Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxw.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxw!pector
From: pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: More on J. Jackson
Message-ID: <656@ihuxw.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jan-84 21:05:09 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.656
Posted: Mon Jan  9 21:05:09 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 03:26:35 EST
References: <272@houxu.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 46

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