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!philabs!seismo!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxw!pector
From: pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Jackson and the Democrats
Message-ID: <658@ihuxw.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 21:17:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.658
Posted: Tue Jan 10 21:17:56 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 08:21:06 EST
References: <825@ihuxl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 54

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 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.  I don't have problems
with people writing letters to the US government, or even traveling to other 
governments.  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.  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.  The former occurred, in my opinion, when the US 
government (apparently) reluctantly let Jackson go on his mission.  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.

A second concern, to me, is that Jackson is not just a private citizen;
he's a Presidential candidate.  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.
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).  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.

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