Jane Fonda's Treason Trial

[rick]

In 1972 after her two week trip to North Vietnam where she was photographed on an NVA anti-aircraft gun, and she made ten propaganda radio broadcasts denouncing the American political and military leadership as war criminals she was met on her arrival back in the United States by Federal Agents who placed her under arrest for treason. Arrorney General John N. Mitchell, in a White House press conference told a shocked press corps that, "Ms. Fonda's actions have crossed the line from legal protest to the reprehensible actions of a traitor who has provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States."
I am looking forward to everyone's input and comments! More to follow, I have a lot of research to try to make this plausible.

[Hades]

well, i can see Noam Chomsky and Donald Rumsfeld as well as many other vietnam protesters keeping their mouths zipped *there*.

I wonder the effects this will have on Iraq

[Berra]

I think we just had a tread about this, try searching Jane Fonda.

[Torqumada]

The charges are thrown out on pretrial motions that since the United States is not legally at war with North Vietnam, Jane Fonda couldn't have commited treason.

Torqumada

[rick]

Following her arrest she is flown to Washington D.C. where she is indicted on the charge of treason, the first American citizen so charged since 1952. The Attorney General's office requested and was granted the motion to deny bail for Ms. Fonda as she was considered an extreme flight risk. Her trial was scheduled to begin November 20, 1972. She will be held at the Women's Federal Facility in Alderson, West Virginia.
OK, so where I am going wrong here? I need reactions from Jane's friends and supporters, and possible political ramifications for President Nixon. Looking for some good input.

[rick]

The charges are thrown out on pretrial motions that since the United States is not legally at war with North Vietnam, Jane Fonda couldn't have commited treason.

Torqumada
The federal statutes do not specify that the United States need to be in a declared war, however I am sure that her lawyers will file that motion.

[rick]

I think we just had a tread about this, try searching Jane Fonda.

You are bumming me our Berra! I would like to historically run this out, everyone here gets to help me write this alternate history. I am counting on you to be my public opinion, my lawyers, judge, and jury. Will we get a conviction or an aqqital??

[Hendryk]

I sense ideological ulterior motives in the OP, and second the others in suggesting that you first look for what has already been written about the topic in this forum before starting a discussion that may well descend into a flamewar.

The word "treason" has simply been used too often by one side of the American political spectrum in the past eight years for the rest of us not to have misgivings when we come across it. And some people here are on record as calling for Jane Fonda to be executed for her alleged crime.

[rick]

I sense ideological ulterior motives in the OP, and second the others in suggesting that you first look for what has already been written about the topic in this forum before starting a discussion that may well descend into a flamewar.

The word "treason" has simply been used too often by one side of the American political spectrum in the past eight years for the rest of us not to have misgivings when we come across it. And some people here are on record as calling for Jane Fonda to be executed for her alleged crime.

You are intelligent, and insightful. I am a career soldier, so yes I have bias against Jane Fonda for what she did. However, I would like a reasonable well thought out answer for the question would she be found guilty or innocent? I just want to give her a day in court without a predetermined outcome. What all of you post here will determine the outcome, guilty or innocent, I just want the trial to take place. I have read the Federal statutes and she could have been charged and gone to trial based on her actions. Again, I do not want to kill or imprison her, I just want to see the trial.

[Jello_Biafra]

You are intelligent, and insightful. I am a career soldier, so yes I have bias against Jane Fonda for what she did. However, I would like a reasonable well thought out answer for the question would she be found guilty or innocent? I just want to give her a day in court without a predetermined outcome. What all of you post here will determine the outcome, guilty or innocent, I just want the trial to take place. I have read the Federal statutes and she could have been charged and gone to trial based on her actions. Again, I do not want to kill or imprison her, I just want to see the trial.

Treason, as defined in the Constitution, consists only of making war against the United States, or adhering to its enemies, giving aid and comfort to them. The Supreme Court has long held that "giving aid and comfort" meant giving physical aid, i.e., supplying weapons to enemies.

The US was not at war with North Vietnam. The indictment would be thrown out the moment it made it to a federal judge. Furthermore, the government would have never bothered to try Jane Fonda anyway. It would have brought far too much public light to the illegal and immoral nature of the war in Vietnam. Putting her or any other dissident of that era on trial for sedition or treason would have been a tactical error. It would have undermined their attempts to keep a political consensus among the population.

