04-07-2003, 08:18 PM
I heard on the radio today that a Senator had proposed charges of treason against Peter Arnett, the now notorious reporter who lost his job recently from NBC, CNBC, and National Geograhpic all at the same time. I sincerely hope that what I heard was incorrect. If what was reported is false, then ignore this post.
If, however, the report it true, I wish to ask on what grounds is Mr Arnett charged with treason? The man is a journalist, and is not an agent or servant of the U.S. Government, nor was his parent news organization a government sponsored organ, but rather a private corporation. While he may be a citizen, he hardly seems to have engaged in treasonous activity; instead, he may have overstepped his competence, and he certainly failed to follow the infamous 'Rule Number One:'
"Never overlook an opportunity to keep your mouth shut."
As a video media journalist, perhaps he was in an environment where that Rule is very hard to observe. He was paid, and paid well, to provide his view of the world in a free and open media, an institution whose strength is grounded in the same Constitution that Senators serve in their official capacity.
All Mr Arnett did was be wrong: loudly and publicly wrong. He made assertions that were simply at odds with what pretty much every other reporter was observing. His employer, whose reporters need to have a certain credibility level with their audience for obvious reasons in a news organization, lost confidence in him and let him go. What puzzles me is where there is any honor, or utility, in rubbing salt into the wound that this man has sustained: that of losing his livelihood (either through his own fault or via over reaction by his bosses, a debatable point I suppose) when all he did was speak freely. That is sort of what we, as in We The People, are all about: one is free to speak his mind, and the public shall judge the merits, or lack thereof, of one's speech. If he spoke deliberate falsehood, then perhaps slander or libel charges could be levied, but treason?
He did not divulge state secrets. He did not intentionally harm American or Coalition forces, and if he gave any comfort to enemies by his reporting, then I wonder if some lawmakers will also be tempted to press charges against the anti-war protestors who also provided moral support for the Iraqi regime (albeit unintentionally) by their exercise of their First Ammendment rights of open and public, and generally peaceful, dissent. (Today's actioins in Oakland is obviously a bit of a different case.) Theirs was not treasonous activity, it was protected activity under our Constitution. Why, then, single out Mr Arnett?
It has been said by some quotable source that
"In treason there's no profit, and here's the reason, for if it profit, none dare call it treason."
(In the 1950's a book entitled None Dare Call It Treason used that quote as it's little prelude quote after the title page.)
The irony here is that someone apparently thinks that if a reporter is publicly wrong while in disagreement with the government, during time of conflict, then he flirts with treason if his action is, like Mr Arnett's, very public and in the media eye. Will lawmakers also ask that charges be pressed against every political opponent of President Bush, particularly those whose claims about his motives and "why we went to Iraq" border on the libelous and personally insulting? I hope not, and I deem it unlikely.
I would have thought, as a taxpayer, that the challenging job in the Senate, that of looking after constituents in (__state__) while at the same time looking after all of us via the various committees Senators participate in, that they have scant time to spend on the gratuitous bullying of a man whose very public come uppance has already provided punishment enough for whatever crime he may have committed, journalistic or image wise, of simply being a loud voice that was in error. (His primary error was in his gross mis-assessment of the Operations Plan whose outcome he was covering, in situ) In short, he has been tried and convicted either by his own very public actions, or simply by his employers' decisions, or both. What more need be done?
Consider the case of the Army Sergeant in the 101st Airborne(Air Assault) Division, who fragged his comrades and his officers some weeks ago. (Why that young man did not pursue the legitimate Conscientious Objector status if what is reported about him is true is most puzzling.) Will lawmakers pursue charges of treason against him, a man whose overt action was deliberate and harmful? Or are they willing to let his Service address that event via the agreed means of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I trust it is the latter in his case.
So why not let the same hold for Mr Arnett? He erred in the media, and was tried, convicted, and condemmed by the local media authority.
I respectfully suggest that lawmakers let it remain at that.
If, however, the report it true, I wish to ask on what grounds is Mr Arnett charged with treason? The man is a journalist, and is not an agent or servant of the U.S. Government, nor was his parent news organization a government sponsored organ, but rather a private corporation. While he may be a citizen, he hardly seems to have engaged in treasonous activity; instead, he may have overstepped his competence, and he certainly failed to follow the infamous 'Rule Number One:'
"Never overlook an opportunity to keep your mouth shut."
As a video media journalist, perhaps he was in an environment where that Rule is very hard to observe. He was paid, and paid well, to provide his view of the world in a free and open media, an institution whose strength is grounded in the same Constitution that Senators serve in their official capacity.
All Mr Arnett did was be wrong: loudly and publicly wrong. He made assertions that were simply at odds with what pretty much every other reporter was observing. His employer, whose reporters need to have a certain credibility level with their audience for obvious reasons in a news organization, lost confidence in him and let him go. What puzzles me is where there is any honor, or utility, in rubbing salt into the wound that this man has sustained: that of losing his livelihood (either through his own fault or via over reaction by his bosses, a debatable point I suppose) when all he did was speak freely. That is sort of what we, as in We The People, are all about: one is free to speak his mind, and the public shall judge the merits, or lack thereof, of one's speech. If he spoke deliberate falsehood, then perhaps slander or libel charges could be levied, but treason?
He did not divulge state secrets. He did not intentionally harm American or Coalition forces, and if he gave any comfort to enemies by his reporting, then I wonder if some lawmakers will also be tempted to press charges against the anti-war protestors who also provided moral support for the Iraqi regime (albeit unintentionally) by their exercise of their First Ammendment rights of open and public, and generally peaceful, dissent. (Today's actioins in Oakland is obviously a bit of a different case.) Theirs was not treasonous activity, it was protected activity under our Constitution. Why, then, single out Mr Arnett?
It has been said by some quotable source that
"In treason there's no profit, and here's the reason, for if it profit, none dare call it treason."
(In the 1950's a book entitled None Dare Call It Treason used that quote as it's little prelude quote after the title page.)
The irony here is that someone apparently thinks that if a reporter is publicly wrong while in disagreement with the government, during time of conflict, then he flirts with treason if his action is, like Mr Arnett's, very public and in the media eye. Will lawmakers also ask that charges be pressed against every political opponent of President Bush, particularly those whose claims about his motives and "why we went to Iraq" border on the libelous and personally insulting? I hope not, and I deem it unlikely.
I would have thought, as a taxpayer, that the challenging job in the Senate, that of looking after constituents in (__state__) while at the same time looking after all of us via the various committees Senators participate in, that they have scant time to spend on the gratuitous bullying of a man whose very public come uppance has already provided punishment enough for whatever crime he may have committed, journalistic or image wise, of simply being a loud voice that was in error. (His primary error was in his gross mis-assessment of the Operations Plan whose outcome he was covering, in situ) In short, he has been tried and convicted either by his own very public actions, or simply by his employers' decisions, or both. What more need be done?
Consider the case of the Army Sergeant in the 101st Airborne(Air Assault) Division, who fragged his comrades and his officers some weeks ago. (Why that young man did not pursue the legitimate Conscientious Objector status if what is reported about him is true is most puzzling.) Will lawmakers pursue charges of treason against him, a man whose overt action was deliberate and harmful? Or are they willing to let his Service address that event via the agreed means of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I trust it is the latter in his case.
So why not let the same hold for Mr Arnett? He erred in the media, and was tried, convicted, and condemmed by the local media authority.
I respectfully suggest that lawmakers let it remain at that.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete