Try Arnett for treason, senator says

[Craig]

Who the f**k elected all these morons into office ?

--------

http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/04/02/lo....bunning02.html (http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/04/02/loc_rail.bunning02.html)

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

Try Arnett for treason, senator says
Tristate reacts to war

WASHINGTON - Correspondent Peter Arnett should be "tried as a traitor" for remarks he made in an interview with Iraqi state television, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said Tuesday.

Arnett, a New Zealand native and naturalized U.S. citizen, said in the Sunday interview that Washington's "first war plan has just failed because of Iraqi resistance. ... Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."

NBC and its related network, for which the longtime war reporter had been covering the conflict from Baghdad, dismissed Arnett despite his apologies Monday. Later the same day, London's anti-war Daily Mirror hired him. In Arnett's first report for that paper, he retracted his apology.

"I think he should be brought back and tried as a traitor to the United States of America, for his aiding and abetting the Iraqi government during a war," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. Later in a speech on the Senate floor, Bunning said: "Mr. Arnett can apologize all he likes for being a `useful idiot' for Saddam and his barbaric regime. But that's not enough for me, and it's certainly not enough for our soldiers and many Americans."

"I think Mr. Arnett should be met at the border and arrested should he come back to America," said Bunning.

Carl Weiser, Enquirer Washington Bureau

[Tao]

i'm confused, why did arnett do it in the first place?

[SunWuKong]

tried as a "traitor"?
what happened to freedom of speech?
and NBC's firing of him just goes to show what a bunch of government lackeys mainstream media is.
freedom of speech my ass.

[d-boy]

what a total load of crap.
This is the type of climate the current administration has fostered, one in which Americans cannot express views differing from those of the majority.


Another implicit lesson to be drawn from this episode:

The truth is what the majority decides it is. There is no absolute truth in regards to human affairs.

[ren28]

He was known for speaking his mind and also for good reporting. However, the statements that he made upset a lot of people. Upsetting people by making such contradictory statements probably does not go well with ratings. Trying him for treason sounds stupid though. If that is from the Enquirer, I would not care either way.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Tao@Apr 2 2003, 08:37 PM
i'm confused, why did arnett do it in the first place?
he's a jackass weasel and did it for his career. He thought for a second it would hurt him, so he apologized, but notice once he found a post he took back his apology.

[rakovlam]

Arnett goes on Iraqi TV (part of the Saddam network) and tells the world that the US is losing. That's not freedom of speech (he was in Iraq, what freedom of speech?) ... that's the male version of Tokyo Rose. Now, I wouldn't charge him with treason but rather let him feel the wrath of the American public. But don't bet on him returning ever, he just got hired by London's Daily Mirror. He made his statement as protected by the Constitution, time for him to feel the consequences.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 2 2003, 10:21 PM
Arnett goes on Iraqi TV (part of the Saddam network) and tells the world that the US is losing. That's not freedom of speech (he was in Iraq, what freedom of speech?) ... that's the male version of Tokyo Rose. Now, I wouldn't charge him with treason but rather let him feel the wrath of the American public. But don't bet on him returning ever, he just got hired by London's Daily Mirror. He made his statement as protected by the Constitution, time for him to feel the consequences.
yeah, well the freedom of speech i was referring to is the same idea that was missing from jim bunning's mind when he said that an american citizen should be tried for being a traitor for expressing his views. was arnett revealing confidential information that he was told not to disclose? no. he was expressing his personal opinion.

whether or not arnett did it for his career, i don't know. i hate how people who are vocal against current government policies are automatically labelled "traitor" or "unpatriotic". in fact, some of the most patriotic people are the ones who voice concerns about government policies. famous example being the tianenmen square riots, and famous chinese writer Lu Xun from pre-communist days.

[rakovlam]

yeah, well the freedom of speech i was referring to is the same idea that was missing from jim bunning's mind when he said that an american citizen should be tried for being a traitor for expressing his views. was arnett revealing confidential information that he was told not to disclose? no. he was expressing his personal opinion.

whether or not arnett did it for his career, i don't know. i hate how people who are vocal against current government policies are automatically labelled "traitor" or "unpatriotic". in fact, some of the most patriotic people are the ones who voice concerns about government policies. famous example being the tianenmen square riots, and famous chinese writer Lu Xun from pre-communist days.

