[dsrich98]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Ya, Cheney may be a narcissistic fool as well, but at least he and Bush were the President and VP. You may agree or disagree with them but that was their roll. Penn's role is to entertain people. He's not educated, he does not have a nuanced foreign policy perspective, and he had no clue as to the goals of the elected US leadership - be it the executive leadership or the congressional leadership. Speak out against the war, fine. But to actually try to sit down with Hussein is just phenomenal to me. He isn't the voice of the US. I wasn't a big fan to begin with but after that whole display I pretty much refuse to watch his movies. There is a difference between protesting and circumvention and he definitely crossed the line.

I can see why people get irked by things like that. But I think there is a role for American citizens who want to see the other side of the story rather than succum to the blind march to war. Before everyone jumps all over me for defending Saddam or any other filth like him, I just think that we don't get too many chances to hear what these thugs have to say for themselves.

If you didn't like him visiting Saddam, check this out...

Conversations With Chávez and Castro

Castro, ahhh RED SCARE!!!

I found his work in this article to be very enlightening...

[mattpoulsen]

I know he didn't sit down with Hussein but that was what he was trying to do. Really, that point is irrelevant, as he did meet with Iraqi cabinet members.

He may have been within his constitutional rights, but that's not necessarily clear. That would depend on what was said exactly. I'm sure he probably was as he didn't have any information or resources that could really aid Iraq in anyway. Plenty of constitutional rights are limited all the time based on national security and etc. Further, his mere presence and drawing attention to himself could have compromised several actions by the US military. His constitutional rights do NOT outweigh national security interests. So his constitutional right to travel to a foreign land and speak with the leadership of a foreign government has to be analyzed under a different rubric than that which is used to analyze his right to speak out about the issue in a domestic context. I'm not entirely sure he was within his constitutional rights, meaning the US might have had the authority to thwart his actions if they chose to.

I'm more than willing to defend him when he's on TV blathering on about the issue. But this is a step beyond that. Further, I do NOT think any individual citizen has a place in this type of forum. US citizens should not be individually meeting with foreign leaders on issues that relate directly to national security, unless asked to by US leadership. That goes for all citizens...not just the ones I disagree with. Chuck Norris is just as idiotic in this regard, not that I agree with him. I don't have a problem with any celebrity droning on ignorantly about what ever issue is at hand. But this is different. This gives that foreign country leverage and can affect points of leverage on the international front. By interacting with a government like this without the request of the US government the individual is circumventing US government action and is potentially deciding for him/herself what interests are important to the People of the United States. Not to mention the potential military aspects of it.

This is simply not the same as holding a protest or buying ad time.

I don't see this as an exercise of constitutional rights as it potentially undercuts the United States as a whole and potentially implicates national security interests.

As a disclaimer, this isn't a political issue to me. I'm neither right or left and am an issue by issue guy. I'm just as disgusted by Rush Limbaugh as I am Sean Penn. I don't care who it was I would disagree strongly with the actions taken by Penn.

[smithy77]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

I know he didn't sit down with Hussein but that was what he was trying to do. Really, that point is irrelevant, as he did meet with Iraqi cabinet members.

He may have been within his constitutional rights, but that's not necessarily clear. That would depend on what was said exactly. I'm sure he probably was as he didn't have any information or resources that could really aid Iraq in anyway. Plenty of constitutional rights are limited all the time based on national security and etc. Further, his mere presence and drawing attention to himself could have compromised several actions by the US military. His constitutional rights do NOT outweigh national security interests.

I'm more than willing to defend him when he's on TV blathering on about the issue. But this is a step beyond that. Further, I do NOT think any individual citizen has a place in this type of forum. US citizens should not be individually meeting with foreign leaders on issues that relate directly to national security, unless asked to by US leadership. That goes for all citizens...not just the ones I disagree with. Chuck Norris is just as idiotic in this regard. I don't have a problem with any celebrity droning on ignorantly about what ever issue is at hand. But this is different. This gives that foreign country leverage and can affect points of leverage on the international front. By interacting with a government like this without the request of the US government the individual is circumventing US government action and is potentially deciding for him/herself what interests are important to the People of the United States. Not to mention the potential military aspects of it.

This is simply not the same as holding a protest or buying ad time.

I don't see this as an exercise of constitutional rights as it potentially undercuts the United States as a whole and potentially implicates national security interests.

As dorky as I think his actions were, I don't think he was in a position to divulge state secrets or compromise national security. That would be giving him too much credit (and he would be reviving his role in 'The Falcon and the Snowman'). On the other hand, he was proving to the people of Iraq and to the world that we live in an open, democratic society where it is possible to criticize your own government without being jailed or 'disappeared'----and I think that's one of the freedoms that people around the world envy and try to emulate.