Peter Arnett: Treason or no?

[happybrew]

Is Peter Arnett guilty of treason?

[Pete]

I sure wish I knew what the facts of the situation were. I know Arnett has put his foot in his mouth before, but I can also imagine there could have been coersion influencing his interview in Baghdad.

[ 04-01-2003, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Pete ]

[happybrew]

Hi Pete!

[ 04-01-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: happybrew ]

He has a long history of "Anti-American" propaganda

[Cool Texan]

From Dictionary.com...their definition of "Treason":

1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2) A betrayal of trust or confidence.


He did neither of these two things. What he did was stupid, and thus he got fired. But treason? Sorry.

[Mojo]

Now what Geraldo Rivera did, that is treasonous. Publicizing the plans for a military action prior to it happening. Sheesh, he out to be tried by a military court.

I think Arnett is just a stupid loudmouth. He got what he deserved.

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

Peter Arnett has always been a liberal believer that America pushes it's weight around. His reporting has always leaned towards making his country look bad and has failed to report factually. In the last incident, he purposely aided the enemy by giving them "comfort" when he stated that the invasion was or is failing. He knew that the people here in America would not believe him because we get accurate reports from other reporters. However, his interview was to be broadcast to the Iraqis and other Arab nations. Traitor? yes! Stupid? Very! Will he get what he deserves? Not really. His portrait should be alongside Saddam's!

[Cool Texan]

ATC...read the definition, and answer the question of Treason unbiasedly. Remove the emotion. Treason, no. Review it a million times without emotion. Still no. Sorry.

Your emotion and energy is great...we all feel that way. However, you cant use that same energy/emotion when evaluating a persons actions. A man named J. Friday once said "Just the facts ma'am".

[ 04-01-2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Cool Texan ]

[happybrew]

I think there is a fine line there, and I think that Peter Arnett crossed it. Any one of us can express our first amendment rights within certain limits. We cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, though. In his position as a respected newsperson, though, his opinions, right or wrong, tend to carry more weight and have a lot of influence. By saying what he said in the forum he said it, it is conceivable that many Iraqis who would otherwise have surrendered may continue to fight, and to die, for a cause that has no future. Thus, Peter Arnett may potentially contribute to the deaths of Iraqis who fear reprisals from Saddam Hussein and do not surrender because they are led to believe that he will still be in power at the end of the war. Furthermore, this also contributes to the deaths of American servicemen at the hands of those Iraqis who only fight out of fear of the regime, and they are many. This, I believe, is what makes his statements treason. It is a betrayal of trust. He could have made his statements in such a way that they would not have had this potential effect. He could have expressed his opinion in terms of the difficulties that we face, rather than a blanket statement that the war plan has failed. As Pete points out, we don't know the full circumstances, and if he had a gun at his back, or even had a reasonable fear for his safety, okay, I can understand that. But assuming he did not, I think that it does meet the definition of treason, as it is a betrayal of trust. We trust people in prominent positions not to do things that could potentially harm our interests and our people in the statements that they make. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know for sure if it would be treason, but to me it sure looks that way.

happybrew

[Cool Texan]

I reiterate...Treason defined:

1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2) A betrayal of trust or confidence.

He did neither. I'm not defending him at all...but I refuse to apply terms to him which simply do not relate.

[Pilar]

The job of a reporter is to report the facts. Not to offer his 'opinion' or become the news. By that measure Peter Arnett is a lousy journalist, Pulitzer notwithstanding.

The feeding frenzy of the media is all too apparent in this war. The news slows down and they find anything to blab about on tv. Following OJ Simpson around on the low speed pursuit for hours and the continuing adventures of Tanya Harding are other examples of this.

[happybrew]

Cool Texan: if your wife went and blabbed to your boss something that she should have kept her mouth shut about, and your boss got mad and either fired you or made your life difficult as a result, would you consider that a betrayal of trust?

happybrew

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

Sorry you can't see what betrayal of trust is Cool Texan! Talking to the enemy in a derogatory way about your country during a time of war is a betrayal of trust! His job was to report the news, not give an interview to the enemy there by giving them comfort and aiding them in their political lies to their people and destroying their hope. It is your right to see it your way. And that's why we have such a great country. We can discuss it and hopefully come to a conclusion. Look up the definition for betrayal. Look up trust. Look up enemy and while you are at it, look up countryman.

[DanS]

Try looking up the LEGAL definition of treason, rather than the definition from the Webster's Dictionary. It's not quite the same.

[Cool Texan]

The legal definition....you mean this one?

Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.


There is a difference between "comfort" (mental comfort as you imply) and "aid and comfort" as in to assist the enemy. Do the math folks...its not Treason.

