I think what the subsequent responses in this thread do is exactly prove the point I made in my first post:


I don't know if you can judge the whole country by the reaction to things at AD, but I'm sure this has at least prompted a few people to learn about her or get more detail on her that otherwise wouldn't have cared.

Not to pick on you DTOM, but you are quoting from her book and you have one of her quotes in your signature. In my opinion that means she is accomplishing what she wanted to do, because ordinarily I doubt you would have given her a second thought.

Oh my little snippet out of 51 posts in this thread hasn't given Ms. Fonda anymore publicity than before......but I do find it refreshing when we can see her own words, since we're debating her level of contrition.
Of course controversy sells, and it's a no-brainer that she timed her remarks about her past to coincide with the release of her book. I'm sure she's making cash hand over fist with the controversy. But if our discussion of her antics send a few more dollars her way by virtue of us debating the subject....then you have done your part also......

I have to agree with some of the people who have posted here on this matter. I can't see why Jane Fonda should be unforgiven when men like Calley are granted nothing less than a presidential pardon for the killing of 500 civilians and the men who served alongside Calley are not even charged yet their hands were as surely crimson as his own.

What Jane Fonda did may have hurt a lot of people's feelings, but consider the matter impartially and you can see that Fonda is only a scapegoat for one side of the divide. She has come to represent the entire peace movement of which she was but one (loud) voice amid a multitude.

Standing across from Fonda was the Uniform which for many people in the late sixties was as terrifying and horrible an expression of inhumanity as Fonda's words were a betrayal to the opposing side. That so many fellow country men were prepared to blindly wear the Uniform into a terrible and apparently aimless war caused the great fear and reaction that today is so typically villified by those who despise Jane Fonda.

This is what happens when you have a nation divided by its leadership. You get a polarised society at war with itself and scars that last for decades.

Jane Fonda however is not to blame for that. Her opinions and how she chose to express them were as valid as any other. The idea that she was betraying her country men is also valid, but no more so than the idea that her fellow countrymen in their blind devotion to wearing the Uniform into the war were betraying Jane Fonda and the humanity in which she believed.

That Jane Fonda is a communist sympathiser is also, irrellevent. Being a communist is not a crime.

I don't see that Jane Fonda requires any forgiveness for her opinions, political or otherwise and I would advise any one who was unable to understand that to simply ignore her.

This argument keeps coming up. To me, it is like saying because this guy got away with killing someone (lets say a legal technicality resulted in a not-guilty verdict for the sake of this example), then this other person, who committed slander should not be prosecuted because it is a lesser crime. The argument simply makes no sense to me.

Those that have an issue with Jane Fonda have an issue with the actions she voluntarily chose to take as an adult. The resulting group of people who choose to not forgive those actions, boycott her in general, protest at her appearances, or anything else peaceful that does not rise to the level of trespass, assault or any other crime, is simply a consequence of the actions she chose to take.



I don't this this is correct, and personally, I cannot see how this opinion can be reached from an "impartial" viewpoint. It does not wash with the rest of the issue. What about all the Vietnam Vets who have come to terms with the peace movement in general, made amends with friends, family and neighbors and whomever else who were a part of it, and in general don't give it another thought, even though they still have an issue with Jane Fonda? The issue they have with Jane Fonda is not her "representing the peace movement", it is an issue with her individual actions. They have a problem with her visits with the North Vietnamese, Her pictures wearing the uniform of the opposing side, and most especially her characterization of US service personnel, in general, as war criminals.

When in comes to those in my family that served in Vietnam, none look back now and say we should have gone, or the war had a purpose. My uncle in particular has stated that the war was pointless, that no American interest was served and that friends of his died for nothing more then idiotic politics and phobias. My Uncle has close friends in his age group that were protesters at the time. If he was to discover that contrary to what they have said, they were some of the people who would call returning US servicemen baby-killers and spit on them, his relationship with them would likely end immediately. However, since they were not among those that took the issue that far, they are friends, to the level that one of them is the Godfather of one of his sons.

Now, my uncle believes the war was wrong and that those protesters who focused on the government and did not assault the servicemen were correct. Yet, he still has issues with Jane Fonda. This is because, her interactions with the North Vietnamese crossed the line in his eyes. When I have talked to other Vietnam vets this opinion seems to be common.



Correct. Her opinions, her expression of her opinions, and her right of free expression are as valid as any other. This would include those that choose to publicly disagree with her, oppose her, protest her, etc (but of course, not those that choose to assault her or commit any other crime).

