Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxw.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxw!pector
From: pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: RE: Run Jackson Run
Message-ID: <652@ihuxw.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 20:53:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.652
Posted: Thu Jan  5 20:53:54 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jan-84 01:22:18 EST
References: <268@houxu.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 63

This is a response (and somewhat of a rebuttal) to Larry Welsch's
response to my article on Jessie and some other people's articles.

I agree with both Ken Perlow and Larry that all candidates are
political and do things that serve their own interests (although sometimes
these things have good consequences for others and sometimes the 
politicos do something primarily for its inherent goodness with personal
gains being a secondary consideration).  I guess Larry is saying that
whatever Jackson's morals in the matter were is, in fact, irrelevant.
Good things that can be done should be done if the doer is responsible
and thinks he or she will be acceptable.  (Larry, I hope that this is
what you meant, because your words lend themselves to that interpretation.
I believe you made some comment that you didn't care what JJ's motivations
were, since the serviceman was saved among other good consequences.)

Ignoring the parentheticals for the moment, believe that the last sentence
is kind of silly (rather the idea expressed in it) and it reminds of an
ongoing discussion on the net about the mythical good ruler and power.
Do the ends justify the means?  Sometimes, if the ends can be guaranteed.
Could Jackson do so?  NO!  Was there any danger in his attempt?  Some;
that is some that would not be likely, yet not entirely unlikely.  Larry,
what if Syria decided to put the crewman in worse conditions as a slap in
the face to the US in response to Jackson's overtures?  It would have 
been a good way for them to show how little they care for Reagan's 
thunderings and for the American people since the Syrians have that
wonderful 20-year pact with the USSR.  Larry, what would you be saying
then?

A point that I'd like to make is that I don't think it is a good idea
for people not in the US government and designated by the President or
Congress to step in and usurp the roles of US negotiators.  The 
responsibility for the success or failure or inbetween of the efforts
belongs to the US Government.  They were elected, you know!  For a
constituency that does not represent our government to try to do its
job in international situations is a dangerous precedent.  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!)  People have many ways of
expressing their discontent with government policies and actions, as
stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Let them use these
approaches.

How can one begin to consider usurping governmental prerogative in
international affairs?  Further, how can one, if they do so, justify
their means?  Some people would use violence, some would use diplomacy,
others ....  Many disagree with Reagan, but he's an elected official
and there are legal ways of dealing with him.  If, however, these ways
aren't successful, does that mean usurping his government's role in such
affairs is right?  How do you know that you are right?  In the end,
the government has been elected by the people and their decisions have
to be accepted.  Now, people disagree and try to convince them otherwise,
but whatever is decided can't be changed much until it is decided 
differently later (if ever).  That just seems to be the way our political
system works.

Well, I think I'm spewing too much and going off the track; so, why don't
I cut it here and say that it is not a matter of racism that I disagree
with Jackson's action.  Instead, it's that he usurped authority and 
became his own government in international affairs.  This is what worries
me.

						Scott Pector