In his position as a reporter, he was not privy to top secret information, which he could leak and thus betray that trust which was given to him.

Betrayal...that is not the same as Treason.

Trust...I've known the meaning of this word from the day I was born.

Enemy...I've known the meaning of this word since I was 8 years old and Timmy Fischler hit me with a dirt clod, drawing blood.

Countryman...that's even easier, so I wont waste our time.

Shall we try all the anti-war protestors for Treason since they openly oppose the war, thus giving "comfort" (again, the wrong application of the word) to the enemy?

Again...I am not defending the guy. Not in the least. But he did NOT commit Treason. There is no way on Earth you can honestly say he did.



[ 04-01-2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Cool Texan ]

[DanS]

CT,

Thank you for finding that. There's a little more to meeting the definition of treason in legal terms than there is using the Webster's definition.

I agree with your assessment.......FWIW.

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by DanS:
CT,

Thank you for finding that. There's a little more to meeting the definition of treason in legal terms than there is using the Webster's definition.

I agree with your assessment.......FWIW.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Agreed.

[corrirod]

Stop with all the technical mombajomba, he's a traitor. He's getting more soldiers, ours and theirs, killed in order to make the news. To argue that we shouldn't call it treason is ridiculous. Perhaps Treason is the wrong legal word, how about Murderer? I've got an idea, why don't we put Peter on the front lines with the Iraqi Republican Guard and he can see first hand how well the Iraqi's are doing against our troops.

[happybrew]

Okay, he didn't meet the legal definition of treason. But the dictionary gives the moral definition of treason.

happybrew

[DanS]

Yeah, but we don't often talk of executing people who make moral blunders that aren't illegal.

In my opinion, traitors should be executed. You sell out your country, and you're toast. But that's tuff like selling sensitive military secrets or tossing a grenade in your fellow soldiers' tent. That's why it's bogus to call Arnett a traitor. He's an idiot, a loser, a second-rate reporter and be should be treated as persona non grata.....but executed? C'mon....how about we try to act like civilized humans, even if Peter Arnett chooses not to.

[ 04-01-2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: DanS ]

[happybrew]

Dan, I don't believe in the death penalty, so I don't think that Peter Arnett should be executed, even if he meets the legal definition of treason. As far as the moral definition of treason goes, that's between him and God, and how the public should view him. If he doesn't meet the legal definition, then he should be held in public contempt. If he does, he should be prosecuted and locked up. But heck, it's just us fisherpeople on ifish yacking, so it's not like it matters much what we think about it.

happybrew

[corrirod]

I would be less apt to execute someone who sold military secrets than I would to execute Arnett. His words are going to make American soldiers die! That's murder, and I believe that's still illegal. May not be deserving of execution but certainly deserving of criminal persecution.

We all share a mutual disgust for Arnett so for that I'm glad. Unfortunately Arnett hasn't suffered from this act, at least not substantially. He lost 2 jobs and gained one back in less than 24 hours. Unfortunately any lives lost because of his actions won't be replaced quite so quickly.

At this point we've already discussed both sides of this issue and to carry it on any further is just bickering. I'm done with both of these Arnett threads. For our troops sake I hope I'm wrong.

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

Cool Texan,
Definitions make a bases from which we gain insight. Laws are based on emotions,ie, I don't want you to steal from me so we make a law. Definitions help us define what the law is trying to express. When we make a judgement as to right or wrong it should be based on facts, the law and how we feel the law was or was not violated. If we didn't care about the violation of a law, nothing would happen. Someone has to be "emotional" in order for there to be a prosecution. I care about what Arnett did. I feel he has hurt Americans by what he did. I feel he was being untruthful, biased and acting contrary to the interest of his country. I feel what he did is treason. He is a traitor to all Americans. Whether it is a violation of the law would have to be decided by a court and jury. What he did will not be prosecuted however so it really is a moot quetion. Defend ideals. Defend a persons right to express himself. But don't try to interpet the law and say he didn't do something wrong because we just don't have enough time to argue the point. But I know when I have been wronged, because I get emotional about it.

[Cool Texan]

How exactly will people die because he said on Iraqi TV that the first plan failed? Give me a break. I understand you are angry...but good lord.

Now we're on to Traitor and Murderer? [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[speyfly]

Personally I think that george is more of a traitor than Arnett is. This war has been botched from the start and we have been lied to from the beginning. They could not even do a decent job selling the war cause it unjustified because it’s the wrong war. Remember Al Qaeda and Osama bin forgotten about?

