Charges of Treason?

[Occhidiangela]

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.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I'm not a lawyer (it would be nice if someone was here who could comment) but it seems to me by downtalking the US on an Iraqi propaganda network he definantly pushed the line. Being used in such a fashon IMO it really comes down to what was his intent with this interview, the Iraqi intent I think was pretty clear.

For people who missed it you can read what he said here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/...ett.transcript/

[--Pete]

. . . but it would not surprise me.

Hi,

It is in line with the attitudes and actions of the administration and its supporters.

They have replaced all their science advisers with "yes men".

They have used the events of 9/11 to cause any opposition to *their* policy to be branded "unpatriotic".

They have worked outside constitutional constraints (right to face the accusers, right to counsel, right to a speedy trial, even right of habeas corpus) in a number of incidents involving *suspected* terrorists.

When a group is sure that god is on their side, why should they obey the laws of man?

BTW, allow me to be anal:

"Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
-- Sir John Harington (1561–1612)
http://www.bartleby.com/66/27/26827.html

For years I had mistakenly attributed it to Alexander Pope, since it has a "Pope-ish" air to it. Not too long ago I was called on it and discovered my long standing mistake ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

"Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
-- Sir John Harington (1561–1612)

As I did not have a copy of that book present (it was on my Dad's shelf of old college books down in the basement back in my high school days, which is when I encountered it) I was reaching for the quote from memory.

Thanks for the correct quote. :)

I shall save it for future use so as to get it right next time.

[Occhidiangela]

And rather funnily enough, he thinks it all about him, and he thinks that he knows enough about what General Franks is thinking to be an authority on the entire plan. How droll. His mistake, IMO, was to assume that some of the hyperbole from Washington was evidence of the entire range and depth of options inherent in the Op Plan.

Some of it was propaganda itself, and some was to my view pure Op Sec violations.

(You NEVER let the enemy know what you are going to do, yet Sec Def revealed that 'we were talking to Iraqi commanders at all levels.' That was, IMO, an Op Sec violation, and IMO, I could be wrong here, may have lead to Saddam and company taking some countermeasures that he might not otherwise have taken. I am guessing here, the guns at the backs of the troops were already there in some cases.)

Arnett, like any media person, knows who his audience is and speaks to them. For some reason, he might have thought that he was only talking to an Iraqi audience, and thus packaged his message thusly. He also had developed a relationship with the local authorities that allowed him to even operate at all in Bagdad. That, I think, is where NBC and others found professional fault with him. Not for treason, but for so obviously pandering to the Iraqi state owned media. When viewed through the need for integrity in a news organization in a free press world, that is what, IMO, harmed his credibility and induced his bosses to let him go, not that he chose to see events through a different lens than the folks in Washington. Arnett got plenty of jeers in 1991, for his attention whoring ways, but he at least kept his credibility intact well enough to satisfy his bosses that he was calling it pretty straight.

Again, where you sit determines what you see. He had not changed his tune for 12 years, in that he felt that a certain view from Iraq is a good contrast to how the world is seen from New York, and needed to be heard.

Where he erred, in the eyes of his network bosses, I think, was in attempting to lend his, and therefore the network's, credibility to what is a blatant propaganda machine in a place where the 'free press' does not exist on a local level.

[Albion Child]

Sure I killed him judge, but I made a mistake and I'm very very sorry.

Yeah, this guy did a little more than push the line. He drove rightover it and then some.

[FoxBat]

I can think of only one way this can be construed as treason at the moment. During war, spouting American propaganda is OK, spouting enemy propaganda is not. This is because how the media portrays the war has a significant effect on the populations in question. Pro-American broadcasts at home will rally support to finish the war. Pro-Iraqi broadcasts over there will rally support to resist America, and prolong the war. Thus a media reporter can effect the outcome of the war with his speech. If he does so significantly for the enemy's cause, he's a traitor.

The full result of this reasoning is that freedom of press concerning war coverage is thrown out the window. The press gradually reverts to simply a tool of the state, like in the Iraqi dictatorship we profess to hate, since anything resembling freedom of press must take a back seat to war interests.

[ShadowHM]

No Text

[WarBlade]

I don't know the exact phrase that caused the uproar but wasn't it something like, "The first plan failed due to Iraqi resistance and now they'll be drawing up another plan."

. . . Which was all in the public eye already.

Frankly anyone who thinks that's "pushing the line" ought to have their heads examined. I've seen editorials here that leave that comment for dead and some of the printed articles are borderline abusive.

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.

Yet loudly parallel with world opinion. Oh and your "pretty much every reporter" demographic is more likely to be "half the other reporters" judging from some of the reports I've seen.

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

Losing . . . erm . . . You know how fast he got contracted into a new reporting role? He's still in Iraq reporting. ;)

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.

I'm a little vague here on how these "First Ammendment rights" apply to someone allegedly committing a crime in another country. Is it that he as an American citizen facing charges in America is protected by these rights or what? I'm no lawyer and I wonder how American law covers journalists outside of America. I wonder if further confusion might stem from his dual citizenship also . . .

He erred in the media, and was tried, convicted, and condemmed by the local media authority.

While the rest of the world who bothered with reading anything about him heaved a collective, "huh?" Seriously. The news story about the reaction of NBC over this is far bigger news than the fact that he made a verbal gaff.

And that's all it was really. A poorly thought out opinion presented to the masses.

[Chaerophon]

nt

[Artega]

He did not divulge state secrets.

