Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp
From: pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Jackson and the Democrats
Message-ID: <825@ihuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 13:54:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.825
Posted: Tue Jan 10 13:54:53 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 05:02:05 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 31

---------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector)
>
>The actual hypothetical instance was not important.  The point was that
>Jackson took a big responsibility into his hands and I disagreed with
>his method.  That responsibility was that of the US government alone,
>not some PRIVATE individual, particularly a presidential candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid I don't quite understand that last sentence. It appears
that you are saying that US citizens do not have the right to appeal
to the leaders of other nations to act in a humanitarian manner.
Is this a new law? Does this mean that US citizens can no longer
write Yuri Andropov letters asking him to release Soviet Jews,
or to stop building nuclear weapons? Is Samantha going to be arrested
for traveling to Russia and talking to him? Did Nixon break the law
when he traveled to China while a presidential candidate?

Or is it just presidential candidates that aren't supposed to talk
to foreign leaders? "Mrs. Thatcher on the phone? Tell her that I
can't talk to her now - I'm running for president. Take her number
and tell her that I'll call her back after the election."

The entire argument, of course, that Jackson should not have
gone to Syria is ludicrous. I realize that a lot of people
resent anyone who exercises the right of free speech, but
I don't think that the bill of rights has been repealed yet.

		Phil Polli
		ihuxl!pvp