Treason = Protestors' Actions

“I am a former anti-war activist who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962. I appeal to all those young people who participated in "anti-war" demonstrations on 150 college campuses this week, to think again and not to join an "anti-war" effort against America?s coming battle with international terrorism.


The hindsight of history has shown that our efforts in the 1960s to end the war in Vietnam had two practical effects. The first was to prolong the war itself. Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the anti-war activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists.

The second effect of the war was to surrender South Vietnam to the forces of Communism. This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "re-education camps" of hundreds of thousands more, and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the so-called anti-war movement of the 1960s.

I say "so-called anti-war movement," because while many Americans were sincerely troubled by America?s war effort, the organizers of this movement were Marxists and radicals who supported a Communist victory and an American defeat. Today the same people and their youthful followers are organizing the campus demonstrations against America?s effort to defend its citizens against the forces of international terrorism and anti-American hatred, responsible for the September attacks.

I know, better than most, the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the right of citizens to dissent. But I also know better than most, that there is a difference between honest dissent and malevolent hate, between criticism of national policy, and sabotage of the nation?s defenses. In the 1960s and 1970s, the tolerance of anti-American hatreds was so high, that the line between dissent and treason was eventually erased. Along with thousands of other New Leftists, I was one who crossed the line between dissent and actual treason. (I have written an account of these matters in my autobiography, Radical Son). I did so for what I thought were the noblest of reasons: to advance the cause of "social justice" and "peace." I have lived to see how wrong I was and how much damage we did ? especially to those whose cause we claimed to embrace, the peasants of Indo-China who suffered grievously from our support for the Communist enemy. I came to see how precious are the freedoms and opportunities afforded by America to the poorest and most humble of its citizens, and how rare its virtues are in the world at large.

If I have one regret from my radical years, it is that this country was too tolerant towards the treason of its enemies within. If patriotic Americans had been more vigilant in the defense of their country, if they had called things by their right names, if they had confronted us with the seriousness of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of those of us who were well-meaning but utterly misguided. And they might have stopped us in our tracks.

This appeal is for those of you who are out there today attacking your country, full of your own self-righteousness, but who one day might also live to regret what you have done.”

“you are older than my dad!”

“---David Horowitz is editor-in-chief of FrontPageMagazine.com and president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. He also appears frequently on the Fox News Channel.”

“AHHH!!!”

“"The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right."
Thoreau”

“All of the defendants at Nuremberg were good patriots. None aspired to be monsters.

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- Abraham Lincoln


Please understand that I approve of every step that the President has made publicly since this crisis started. Don't expect people who disagree to shut up or ship out. Dissent is not only our right, it's a moral duty when one perceives wrong is being committed in our name.”

“"Dissent is not only our right, it's a moral duty when one perceives wrong is being committed in our name."

And what wrong would that be??? Self Defense???”

“Interesting account.

Treason is defined as, "Aiding and abetting the enemy." In the 60's we failed to call the Viet Cong our enemy because it wasn't a declared war. There was a lot of treason going on (e.g., Jane Fonda in Hanoi), but we ignored it.

Note: there were a lot of people criticising the Viet Nam war on a number of bases, but not all of it was treasonous.

The media makes a big difference also. I don't think anything has changed there. They will make a big deal out of even the smallest protest.”

“I knew BB didn't pen that! It made sense.

Well said by Violin above.”

“I am a former boozer and marijuana user who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against mental lucidity at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962. I appeal to all those young people who participated in "just say no" demonstrations on 150 college campuses this week, to think again and not to join an "anti-drug" effort against America?s vast majority of chemically-challenged citizens. Hell, what kind of college experience would it be if there were no readily available booze and drugs? Huh? Ya may as well not go to college! PAR-TAY!!!!”

“Yeah, revisionist history is so much fun!

What about the traitors who faked the Gulf of Tonkin Incedent in order to get America involved.

Then there were the traitors in the U.S. State Dept who "allowed" the French(along with 10,000+ former SS Infantry....combat junkies....as part of their Foreign Legion) back to Vietnam in 1945.
They betrayed Ho Chi Minh and his nationalists(Viet Minh) saying they were "unfit to govern themselves".”

“Oh Tom, you make it all sound so sweet. They betrayed dear old Uncle Ho (Despot) and his nationalists (Commie thugs) who were only trying to unify with their brothers in the South (through force).”

“BaSO4 -

I never said we shouldn't defend ourselves. In fact, I've argued that we have to. I try to be clear in what I post. I'm sorry if you don't understand.”

“BaSO4-
There was nothing sweet about any of it.
It wasn't up to America to decide the destiny of those people.
And in the long run they had their way anyhow.
1945 to 1975 could well have been written off.
Those people fought foreign domination from 1862 to 1975.
Just to mention the modern era.
What a waste is was to support colonialism!
Their "brothers in the south" were traitors and collaborators with the colonial powers.”

“Also remember Vietnam requested American assistance in 1920 to oust the French colonialism. We refused because the French were our allies.”

“I don't think that political protest against the appropriateness of using military force is ever treasonous, even during time of declared war. The First Amendment guarantees the right of unfettered political protest.”

“All generalizations are false.”

“...including this one.”

“David Whorowitz' piece needs a little context. Back in the '60s and early '70s, Whorowitz was a hardline Marxist who hung out with the most extreme and dubious factions in the left, including the Black Panthers. In the '80s, while on the road to his own private Damascus, he converted to neoconservatism. Now, he's a professional ex-leftist who derives his (substantial) income from bashing everything he stood for way back when. (In truth, he hasn't really changed at all; he went from a simplistic Manichaean worldview of the left to a simplistic Manichaean worldview of the right.)

An essential part of his schtick is taking what he saw working with the most doctrinaire and violent '60s radicals and applying it to everyone to the left of Lyndon Johnson. It's as if some militia member, years from now, did an about face and made a career out of applying his experience on the lunatic fringe to all conservatives.”

“There were a lot of Marxists and proponents of violent overthrow of the government in the sixties and late seventies. Even out here in the sticks, we came across people using the police action in Viet Nam to further their "leftist" agenda.
However, there were many more who were protesting the "war" because of other reasons. 1. The US was upholding a corrupt regime in the South.
2. There was no clear military objective in Viet Nam. Talk to the guys in the field about this.
3.Viet Nam, as much as any other country, has a right to self-determination. Study some of Ho Chi Minh's writings. I think the US helped create some real thugs in the Viet Cong.
4. The "domino theory" which helped get us into the "war" did not hold water.
Etc.”

“And....I hear many, if not most, of the "peace" demonstrators calling for a reasoned and just approach to dealing with the terrorists. Many of them are of the opinion that we should try to improve the lives of the ordinary Afghani, thereby giving them more reason to help in the war on terrorism. The demonstrators are trying to point out that there are many good and innocent people in Afghanistan who, like people around the world, want an ordinary and peaceful life.”

“Good job there Dunadan. That is the most articulate way of saying what I support. I wish I'd have thought of stating it in such a way. Rad, that was too funny at the top. Buddha is older than my dad too. Buddha, treason? Now let's be a little more reasonable in defining treason. You are cutting a very wide swath out of freedom of speech I'd say.”

“If the enemy is "Terrorism", isn't the USA commiting treason. The USA is after all aiding and supporting terrorist state Israel. I keep saying, if you support terrorists (Israel), then you derserve what you get.”

“......and supporting terror attacks on civilians in Columbia.”

“................. and taxing my pay check.”