Everyone has a right to freely express their opinions without government interference or oppression. No one has the right to not be effected by that expression of their opinions when it comes to other free citizens choosing to do the same. Actions have consequences, it is really as simple as that.

I disagree with this statement for the same reasons stated by other posters.

I also know that Jane Fonda had a religious conversion experience a few years ago that ultimately contributed to her divorce from Ted Turner. Now, that is not to say that all who say they are converted are necessarily changed people, but then again Jane Fonda did not say so because she was serving a prison term and hoped to get paroled. On the contrary, some of us would say she "had it made in the shade," rich and comfortable with the type of politically active man who fit into her choice of men (see Tom Hayden, who seems to have ducked the spotlight).

I voted to forgive but not to forget. It is ludicrous to think that so many veterans who have vilified Jane Fonda for so long would have a change of heart since she apologized two, three or four times. Some people hold grudges. By the same token, I wonder if the belief system of these soldiers includes forgiving others for their sins because they themselves are also in need of forgiveness for their own sins (the operative principle, of course, being that those who are unwilling to forgive others might have a problem being forgiven as well).

I was against the war but never protested. My dad had convinced me of the folly because the FBI was taking pictures of protestors and making files on them. I was not a hippie, but I didn't see how propping up two dictators just because they weren't Communist was really helping the little folks out in the rice paddies with their day-to-day existence. It was a civil war. But that is not the subject of this topic.

Jane Fonda was wrong in what she did. Those who spat in the faces of or otherwise abused returning veterans were wrong as well. Jane Fonda thought that she could shorten the war by her junket there, and it did cause pain for the prisoners. I think her intentions were good, but she chose a helluva way to carry them out. And I don't condone spitting under any circumstance.

A "nation" cannot forgive anybody. Forgiveness happens on an individual level--the government can only make proclamations. We need forgiveness on an individual level, but it is unrealistic to expect anyone to actually forget previous wrongs. Even Pope John Paul II, though he forgave his would-be assassin, probably remembered the name of the man until his death. We remember those who have wronged us so that they won't hurt us again.

Jane Fonda is well aware that she is a lightning rod for those who remember the Vietnam war. She is getting older, so she wants to make sure that her autobiography is out there for others to read, because who wants to be known by others exclusively by newspaper blurbs or video footage? Other than that, I doubt that she really needs the money.

(I do resent those who showed a black and white photo of John Kerry sitting a couple of rows behind Fonda at a protest rally, thereby trying to tie Jane's sins to Kerry for political purposes during the last Presidential election. I'll tell you, had there been a picture or two of G.W. Bush and Cheney at the police station while being arrested for DUI's, a zealous faction of the Dems would most assuredly have retaliated in kind. John Kerry was against the war, not for Jane Fonda. Bush and Cheney were not for hurting someone while driving under the influence (I'm sure); they just liked drinking.)

One extra point: Are any of those still cherishing a grudge about Jane Fonda among those posters who were intoning last November, "Get over it" to those of us on the losing side of a bitterly-contested national election? I wonder.

I have highlighted two phrases in leder’s statement in red.

This statement is invalid because you have used a broad brush generalization, not once but twice. There is little that “we all know” on this board. When someone uses terms like “any,” “all,” “always,” “never,” ‘none,” etc. I chalk it up as intellectual laziness.

I watched both segments of 60 Minutes segments Lesley Stahl did with Jane Fonda. The nuance I got was that the apology was made in good faith--not to sell books. So, we don’t “all know.”

It may be a generational thing. I grew up in an age when apologies were much of the time given and accepted in good faith. The proof of the pudding was in tasting the aftermath—that is, whether or not the person responsible for the offending behavior repeated that behavior.

Jane Fonda is 67-years-old. As is often the case, Nightimer put it so well:



BTW: Did you watch either or both of the 60 Minute interviews?

Does anyone else think that if the same thing happened today...lets say a protester being filmed walking with insurgents in Iraq while the terrorists setup a roadside bomb...that that protester WOULD be tried and convicted for treason. There is no doubt about it. The only reason Jane Fonda gets some leniency on the issue is because what she did was more popular at the time.



There is a difference. Elections occur every 4 years and one candidate loses. So is a way of democracy and a way of life. In another 4 years there will be another national election. Doesn't everyone know who Benedict Arnold is? Isn't that name used to describe a traitor? Is it not the same thing?



Then why now and not a few years ago? Why is it that her apology coincidently coincides with the release of her new book? Is it for publicity or is it because from the bottom of her heart she feels sorry for being photographed on the anti-air gun? Obviously you do not...but i find it amazing that after 37 years she finally has a change of heart.