Not when you are doing it in Iraq on Saddam's TV network. That's called being Saddam's stooge. Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. In America, the patriotic aren't the ones voicing against the government, it's the ones that are able to tolerate it.

[Craig]

Originally posted by ren28@Apr 2 2003, 07:11 PM
If that is from the Enquirer, I would not care either way.

Not the National Enquirer, it's a local midwestern periodical called the Cincinnati Enquirer.

[mr. x]

if you try him, your gonna hafta do "Hanoi" Jane Fonda too

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by mr. x@Apr 3 2003, 08:15 AM
if you try him, your gonna hafta do "Hanoi" Jane Fonda too
jane fonda's getting old. if she's not hot, then she's certainly outlived her useful life as a free civilian. :D

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 2 2003, 10:53 PM
yeah, well the freedom of speech i was referring to is the same idea that was missing from jim bunning's mind when he said that an american citizen should be tried for being a traitor for expressing his views. was arnett revealing confidential information that he was told not to disclose? no. he was expressing his personal opinion.

whether or not arnett did it for his career, i don't know. i hate how people who are vocal against current government policies are automatically labelled "traitor" or "unpatriotic". in fact, some of the most patriotic people are the ones who voice concerns about government policies. famous example being the tianenmen square riots, and famous chinese writer Lu Xun from pre-communist days.

Not when you are doing it in Iraq on Saddam's TV network. That's called being Saddam's stooge. Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. In America, the patriotic aren't the ones voicing against the government, it's the ones that are able to tolerate it.
i don't think the first amendment limits on what platform you express your opinions. other than certain things like yelling "fire" in a theater, that is. bunning has no legal basis to "try him as a traitor".

and i disagree. the ones that just tolerate policies they disagree with are just lazy (like me). the ones who do something about it are the real patriots.

[VV o n g B a]

arnett should be allow to say whatever he wants. but nbc should be free to fire him b/c it affects their bottomline. they are a business afterall.

treason is ridiculous. that senator should feel free to bring it up and the US population should feel free to slap him down. and i hope he gets called out on that statement.

[kitty]

Oh my god... I was trying to figure out what this whole Arnett thing is all about...

He is NOT a traitor. He shouldn't even have been let go! He's a reporter for crying out loud!! All he said was "[Washington's] first war plan has just failed because of Iraqi resistance. ... Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces." He's making an observation that the U.S. is meeting resistence. He's certainly not saying we're "losing the war", nor is he saying that Washington is stupid or anything.

This is such a hysterical overreaction against a man just trying to do his job.

PS - I have never heard of this dude before so I don't know anything about his personal beliefs.

[ism]

Arnett: "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance."

General William Wallace, ground commander: "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against."

General Barry R. McCaffrey (ret), WSJ 4/1/03: "The `rolling start' concept of the attack dictated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has put us in a temporarily risky position."

[SunWuKong]

the people running NBC are a bunch of government lackeys. this is proof of just how much freedom of speech the US really gives its citizens, and just how much (or i should say little) the people benefit from the 1st amendment.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Apr 3 2003, 03:13 PM
He is NOT a traitor. He shouldn't even have been let go! He's a reporter for crying out loud!! ... This is such a hysterical overreaction against a man just trying to do his job.
Appearing on Iraqi government-controlled TV isn't part of his job. In fact it may even be specifically outside the scope of activities permitted by his job contract, at least without permission from his employers, which I have a feeling is the root of the firing here.

[kitty]

ok, so here's where i'm confused... was he reporting for the iraqi state tv, was he aired on iraqi state tv, or was he interviewed for iraqi state tv... as far as i can tell, only one scenario would be bad: if he was reporting for NBC and also gave his reports to iraqi state tv w/out permission of nbc. if he was being interviewed, he was exercising his right as a citizen to vocalize his opinions.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

actually I figured making appearances on Iraqi State TV would be prohibited or regulated under the Trading With the Enemy ... but anyway, I'd imagine most TV news programs would usually expect their reporters to get prior approval before going on another station's news program, even if just as a guest. I guess because news reporters are kinda public figures, and their employers thus own their image. My friend who works for a local news station here in New England points out that's part of her contract. Ah, corporate control. :dance:

[ism]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Apr 3 2003, 04:11 PM
Appearing on Iraqi government-controlled TV isn't part of his job. In fact it may even be specifically outside the scope of activities permitted by his job contract, at least without permission from his employers, which I have a feeling is the root of the firing here.
Nope, NBC even backed him on Sunday, saying "He answered their questions out of professional courtesy." The White House then said Arnett spoke from "a point of complete ignorance" and NBC fired him the next day.

