| 
  
  
    
      |  THE 
VigilanceVoice   
 Dec. 13, 
      Thursday, Ground Zero Plus 93IS JOHN WALKER 
      REALLY
 JANE FONDA IN DRAG?
 
        
        
          
                        |   |   |  
            | John Walker 2001  
            With Taliban                      | Jane Fonda, 1972 
            With Viet Cong |  
                    History is a circle.   It 
        constantly repeats itself, or so I thought with a smirk when I saw the 
        pictures of John Walker, the American expatriate who fought for the 
        Taliban until he was captured and discovered by the CIA.After training in an al-Qaeda camp, Walker became a Taliban 
        fighter.   In other non-politically correct words, a traitor.
 
          
            |  |  
            | Walker Captured |  
                      He used arms against the 
        United States.  His intent was to kill Americans.  He wore the enemy's 
        uniform.  He vowed to fight the "infidels."   But no one saw a bullet of 
        his kill an American.  And the president of the United States called him 
        a "poor fellow."While the news was carving into John Walker’s background to 
        dissect his reasons for becoming a member of the “evil ones,” I 
        was launched back 35 years ago to Vietnam where a young, brash, 
        news-hungry woman named Jane Fonda climbed up on anti-aircraft guns and 
        allegedly shot at American B-52’s on bombing runs over North Vietnam.  
        No one saw her "bullets" fly either.  But the world saw her taking aim 
        at America's heart.
 Jane Fonda was my John Walker.
 Back then, when American Marines, airmen, soldiers and 
        sailors were dying by the thousands and more being wounded daily, Fonda 
        danced into the spotlight by visiting North Vietnam and denouncing 
        America.   Some claim she was a traitor and should be tried as such.  
        Others call her a heroine for showing her anti-war posture.
 Her advocacy, however, was not merely political.  Much of it 
        was for publicity. She advocated the “killing of Americans,” and posed 
        for pictures to spark her struggling career as an actress.  Like John 
        Walker, she might have been young and naïve, but the impact she had on 
        the morale of the troops has not been forgotten over all these 
        years.  The bullet she shot at Americans went to the heart of many whose 
        beliefs in America were weakened by the "acceptance" of her actions 
        against the brave and courageous.
 Fonda’s example of anti-Americanism during war, and her 
        association and support of the enemy to “kill” Americans, still remains 
        an open wound for many of us Vietnam Veterans.  The fact our country did 
        nothing to admonish her, or penalize her, still stands as a cancer on 
        the sores of Vietnam’s nature as a “political war.”  It also serves as a 
        precedence today for the "John Walkers" of the world.
 
          
            |  |  
            | Fonda Supporting VC 
            in 1972 |  
                  When Fonda collaborated with the 
        “enemy” during the Vietnam War, it seemed clear evidence of her 
        traitorship to the nation.  Certainly, it her acts were to all of us 
        “grunts” trying to survive daily against a tough enemy who seemed to be 
        backed by the youth of a nation who refused to fight and die for another 
        nation’s right to freedom.My own experiences with Jane Fonda reinforced the belief she 
        was indeed, and in my book, and still is, a traitor.   My good friend, 
        Maurell, was a squad leader in Vietnam.   I met him in the early 90’s 
        and we became close friends because of our Marine Corps and Vietnam 
        backgrounds.   Maurell suffered great psychological and physical pain.  
        He had been wounded numerous times, and deep inside he bore the shame 
        and guilt imposed upon the valiant warriors of Vietnam who gave their 
        lives for their country--the same country that spat upon them 
        and labeled them “baby killers” and “oppressors.”
 In one fierce battle, Maurell lost eighty-percent of his men 
        trying to take a hill that the Viet Cong controlled.  When they 
        ultimately commanded the position, they found boxes of supplies and 
        materials donated to the Viet Cong by Fonda.   Maurell, to this day, 
        blames Fonda for the death of his comrades.  He includes those who 
        supported her by not prosecuting her for what she was—an American who 
        aided and abetted the enemy in time of war.  He saw little difference 
        between her and the Rosenbergs who were put to death for selling atomic 
        bomb secrets to the Russians.
 Not that Jane Fonda hasn’t suffered.   Her reputation--not 
        as an actress but as an American--will be tarnished to the grave and 
        beyond by those who view her for what she is.  No apology she can ever 
        make (or has made) will heal the scar tissue she created by aligning herself against 
        America, and her public support of “killing Americans” who were fighting 
        for an oppressed people's freedom.
 Now, John Walker appears.
 It is my opinion America should deal with John Walker as we 
        didn’t deal with Jane Fonda.   He is a traitor.   The penalty for 
        bearing arms against his countrymen is clear and absolute.  He wore the 
        uniform of the enemy.  He took the vows of death against his homeland.
 Yet, I wonder whether John Walker will be treated like Jane 
        Fonda.   Will he receive a mere admonishment and be set free?   Or, will 
        he assume the penalties of anyone who raises arms against America?
 In a world of political wars, the outcome is hard to say.   
        A military court would not be hesitant to subscribe to the “firing 
        squad."  Hopefully, it would be broadcast on national 
        television.  But 
        politically, America may not be ready to execute one of its own because 
        of the "Fonda Precedent."  She remains as John Walker’s greatest 
        defense.
 As a Sentinel of Vigilance, I owe it to the children of a 
        nation to remind them patriotism is not a cheap commodity.   In 
        America, 
        one can protest a war as well as fight in it.  Ask Mohammad Ali.  He gave 
        up the best years of his life as a fighter to stand by his convictions.  
        But he did it as a patriot, not a turncoat.   Patriotism's limits stop 
        when one bears arms, or collaborates with the enemy to “kill 
        Americans.”
 