Is that a fair comparison?

Jane Fonda did not participate or observe any form of combat. She only sat on an AA gun and verbally expressed her personal opinion, neither of which can be classed as treason by any legal definition I have ever seen.

If a contemporary activist of his/ her own free will were to watch as Iraqi rebels setup a roadside bomb and failed to warn the US military of the impending attack, then that would be an active participation in a military attack and surely an act of treason.

I don't know why she waited 37 years leder and neither do you. I do know that as people get older they tend to think about their own mortality and how to deal with it. At 67, Fonda may (I try not to make absolutist statements like you do) be trying to set things straight before it's too late.

Again, should we not give her the benefit of the doubt? Again, did you watch the 60 Minutes segments?

Well that AA gun fired upon American planes. I merely stipulated that if a protester today was chatting with insurgents, much like Jane fonda did with the NVA, and walked passed a roadside bomb...like Jane Fonda sat on the AA gun...that that person would be tried for treason...which is probably true.



If she didn't have a book coming out...I WOULD give her the benefit of the doubt. However the timing is too coincidental.

I got to tell you that i usually miss 60 Minutes.

It is often as important to hear how someone says something as it is to hear what they said. Hearing how someone says something is a characteristic that separates novelist who write great dialogue from those who don't.

I think it's important to hear how Fonda said it.

Yea...it's just hard when you got CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC, the NY Times, and the Washington Post. I just don't have the selection you do.

Edited to remove quote that had been edited out.

Two points spring to my mind. The first is the nature of the weapons involved.

An AA gun is a defensive weapon.
In the case of Fonda, the gun in question was not being fired and so she had nothing to do with its firing. She did not witness the weapon being fired and even if she did, it would have been firing at American planes that were attacking the ground locations which the AA gun was defending.

And, if my memory serves me correctly, even school teachers, nurses and children were taught to fire up into the air at attacking US warplanes. Does that mean Fonda would have been in th wrong if she'd stopped to chat with a teacher who was carrying a rifle?

An IED is an offensive weapon designed and used to kill unsuspecting targets much like a land mine. I do not believe it can be compared to an AA gun since the AA gun would only be used in the event of an American attack where as an IED is almost exclusively used as a means to kill US soldiers regardless of whether they attack or not.

Thinking about it, I'm not even sure why observing an IED being set up is considered treason. Surely it is the act of not warning the US soldiers and allowing them to be attacked that is the act of treason?

I don't know how FNC has handled this. MSNBC, for example, is hardly a bastion of liberalism. They have had Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan for sometime and recently shored up their right wing bullpen by getting Monica Crowley from FNC and signing up Tucker Carlson--two veteran right handed pitchers. Sounds like they are constructing a real den of 'lefties" over at MSNBC.

Scarborough did cover Fonda's interview. Although he doesn't care for her, he condemned spitting tobbacco in her face. It's hard for me to find much good in Scarborough, but I guess it's there if one looks hard enough.

First, I would hardly compare Jane Fonda to Benedict Arnold...would you really put them in the same league? Benedict Arnold was a general on the side of the Revolutionary forces who actually changed sides. His stature and his behavior were both greater and more damaging to the thirteen colonies than Fonda's stature and behavior could ever be to our nation.

"Get over it" is the statement often used in this forum to try to squelch persistent complaints about things perceived as unfair, unethical, etc. I reiterate: It was over 30 years ago that Jane Fonda so foolishly traveled to North Vietnam and sat at the anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized; a number of dates have been listed in this thread where she made an apology. She has written her autobiography, so now up out of the woodwork come those who felt wronged by her behavior while they were soldiers and/or prisoners of war in Vietnam. She became the poster child at whom these veterans direct their rage.

And yet, there were many charges and many dirty tricks used to smear political candidates during the last election, including some who tried to paint the Democratic nominee as a traitor. Now all is supposed to be forgiven--why? Because it happens every 4 years, right? Come on. So now those who feel they were wronged during the last election are supposed to let bygones be bygones and "get over it," but it's okay to nurse a grudge that is what? over 37 years old, and the grudge holders are held faultless for their failure to "get over it." I just found it darned interesting, that's all.

I tend to believe Jane Fonda when she states her regrets over her behavior, and I agree with BoF's assertion that it is because she is getting older and considering her own mortality. Realistically, what else could she do at this point? Would having her enter a convent and take a vow of silence mollify her detractors?