[kitty]

oh god. nbc has no balls....

[rakovlam]

All he said was "[Washington's] first war plan has just failed because of Iraqi resistance. ...

Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. (repeat)

The day before is Iraqi TV "interview", he claimed on the Today show that Saddam was treating the American POW's very well. Bad call. Later that week, US troops find a battered Jessica Lynch and 11 mutilated bodies in an Iraqi hospital.

[kitty]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 3 2003, 10:33 PM

Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. (repeat)

He declined that he was in support of the war? I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to say.

The other argument is this: you're saying he lied about things happening in Iraq (you are assuming that he is privvy to all information that we later get... perhaps he didn't know about Lynch? who knows...) Either way, so maybe he's a poor reporter, but it doesn't make him a TRAITOR. I'm not trying to defend him as a person, but saying that his "crime" doesn't fit.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 3 2003, 05:33 PM

Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. (repeat)

The day before is Iraqi TV "interview", he claimed on the Today show that Saddam was treating the American POW's very well. Bad call. Later that week, US troops find a battered Jessica Lynch and 11 mutilated bodies in an Iraqi hospital.
i was not under the impression that he was under oath to tell the truth, whereas he would be violating some laws if he lied.

[kitty]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 3 2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 3 2003, 05:33 PM

Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. (repeat)

The day before is Iraqi TV "interview", he claimed on the Today show that Saddam was treating the American POW's very well.  Bad call.  Later that week, US troops find a battered Jessica Lynch and 11 mutilated bodies in an Iraqi hospital.
i was not under the impression that he was under oath to tell the truth, whereas he would be violating some laws if he lied.
as a reporter are you required to tell the truth?

[Craig]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Apr 3 2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 3 2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 3 2003, 05:33 PM

Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. (repeat)

The day before is Iraqi TV "interview", he claimed on the Today show that Saddam was treating the American POW's very well.  Bad call.  Later that week, US troops find a battered Jessica Lynch and 11 mutilated bodies in an Iraqi hospital.
i was not under the impression that he was under oath to tell the truth, whereas he would be violating some laws if he lied.
as a reporter are you required to tell the truth?

http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?ac...=ST&f=5&t=7359& (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7359&)

[rakovlam]

General William Wallace, ground commander: "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against."

Today on the NY Times correction page: "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against." (uppercasing theirs)




Now I know why people defend OJ...

[MellowDrama]

People who don't know shit about law should just shut the fuck up.

That's all I'm gonna say.

[ism]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 3 2003, 05:33 PM
Also, he lied about declining support for the war. He was also praising Iraq's ministry of Information. (repeat)
ABC News/Washington Post Poll

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?"
3/23/03 71% approve
3/27/03 69% approve

He lied about declining support?

What exactly did he say about the ministry of information?

[ism]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Apr 3 2003, 06:46 PM
Today on the NY Times correction page: "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against." (uppercasing theirs)
A bit different... like... resisting, perhaps? Not surrendering immediately? Not welcoming the soldiers with open arms? What was the first war plan anyway?

Richard Perle, 3/21/2003: "We have been saying for some time that few are willing to fight for Saddam, and even fewer are willing to die for Saddam. There are more people demonstrating in San Francisco than there are people willing to die fighting for Iraq."

Oh, I guess that's why he resigned.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by ism@Apr 3 2003, 11:49 PM
A bit different... like... resisting, perhaps? Not surrendering immediately? Not welcoming the soldiers with open arms? What was the first war plan anyway?

Richard Perle, 3/21/2003: "We have been saying for some time that few are willing to fight for Saddam, and even fewer are willing to die for Saddam. There are more people demonstrating in San Francisco than there are people willing to die fighting for Iraq."

Oh, I guess that's why he resigned.
http://www.republicons.org/view_article.as..._ARTICLE_ID=722 (http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=722)