        
          
            |  |  Years ago Jane Fonda crossed the line of 
        protestation into the world of collaboration when she sat on the 
        anti-aircraft guns and pretended to shoot down American planes.   John 
        Walker crossed that line too when he joined the Taliban.While it might be easy to claim that severe punishment of 
        John Walker would be cruel and unusual, the ripple effect of not 
        treating him as a traitor may run deeper.   If patriotism is the 
        willingness to give one’s life for the freedom of others, then its 
        obverse should be equally applied.
 On September 11, I don’t recall stories of firemen or police 
        running to save their lives at the expense of the innocent.   Instead, 
        they rushed into burning buildings fearlessly offering their lives to 
        protect the freedom and rights of others.   They didn’t carry guns.  
        They carried courage and conviction that their lives were worth giving 
        over to protect others.
 In the military, one is trained to give his life for his 
        country.  Dying is part of the responsibility of the soldier.    If one 
        is willing to bear arms in defense of a nation, one is also willing to 
        die for that nation.    Conversely, if one is willing to fight for 
        another nation, then one is by association willing and ready to die for 
        that act.   John Walker put his own death sentence in writing when he 
        elected to "kill Americans."
 
          
                      |   |             
        To teach a child that one has the right to bear arms against a nation 
        with impunity, teaches a child that there are no real laws protecting 
        the child.   If the penalty  for attempting to destroy Americans is a 
        hand-slap, then we should not seek to find, prosecute, and execute bin 
        Laden or his crew.   We should let the Taliban go free.   We should stop 
        setting up internal security to thwart future attacks.   We should teach 
        our children that the colors of our flag should be yellow, white and 
        blue rather than red, white and blue.   If courage and conviction to 
        offer one’s life for his or her beliefs is not taught as a principle of 
        conviction, then a child never understands the true value of 
        commitment.                 Someone once said that “nothing is truly important until you 
        are willing to risk your life for it.”
 I believe that.
 I believe the acid test of any true moral or political 
        position is the willingness a person or a group or a nation takes to 
        “give his or her life” for the cause.
 Was Jane Fonda willing to die for her alliance with the 
        enemy?   Is John Walker?
 Thousands of American military personnel in the war are 
        willing to die.   Hundreds of firemen and police and emergency workers 
        were willing to die in the September 11 holocaust.
 And for what?
 In the final analysis, the “right to die” for a cause comes 
        down to the children.   Is the right of a child to enjoy freedom worth 
        dying for?
 If a 
        parent would turn his or her back on a child’s security, they would be a 
        traitor to parenthood.   They would lose all rights as a 
        citizen of society.   A child expects, as part of parental 
        responsibility, the willingness to die for his or her safety.
 That’s why “women and children” go onto the lifeboats 
        first.   It’s why nature has built into all creatures a ferocious 
        instinct to fight anyone or anything to the death to protect its young.
 John Walker’s ultimate crime, as was Jane Fonda’s, was to 
        become a traitor to the children of America.   Both exposed the 
        innocent, helpless children to the cruelty of an enemy bent on killing 
        them, or their fathers, or mothers, or grandparents, or uncles, or 
        nieces, or nephews.
 It might be easy for some to excuse John Walker’s actions as 
        a disturbed young man—just as people excused Jane Fonda.   But a child 
        can’t excuse their behavior.   When one puts into the hands of the 
        “enemy” the ability to kill the Parents of Vigilance of a Nation, or, 
        promotes that killing, then the crime is ultimately against the 
        children.
 Both Jane Fonda and John Walker are one—traitors to the 
        children of America.
 But will we tell them that?
 
                    Or will we turn our eyes away, 
        as we did in 1972 when we let Jane Fonda slip through the responsibility 
        of America's red, white and blue? 
 
 Go 
                  To December 12: "Bless The Angels Who Fight Destruction" ©2001 
                  - 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) 
                  design
     
                 |  |