Either you believe that her apology is real or you do not. I say, Forgive but do not forget. I acknowledge the right of veterans and their friends to not forgive her, regardless of the possible consequences of not forgiving another. And as far as the last election goes, I have failed to hear anyone apologize for the nastiness in word and in print that was used to impugn the character of my candidate. I am willing to forgive, but I will not forget.

I agree her actions did not (and could not for that matter) rise to the level of Benedict Arnolds actions. She was not in the military, she was a citizen exercising her right to free speech, a right, that is part of what the military is there to protect.



Quite true. However, there are those who were directly effected by her actions, or at the least, felt as if they were directly effected by her actions. For those that were not serving at the time (let alone those who were not even alive at the time) I would think this would be nothing more then a historical footnote to them. But for those who served, it was much more then that. Like you, I too respect their feelings and their choice not to forgive Jane Fonda. For those that served and did forgive her, well, in my eyes, that shows they are in possession of an extra strong character, and I applaud them. I also respect Jane Fonda's right to protest as she did. I do not feel her actions qualify for the title of traitor, though the title of nieve tool would probably fit.

The thing I look at here is why is she seen this way by some? It is because of the actions she choose to take. She may well regret those actions now, but, in the real world regret is not always enough, sometimes, what we choose to do leads to consequences that never go away. Right or wrong in general, she is a good example of this. An object lesson others might learn from. I don't think there is anything she could ever do to gain the forgiveness of some, this is just the way life is.



I agree with you here. Carrying this on is rather pointless, what purpose does it serve? If it makes the veterans who served at the time feel better (so long as their actions do not rise to the criminal level) then fine, perhaps it is good therapy for them. But, I find it puzzling when I see people who never felt the sting of serving in Vietnam protesting Jane Fonda. I wonder if they even know what was really happening on both sides of the world at that time.



I think you make an interesting point here. However, remember, it was not just "your candidate" that suffered nasty attacks, lies, half-truths and misrepresentations. Neither of the two major parties campaigns had clean hands in this last election. The side that one, just did a better job of misleading the people then the other side did this time around. Truth was in short supply on all sides.

My biggest concern about the last election is that it will just make the nastiness of the next one even worse. I wonder will it ever stop? Will anyone ever REALLY campaign on issues anymore?

I saw Jane Fonda recently on 'Inside the Actors Studio'. I was never a fan as I was too young to be, Ive recieved many email petitons protesting her and heard many vets hating her as long as I can remember.

What I saw there was a woman who had put herself through an enormous amount of soul searching on many levels. She has grown into herself, taken full reckoning of her life and come out the other side as a complete human being.

I dont think her apology was ever to sell books, she doesnt appear to be in the least shallow. She said she knew just moments after what she did it would be viewed wrong and it was never her intention to hurt anyone, especially the soldiers -but it was a momentary oversight and she has been sorry for it ever-after. She said it was probobly the worst mistake of her life and she has paid dearly for it internally as well as externally.

I think that Jane Fonda has dealt with her human frailties and mistakes. I think she has done all she really can to make ammends. I think that by now she may not truly care much if people want to beat a dead horse, she is humbled not arrogant about it or her life in the least.

I was impressed by the interview at her honest introspection into her life, her spiritual nature and solemn solidity.
You cant take back a mistake, you can only apologize and try to make ammends then reconcile yourself to it (and its effects) and learn from it. I believe she has done this.

If people out there are still angry about this than the problem lies within themselves, because she is done with it, as well should be.

I wonder if others have taken the same internal inventory and realized their mistakes as well, or is it just easier constantly project onto someone else.

I voted "Forgive but not forget." That should never be allowed to happen again. If does they should be tried for treason.

But I'll take her at her word and consider her apology sincere. Now, if we could only get one from John Kerry. He didn't quite commit treason, but he did give Hanoi some free propaganda and for that he should be ashamed.

Remind me again.

When exactly did "saying stuff I don't entirely agree with" become Treason?

Treason is one of those words that is so misused, so easily abused, so thrown around by the extremes of both sides of the Political spectrum that it is rapidly losing all meaning.

To Listen to these 'extremes', burning a flag is treason, criticising Bush is Treason, Supporting Bush is treason, speaking out against the war is treason, speaking out for the war is treason, dodging the draft is treason, voluntarily enlisting is treason, Getting medals for your conduct in Vietnam is treason, being in the national guard and avoiding Vietnam is treason... the list goes on forever.

So, the next person who accuses Fonda, or for that matter John Kerry or anyone else of Treason, please exaplain exactly hat they did that would qualify their actions as Treasonable. Please remember that "they did something I don't like" does not count.

