Charges of Treason?

[Archon_Wing]

But is it truly a arrestable offense? Yes the reporter's commentary does not side with the opinions of many and is flawed. One could even call it unpartiotic...

Yes, he is emphasizing civilian casualties, and pushing his anti-war agenda. But that in no way, supports Iraqi propoganda. Iraqi Propganda would go along the lines "The arrogant Imperialist oil-seeksers who bully their way have met firm resistance from our brave fighters."

(Note: A lot of the anti-war protestors use that "It's all about oil crap." Once more, and I will hurl. :))

He is not writing in support of the state of Iraq. You can argue that Iraqi soldiers are fighting for Iraq, but he'd really have to write something in support of Hussien or his government. Unless, it's somehow wrong that our enemy would create firm resistance. He is bringing up the suggestion that perhaps this war is not worth fighting. He is writing about our casualties. Whether you agree or disagree is another issue.

I hope you can see the diffrence.

Why is being anti-war unpartiotic? The media does not speak for the government.

I don't know, but that above passage is biased, but is far from giving comfort and aid to our enemies. Is it badly written? Probaly. Treasonous? I need a better argument than that.

[WarBlade]

Warblade, fact there is a discussion at all shows he pushed a line.

If you say so. But you realize you've just changed your statement from "pushed the line" to "pushed a line" when it's already clear that he has pushed somebody's own personal line at NBC.

So what?

Like I said before: It was a verbalized gaff.

The kind of mistake we all make at some time (albeit less publicly). The fact the NBC made such a big deal out of it is surprising, but the words of this senator just make the senator a laughing stock in interntional eyes.

[Occhidiangela]

Consider who Arnett saw as his audience, and consider who the Senator packaged his remarks for. If Arnett felt that the side of war that he was 'revealing' was not being seen by his network's prime audience, he was trying to show a side of the war that he felt needed being shown. Where was he in Belgrade, I wonder, or was he there and I was in a 'I am not watching TV' mood during some of that stuff?

I seriously doubt that the Senator in question gives one sh** about international opinion in this matter, for better or worse. I still wonder at what positive spin he could possibly put on that when the guy already got fired, very publicly.

In contrast: Jane Fonda actually indulged in bona fide treasonous activity, aid and comfort to the enemy, and in a very public manner. However, since U.S. had not declared war in Viet Nam, the legal ground to hit her with charges of treason was a bit shaky, and there was No Political Will to raise the issue as huge numbers of law makers were, by that time, trying to find a way out of a mess that Kennedy left to LBJ who left it to Nixon . . . :P

[kandrathe]

From the Congretional Record, Senate, April 1, 2003, article 18 of 51;

PETER ARNETT, TRAITOR -- (Senate - April 01, 2003)

I agree with you entirely. Mr. Arnett has already been convicted by his employers, his peers, and in the court of public opinion. Last I heard, he was accepting a job with Abu Dhabi television, just so that he could continue to remain on the air to report on the war. Just what the Islamic world needs, another mouthpiece for deception.

edit: Url was temporary... Need to look at Item #18, page S4621

[Occhidiangela]

*doh* I know where that site is! :o