I guess I did miss the point. Since in my family it was all about how misguided the Vietnam war was and talks of student sit ins and such. Fonda was naive but she was, I think, on the correct side of the argument.
But I guess you missed the point too. Holder stated  that the Executive Branch wasn't going to make a blanket statement hemming in the Executive to use drones during such events as Peal Harbor and 9/11. So what we've got is a temper tantrum which compares two of the most epic events in US history where the power of the Executive would have swept pretty much anything before it to a single Vietnam war protester who happened to get a lot of attention because she was a celebrity over whom the Executive could only exert the most minor of authority. If a drone were to have killed Jane Fonda it would have been an obvious criminal action. If a drone had shot down one of the remaining jets after the towers were hit it would have been a justified use of a military force to avoid a larger death toll. Trying to compare the two is simply trying to derail the stated response to (Rand's) original question.