What Was Your Reaction To The SLA? VOP

Our cover story last issue, which explored the possibility that some members of the SLA may have been police agents, received quite a reactions when it hit the streets.

The day after the issue's release, two of the SUN's coinboxes were found spray-painted with green "SLA" letters all over them. It took several hours to get the slogans off.

At the same time, three of the coinboxes were completely ripped off of 100 papers each.

The next night the SUN received a threatening phone call from a man who refused to identify himself. He told us that "what you wrote about the SLA this issue of the SUN shows you're an enemy of the people." After that statement, the man hung up.

But despite this madness, most people's reaction has been that at the very least our cover story raised a series of unanswered questions and suspicious circumstances that must be delved into if the real story of the SLA is ever to be told. Most people also agreed with us that whether the SLA was led by agents or not, they couldn't see how their actions had helped to comprehensibly communicate the need for social revolution to masses of people.

Given the intensity of the various responses we received (the last issue sold out), the SUN decided to interview people on the street about their reaction to the Symbionese so-called Liberation Army. A selection of responses follows:

Voice of the People by Cheryl and Michael Cheeseman.

Dan: I don't think I'm in a position to make a moral judgement about the SLA, because I don't know the. I suspect they are into large scale social revolution, and historically speaking, that's always been something that's carried out violently. If they had committed a bunch of indiscriminate murder or something, I'd be absolutely against them, but it seems that they've suffered a lot more than they caused suffering.

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 for severe radical dissent. The legal system is very carefully set up so that anybody that does not make any kind of newsworthy protest is immediately doing something illegal, and has the overwhelming weight of the media and government against them.

Robin, dental hygienist:  I think it exists. They seem to be falling apart though. They've already lost so many members, and I don't think 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 the 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 included.

There are a lot of things going on you don't hear about in the media. I'm sure the FBI is in there confusing things. There's also a lot of credibility to the SUN police agent thing.

Frank Johnson: What do I think of the SLA? I think they're a bunch of nuts, 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 should be 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, staff member from the Free People's Clinic: I'm really kind of torn on this thing. I've read different viewpoints both ways. First, that perhaps the SLA is really the CIA and then, that it's a legitimate group that would really like to help things.

I can't trust the media, so I can't really give you an educated opinion 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 definitely 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 delegitimize other groups.

I'm kind of biased toward the SUN, because in the past they've been not very credible. But they're getting better. They've changes their staff and with this story, they gave both sides. They said there was a possibility, 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 is a lot of evidence that they were very much into what they were doing. The way they hung on in the face of danger--I think they felt 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.

Dick, U of M sophomore: 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 television, the radio and the papers. There's nothing I can say until the SLA publishes something telling us, "this is our side".