Last I checked Jane Fonda, as with all Citizens of the US, had freedom of expression and Freedom of movement. At worst, what she did could be described as stupid, and a really bad career move, but can you honestly look at the millions who were protesting the war in the US in a thousand different ways, and single out Fonda for treason because she happened to be sitting on a piece of military machinery?

I don't say get over it, because that implies there is some massively big deal to get over. If you don't like it, fine, thats your perogative. Furthermore, if you were a veteran, family of a veteran, or somehow thing the Vietnam war was right, then I can understand your dislike. But treason? Please.

She should be forgiven.... after she apologizes.

I don't recall that she's done so in a full way yet.

The Oxford American Dictionary defines apology thusly:



I watched both segments of Lesley Stahl’s interview of Jane Fonda. The words and the nuance of watching it on camera led me to believe that the apology was sincere.

What do you mean by “full way?”

Does she need to kneel at the door of Constitution Hall (a fitting forum since it’s owned by the DAR) and perform breast-beating?

BTW: Did you, by chance, watch Lesley Stahl’s interview of Fonda on 60 Minutes?

I'd agree with you in Fonda's case. Having said that, Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" during wartime, so you could certainly make a case. In Kerry's case, the treasonous act was meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris while he was still an officer in the Navy. If not treason, it was at least a violation of the UCMJ.

One big problem with your reasoning there Carlito (and don't read this as me defending Fonda, I really could care less about her), we were not at war according to the formal definition of it. Congress was very careful to make this a "police action" and not a formal declaration of war which would have also required for a peace treaty to be assigned. Therefore article 3 section 3 does not even apply since we did not have a formal declaration of war.

edited to correct quotes

No, Vermillion, none of that stuff is remotely close to what I'm talking about.


That's what I'm talking about. There's no question she did that. If it had been WWII she'd have been tried for treason, convicted and executed, and quickly too. I know that because there was a similar case in WWII and that's exactly what happened. That war hadn't been formally declared and that the war didn't have popular support is what saved her butt... legally. Not morally.

And yes, I do happen to think the Vietnam War was right; not only right, but a noble and just cause. It was done for some of the wrong reasons, and we bungled it badly, but saving a nation from a brutal totalitarianism is as righteous as saving a child from a pedophile.

So does that mean you think imposing brutal totalitarianism on people, or enabling a brutal dictator to stay in power, or knowingly consorting with a brutal dictator, is as evil as giving a child to a pedophile, enabling a pedophile to molest, or knowingly consorting with a pedophile?

And "treason" is a legal term, so it only applies under the legally defined standard, which does not obtain here. Blurring it from the legal to the moral is obfuscatory. If you wish to be precise and confine your evaluation to the moral sphere, then use terms such as "immoral", "unethical", or "contemptible".

I'm not so sure about the legalities of that, Erasmussimo. Does the legal definition of wartime require a formal declaration of war anymore, when nations no longer even use declarations of war? It may there could've been a legal case against her for treason. But legally treasonous or not, I'd certainly say what she did was immoral, unethical and contemptible.

US law is murky but in favor of Fonda. The courts have given the executive wide latitude to claim wartime conditions that justify actions that would not be tolerated in peacetime. However, to bring an actual charge of treason, they'd probably need a declaration of war because it's specifically addressed in the Constititution. The best evidence here lies in the fact that President Nixon's administration, under softhearted old John Mitchell, just couldn't bring itself to charge Jane Fonda with treason. If these guys wouldn't charge her with treason, the only reason was their certainty that they'd lose.

Yep, they would have lost that case due to the fact that the administration carefully referred to Vietnam as a police action, not a war. The more people repeat the term "war" in reference to Vietnam, the more this little tidbit of fact is forgotten.

Oh well, people generally like to believe what they want, no matter how untrue. If they want to believe that Fonda is guilty of treason, it really makes no difference.

It is true that the idea of war has become more broad over the decades, so I suppose the idea of treason has as well. However, can we use 2005 thinking to judge actions done thirty years ago? I don't think so. Vietnam was only the second redefined war thingy. We've had a bunch since then.

I don't think it is legally any different today than it was thirty years ago. We aren't in a declared war now anymore than we were then, no matter how much the talking heads call it a 'war on terror' (can a DEA agent be tried for desertion in war time if he quits during the 'war on drugs'? Can a pro-legalization protestor be tried for treason if she protests while sitting on an airfield in a Colombia coca field? Propped on the wing of a plane, maybe, or while sitting in a jeep with a gun mounted behind her?).

I don't think the definition of treason has been constitutional broadened, not that this regime would pay the Constitution any mind.