If it did go to trial, it very quickly would become a media spectacle about all the dirty little facts that the government didn't want to see brought to light. It would have been a mess, and the Nixon administration would not be on the winning side of that mess.

[rick]

Treason, as defined in the Constitution, consists only of making war against the United States, or adhering to its enemies, giving aid and comfort to them. The Supreme Court has long held that "giving aid and comfort" meant giving physical aid, i.e., supplying weapons to enemies.

The US was not at war with North Vietnam. The indictment would be thrown out the moment it made it to a federal judge. Furthermore, the government would have never bothered to try Jane Fonda anyway. It would have brought far too much public light to the illegal and immoral nature of the war in Vietnam. Putting her or any other dissident of that era on trial for sedition or treason would have been a tactical error. It would have undermined their attempts to keep a political consensus among the population. If it did go to trial, it very quickly would become a media spectacle about all the dirty little facts that the government didn't want to see brought to light. It would have been a mess, and the Nixon administration would not be on the winning side of that mess.

I am thinking that with Nixon and his shady administration, a judge would be found who would be sympathetic to the government's cause and bought the case to trial. With the absense of the 24 hour news cycle we have today, could the government have kept the case low keyed, at least until the start of the trial? Then maybe the spin machine could make the trial not about legal protest and opposition to the war, but about "crossing the line" from that to treason. Maybe compare Fonda with Tokyo Rose, try to alienate her from the legitimate anti-war protestors. Your thoughts??

[Jello_Biafra]

I am thinking that with Nixon and his shady administration, a judge would be found who would be sympathetic to the government's cause and bought the case to trial. With the absense of the 24 hour news cycle we have today, could the government have kept the case low keyed, at least until the start of the trial? Then maybe the spin machine could make the trial not about legal protest and opposition to the war, but about "crossing the line" from that to treason. Maybe compare Fonda with Tokyo Rose, try to alienate her from the legitimate anti-war protestors. Your thoughts??
I think that's an unlikely outcome. Her indictment would have been a clarion call to everyone involved in the anti-war movement. They would make a rather large fuss about it. There'd be marches and demonstrations in Washington that would bring definite attention to the case. And even pro-war liberal intellectuals would likely balk at Nixon's continued overreaching of power.

I really don't think you could contain it. The major networks would cover it eventually, as would the major newspapers. Espescially The New York Times. It was no friend of the anti-war movement, but it certainly had no love lost for Nixon and co. It's the de facto paper of record in the United States, and many local and regional newspapers cover stories based on what the Times is covering.

[rick]

I think that's an unlikely outcome. Her indictment would have been a clarion call to everyone involved in the anti-war movement. They would make a rather large fuss about it. There'd be marches and demonstrations in Washington that would bring definite attention to the case. And even pro-war liberal intellectuals would likely balk at Nixon's continued overreaching of power.

I really don't think you could contain it. The major networks would cover it eventually, as would the major newspapers. Espescially The New York Times. It was no friend of the anti-war movement, but it certainly had no love lost for Nixon and co. It's the de facto paper of record in the United States, and many local and regional newspapers cover stories based on what the Times is covering.

I concede all of your points, everything you say passes the common sense test. Nixon would have to be legally insane to have put her on trial. I suppose to have the trial happen in an ATL, Jane herself would have had to do something off the charts crazy while she was in North Vietnam. What if, while she was visiting the anti-aircraft batteries where she was photographed, American planes had flown over promting the AA to go active and Jane had, in the heat of the moment actually fired the weapon she was sitting at. With that image coming back into the United States, what do you think the reaction would be?

[Jello_Biafra]

They might have been able to build a case just with the batteries being active at the time she was visiting them. An unlikely event, and I still doubt they would bother to go forward with the case.

[wormyguy]

If the president wasn't Nixon, however, I think she might have been prosecuted. If LBJ had successfully run a second time, he probably would have put her on trial.

[General Mung Beans]

What if Jane Fonda hadn't been put on trial but instead had been killed by a returning Vietnam veteran?

[Corbell Mark IV]

Could Nixon had scheduled a quick Declaration Of War while she was onsight?

