Press enter after choosing selection

What Was Your Reaction To The Sla? Vop

What Was Your Reaction To The Sla? Vop image
Parent Issue
OCR Text

Our cover story last issue, wlüch e.xplored the possibility that sume menibers oj the SLA may have been pólice agents, received quite a reaction when it hit thé streets. The dar aj'tcr the issue 's release, two of the SUN's coinboxes were found spraypainted with grfieh "SLA " letters all over them. t took severa! hours to get the slogans off. A t the same time, three o) the coinboxes were completety ripped off of WO papers each. The next night the SI W received a threatening phone cali front a man who refused to identifr himself He lold us that "whatyou wrote ahout the SI. A this issue of the SUN shows you 're uu eneinr of the people. " After that statement, the man hung up. Bul despite this madness, most people 's reaction has heen that at the very least our cover story raised a series of unanswered questions and suspicious cinumsrances that must he delved into if the real story of the SLA is ever to be told. Most people also agreed with us fluit whether the SLA was led hy agenn or nol, they couldn 't sec how their actions had helped to comprehensibly icate the need for social revolutíon to masses oj people. Gipen the intensity ofthe various responsos we received (the last issue sotdout), the SUN decided to interview people on the streel aboui iheir reaction to the Symbionese socalled Liberation Army. A selection oj respomes follows: oice of thé People by ('heryl and Michael Cheescman. Dan: I don't think Tin in a position to make a moral judgement about the SLA. because I don't know them. I suspect they are into large scale social revolution. and historieally speaking, that's always been something that's carried out violently. If they had committed a bunch of indiscrininate murders or something. I'd be absolutely against them. but it seems that they've suffered a lot more than they caused suífering. The thing that most Americans have a hard time understanding is that in America, for all our touted stuff about democracy, there really isn't any workable vehicle within the system forsevere radical dissent. The legal system is very carefully set up so that anybody that does make any kind of newsworthy protest is immediately doing something Ilegal, ana has the overwhelming weiglit of the media and govenment against them. Robín dental liygenist: I think it exists. They seem to be falling apart though. They've already lost so many members, and I don't thing they'll have that many people running out to join up with them now. I think they're bad news all the way around. What they want and what they're doing is all wrong. I don't see that they're doing any good. They're not trying to help the country at all; just causing a lot of problems. Michael: I like where their heads are at in lots of ways, but I don't agree with tlie violence. They are trying to revolt against the messed-up people that are running the country and that is all right, but the thing of it is. a lot of people are getting hurt in the long run, the SLA induded. There are a lot of things going on you don't heai about in the media, ['m sure the FBI is in there confusing things. There's also a lot of credibility to the SUN pólice agent thing. Frank Johnson: What do I think of the SLA? I think they're a bunch of tiuts, myself. We have systems set up in this country to deal with certain inequalities and injustices. They're just deviating from society and I think they shouldbe punished. Of course they are giving some of the more radical groups a bad name... a worse name than they already had. Overall I don't think they're being very sincere -- they're just rebels in our society. Kim sta}} 'member from the Free People's Clinic: l'm really kind of torn on this thing. Tve read different viewpoints both ways. First, that perhaps the SLA is really the CIA and then, that it's a legitímate group that would really like to help things. I can't trust the media, so I can't really give you an educated opinión at all. The media distorts things so badly. Many times they have said that the SLA has randomly shot out at people, like when robbing a bank and several other instances. If those tactics are true, I would say there's no justification. I think the picture the media is painting is really bad. because for one, I think that a lot of radical groups have a lot of good things to say. The system definately has to be changed, and a lot of these groups have a lot of good constructive ideas. And it's very plausible that the government could be in on this to deligitimatize other groups. ['m kind of biased toward the SUN, because in the past they've been not very credible. But they're getting better. They've changed their staff and with this story, they gave both sides. They said there was a lossibility, and that was good. Kent: I have a feeling that it's not hard to understand this sort of thing happening. If you've had any exposure to conditions outside this country, you could easily see how someone who had led such a sheltered life as Patricia Hearst could easily get their ideas turned around. I think it's easy for all kinds of frustrations to build up in this country, and that's one way people might decide to release them. You know, there isa lot-of evidence that they were very much into what they were doing. The way they hung on in the face of danger -- 1 think they feit very strongly about it. In that, they are with the rest of the radical groups here, who are trying to correct things that are wrong. . I Dick UofMsophomore: I don't know. In the newspapers, they portray them as terrorists and stuff like that and as far as that goes. they only give you the view that they're negative. They'll tell you that they're trashy and killers and thieves and repressive. That type of portrayal is bad. There's two sides. The SLA's side and the media's side. You ask me these questions and the answers can only come to me through televisión, the radio and the papers. There's nothing I can say until the SLA publishes something telling us, "this is our side." - i