leaves himself open to >the charge of whether he used his candidacy as a means to free Goodman. Please elaborate. How does one use a candidacy? Why is it wrong? Don't people *use* candidacies for lots of reasons? What are the right ways and wrong ways to *use* a candidacy? Which of them would you like to ban? >No one knows entirely what was said and no one ever will. He may not >have used his candidacy, but unfortunately he still has left himself >open to this charge. Further, it is not entirely clear whether his >actions will have an entirely beneficial affect on Reagan's dealings >with the Syrians (although there are some benefits). I wasn't aware that the only actions that people should take are those that would benefit Reagan. There happen to be a lot of people who think that Reagan's dealings with the Syrians are not what they should be. In a free country people are entitled to take actions according to their own conscience, regardless of whether or not it helps the administration in power, as long as those acts are not illegal. And even if the action is illegal, our government does not have the right of prior restraint. Nobody ever said that being the president of the U.S. was an easy job. > Not everyone agrees >with Reagan's approaches, but I don't think that it is right to have >someone go in and experiment with another approach in this situation without >concurrence by the US government. As you might have guessed by now, I disagree violently with this statement. The underlying strength of our country is the freedom of its citizens to act according to their conscience, without prior approval of the government. If that upsets you, too bad. I intend to exercise my rights, and defend others who do the same. >Hopefully, this letter is clearer in expressing my thoughts on this matter. >I would like to emphasize that I don't think what Jackson did was illegal; >rather, I think the way it happened is wrong. Bear in mind, Phil, I don't >want to stifle freedom of speech or letter writing or even the use of the >Net to help the world towards peace; I just think that actions need to be >coordinated since we all can't play President at the same time. :-) > > Scott Pector Ask the Soviet Union about coordinating the actions of their citizens. I understand that they have had a lot of experience at it. Phil Polli ihuxl!pvp