Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!houxu!welsch
From: welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: More on J. Jackson
Message-ID: <272@houxu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Jan-84 10:46:20 EST
Article-I.D.: houxu.272
Posted: Sun Jan  8 10:46:20 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Jan-84 04:40:25 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 65

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