After all we were at war, this would be legalizing some technicalities...

And placing Jane Fonda obviously in the postion of giving comfort to the enemy.

[Mark E.]

Could Nixon had scheduled a quick Declaration Of War while she was onsight?

After all we were at war, this would be legalizing some technicalities...

And placing Jane Fonda obviously in the postion of giving comfort to the enemy.

Had there been a declared war, would Jane Fonda have continued her campaign? I doubt it. You can't try her for an ex post facto law, and she would likely be out of Vietnam before congress could pass a declaration of war.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Had there been a declared war, would Jane Fonda have continued her campaign? I doubt it. You can't try her for an ex post facto law, and she would likely be out of Vietnam before congress could pass a declaration of war.

How long was she in North Vietnam?

[Mark E.]

How long was she in North Vietnam?

I can't find it in any easy reference sources, but I think it was only a couple of weeks in July, 1972.

[Ian the Admin]

You are bumming me our Berra! I would like to historically run this out, everyone here gets to help me write this alternate history. I am counting on you to be my public opinion, my lawyers, judge, and jury. Will we get a conviction or an aqqital??

Oh look, it's Chris "Mike" Barber, being spectacularly obvious. Banned.

[Blue Max]

Out of curiosity, is there any chance that the Government digs up some kind of lesser charge on the books, not Treason, and is able to hit Fonda with it?

Now I think about it, a treason charge might well apply in the case of John Walker Lindh much more than it would in the case here...

[Corbell Mark IV]

I can't find it in any easy reference sources, but I think it was only a couple of weeks in July, 1972.

Couple of weeks? Ex-cel-lent...:D

Plenty of time to rush though a Declaration of War, if Nixon can get Congress to go along with it.

After all it is only a legality at this point.

A legality that allows them to discredit the anti-war movement by

a. making Fonda the poster child

b. and convicting her of treason.

Or at least that would be the plan.

[carlton_bach]

Couple of weeks? Ex-cel-lent...:D

Plenty of time to rush though a Declaration of War, if Nixon can get Congress to go along with it.

After all it is only a legality at this point.

A legality that allows them to discredit the anti-war movement by

a. making Fonda the poster child

b. and convicting her of treason.

Or at least that would be the plan.

IN 1972, I don't think the government had the kind of legitimacy required for saying 'it's true because I say so'. The maneuver is pretty transparent. Aside from that, it would have considerable consequences (declaring war usually involves increasing hoistilities whicvh would require either a land invasion or at least a complete blockade to be at all credible, given what they were already doing to North Vietnam). Is that worth the slim possibility of getting a doubtful conviction of a movie star? And do you really want to send the message that Washington so fears the antiwar movement that it will allow its foreign policy to be guided by the requirements of this confrontation? Do you really want to escalate to that level? If you'd declare war to get one protester, where do you stop, and with what legitimacy do you expect them to stop at any level of escalation?

Watergate breaking after this one... ouch. Forget movies about misguided by likeable Panthers, this could make the Weather Underground popular heroes to Hollywood.

[Syphon]

In 1972 after her two week trip to North Vietnam where she was photographed on an NVA anti-aircraft gun, and she made ten propaganda radio broadcasts denouncing the American political and military leadership as war criminals she was met on her arrival back in the United States by Federal Agents who placed her under arrest for treason. Arrorney General John N. Mitchell, in a White House press conference told a shocked press corps that, "Ms. Fonda's actions have crossed the line from legal protest to the reprehensible actions of a traitor who has provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States."
I am looking forward to everyone's input and comments! More to follow, I have a lot of research to try to make this plausible.

I would have thought that a charge of sedition would have a better chance of success then that of treason.

[warlord]

Is that the fitness teacher and actor or just the same name

[General Mung Beans]

Jane Fonda-she's an actress not an actor.

[WatsonLadd]

I would have thought that a charge of sedition would have a better chance of success then that of treason.
Sedition would be very politically risky. By arguing that opposition to the Vietnam war was sedition the Nixon administration would be playing with fire. The same with any treason indictment, or any indictment at all. Criminalizing political speech would lead to judges throwing out cases, and a possible impeachment. Combine it with the illegal wiretapping and the assassinations and we have the makings of a civil war as the situation deteriorates.