First it was to disarm Saddam, and then it was to liberate Iraq and lets not forget that this was supposed to be a 2 week war. Now they are talking about it taking 6 months to a year to wrap things up and install a puppet government. Whichever way the wind is blowing is where the leaders will go with their spin. Now you’re talking about executing a journalist because of his opinion, which did not endanger anyone. He was merely pointing out the facts that this war plan was a poor plan. Even our own military leaders have stated from the beginning that this was not the way to do it.

You guys have lost your minds!

[ 04-02-2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[Cool Texan]

Spey...you must have mis-posted your message. Otherwise, its like we agree on this one!?!?!?! :shocked:

I think the words Traitor and Treason are just the iFish words of the day. Neither gentleman (Bush and Arnett) would fall under that classification when addressed in an unbiased, non-emotional viewpoint.

[Thumper]

Ah, Speyfly, the voice of reason ......

[FrogPond]

Spey-
who said it was going to be a 2 week war...CNN?

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

Speyfly

We are into the second week of this war. Who said it would last only two? Our forces are on the outskirts of the Iraqi capital moving over 280 miles and we have less than 40 kia's. The Iraqis have lost over 8 divisions (that's a lot of military power for you non military types) A division can have more than 1,000 troops. This war will go down as the most brilliant campaign in history. I have never heard any of our leaders say it would be a short war. Who is lying? Get your story straight. Many of the so called unknowledgeable members of the news media have egg on the face for making idiotic statements about matters they have absolutely no idea of. And many listeners fall for their stupid statements. This war will be over soon and the goals will be obtained. Unfortunately many Iraqi civilians and military will have to pay with their lives because of the actions of the Iraqi leadership. I respect the rights of anyone who wishes to protest this war. I oppose all wars. Unfortunately, war is the history of man and sometimes it happens. When it does, we are obligated to get it over as soon as possible and support our troops. Let's get this job done and pray we don't have to do it again.

[speyfly]

CT, you were able to read between the lines. Calling Arnett a traitor is just another stupid statement and that was my point.

Spey,
And you are an expert at "stupid statements"?

[Cool Texan]

Its like a bunch of kids around here. There is some odd love/hate thing with Keta and Spey. How old are you two exactly?

[speyfly]

Albie, Thumper and Frog, the current administration danced all around the issue of how long will it take. They allowed the media to spin their war and did not make sure that the public understood the mission. The fact that almost 50% believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11 proves that. If the Middle East decided to stop selling us their oil this country would be done economically. The US’s desire for stable oil imports to fuel our economy and to have a place and a voice in the Middle East politics is the real mission. Do you think the US will allow the UN to have a voice in the regime change? No, of coarse not!!! It would not be in our best interests but this does not make it the moral thing to do. Remember folks; it’s about the US and not about what is good for the people of the Middle East. So you can say; yes the White House did tell the public that it was going to be a short 2-week war to get us into the game.

[speyfly]

My opology to the board. Instead of using the word stupid, I should have said :smile: uninformed.

[FrogPond]

spey-

the current administration danced all around the issue of how long will it take

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I believe I heard the President say we were getting into a war that would be a long hard fight, but he hoped for a quick resolution. Since the media are vieing for our viewership (= ratings) they took the opportunity to sensationalize the hyper-war and feed our desire to see this over immediately.

Does reality TV get any more interesting than "live" footage of a war? Sure beats the hell out of Joe Bachelor.

They allowed the media to spin their war

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am glad I live in a country that doesn't allow the government control over the media. :grin: I agree that the way it was "advertised" was condusive to gaining support from the taxpayers, but I disagree with you that it was the administrations fault (entirely ).

People tend to hear what they want to hear!

CT,
It was a question, not a statement.

PS: Are you the new "Designated Spelling ****"?

[ 04-02-2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Cool Texan]

Keta, I know it was a question. The question mark gave it away. My point is in the tone of any of your posts to spey, and usally vice versa. Its like reading a bickering fight between two kids.

Besides, if I was a real spelling ****, I'd point out to Geek the typo on his web site. :shocked: :grin:

[ 04-02-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Cool Texan ]

[Snapset]

Unless being a doofus is a hangable offense, let him live. I think even I, yes, I, have even been a doofus once. But not to Al-Jazeera.

[happybrew]

Originally posted by Snapset:
Unless being a doofus is a hangable offense, let him live. I think even I, yes, I, have even been a doofus once. But not to Al-Jazeera.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think that, to Al-Jazeera, all of us are doofus's.

happybrew

[The Fishing Geek]

What typo? I don't see any typos. :grin:

[Cool Texan]

I do. I still see one even though you updated the page. :grin:

[fishbane]

Free speach is only allowed as long as you don't say anything about the regime. The bush regime that is. My hat is off to anyone willing to speak up.


Impeach Bush

[Cool Texan]

And instead of "opology" you should have said "apology". :tongue:

[speyfly]