Anti-war activists, without the support of the federal government, can only cause problems by meeting with the enemy. What possible good can come from an anti-American near-teenager having "discussions" with our enemy? None, whatsoever.
This isn't true. In the big picture, the one of the main reasons for the end of the Vietnam war was the civilian public's opposition to the war. Kerry's meeting with the VC in Pairs in 1970 was an expression of that opposition, as were all the demonstrations, Hanoi Jane's meetings, etc.
In a country with freedom of expression, you've gotta let the opposition express themselves, and if anti-war activists can bring the war to a close by meeting with the opposition it makes sense that they will, and it doesn't seem so wrong.
What is wrong is if the activist provides the enemy with intelligence which advances the enemy's position (thus resulting in the loss of lives).
For example, in Iraq its not that hard to imagine an Arab speaking American having a clandestine meeting with the Fallujah insurgency leadership a month ago (prior to their destruction), and then doing a news story or something on them. That sounds like news, not treason, even if this theoretical Arab speaking American met with theFallujah resistance without the approval of the US or Iraqi government. |