No. We have CNN to do that for us.

I'm not a big political person, so I don't know much about the political side, and my views are likely very politically incorrect, but whatever.

My opinion has always been that too much freedom breeds anarchy. I think we give the press far too much freedom, but that's just my view of things. I don't have a problem with them reporting on the war, and I think it's perfectly fine that Arnett gave his opinion, but doing it in Iraq was wrong - it was akin to what the Dixie Chicks (thank god they finally got what they've been deserving) did in London. If he had such an opinion, he should say it here in the States, not off in Iraq. Same goes for those who support the war - say it your own damn country so crap like this can be avoided.

Just recently I saw an article in the local paper with "newspaper schematics" of an A-10 Thunderbolt. Granted, I've know its capabilities and loadout for a while, but the fact that newspapers are reporting this kind of stuff is a little disheartening. Cover the war, not our weapons. If "the people" don't know what a bomb or airplane is, let them go look it up for themselves. Maybe it will breed a SPARK of intelligence in them.

[Chaerophon]

What exactly was wrong with what the Dixie chicks did in London? If you can explain that one to me, I'll be surprised.

[Growler]

From the U.S. Constituition, Article 3.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Then there is this piece of analysis:

Though the constitutional provision is phrased somewhat backhandedly on the point, it is clear from the development of the section that the overt act is intended as a distinct element of proof of the offense in addition to intent. This would seem at least clearly to rule out treason prosecutions for the mere holding of dissident opinions.37 An effort, by violence, to resist the general execution of the laws, however, would apparently be viewed by the proponents of the treason clause as sufficient to make out a levying of war.38 "Traitorous" correspondence with the enemy would establish adherence to him.39 Beyond these scant items, the constitutional record gives us no specific help.

From chapter 4 of THE LAW OF TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES Collected Essays by James Willard Hurst

The numbers in the quoted exerpt above are footnotes.

I conclude that violent protestors within the borders of the US are vulnerable to charges of treason. Peter Arnett was abroad and merely dealt with propaganda (dissident opinions) but not secret information, and therefore his acts fail to meet the definition of treason.

[Occhidiangela]

Foxbat, I like the way you presented your point, and that sentiment is part of what I find objectionable in this charge of treason. The media-government gentlemen's relationship changed hugely in the Viet Nam era, and even more massively after Watergate. What confuses me is that the Senator in question might be dreaming of the WW II model of government media relations, a framework which has not existed for some 35 years or more.

The free press, which is precious to the American system as the guardians against government skullduggery, is right to ask the hard questions, and extremely correct to provide more than one point of view. As I see it, to do otherwise is an abrogation of their professional ethics. If various reporters simply get it wrong, that too will come out in time. The folks who make decisions, such as the President or General Franks, have to have big enough shoulders to handle the load, which includes criticism of their job in process. That comes with the badge, and if they can't handle it, they need to find other work. Resolve goes a long way toward dealing with the fact that folks demand a great deal from people in high positions in our country. We all should.

Mind you, many news organs the world over, to whom we in America all have easy access, express varied points of view, as do the dozens of major news organs in this country. That too makes for an interesting calculus on how one deals with the media. Even with the vairable editorial slant at any given media node, the media sereves no one by just spouting whatever the government chooses to present, which is why Iraqi TV, or Pravda for that matter, serves us less well than most Western European news organs.

I find it alarming when people inside the media, and out, get irriated by retired General Barry McCaffrey expressing his disdain or disagreement with whatever is going on in Iraq, or when someone cries 'treason' for folks speaking their views. That is why we have the open media, to present more than one point of view. There is no need for a Ministry of Truth like the one Bagdad Bob is running. (I refer to the much harried information minister in Iraq.)

In time, the facts will continue to come out, and will show how strong or weak many of those views were. I cannot fathom why so many in the 'instant gratifiction' generations simply have to have the answer, and predictions of the future with zero defects, RIGHT NOW! :P

Which brings us to the Armed Forces.

Their job is to do the dirty work, and part of that job is to interact with the media. It is not an optional taks, it is inherent in any military task in a free society. Hence, the briefings and the war correspondents 'embedded' in units, like some were in WW II and some in Viet Nam. Any time the Military tells anything but the truth, I fully expect the media to bust their balls, and bust them hard. I realize that many journalists arrive with agendas, they are after all human, which is a blow to objective reporting that you or I have access to, but if you read a variety of sources, from a variety of points of view, you can filter some of it out.

It takes a criticial eye to digest it all, something in my view that is far too often lacking.

But Treason for operating in the global media with a paticular slant? That is just rubbish. I sincerely hope that no one takes this idea seriously, and that the Senators colleagues quitely remind him about how things are supposed to work.

[Haider]

Is Peter Arnett even an American citizen? AFAIK he was born in New Zealand.

[Occhidiangela]

Appreciate the homework. :)

[Occhidiangela]

I may be wrong in that.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not a big political person, so I don't know much about the political side, and my views are likely very politically incorrect, but whatever.  My opinion has always been that too much freedom breeds anarchy. I think we give the press far too much freedom, but that's just my view of things.

We do not give the press too much freedom, not hardly. All that any of us should insist on from The Press, and by that I mean the Global Press, is that they get their facts straight, that they do more than pass around rumors. Good reporters do that, and maybe there are not enough good reporters around, but not every paper is the National Enquirer.

Even with editorial slants and biases, good reportage is laden with facts and observations. It is up to the reader to consider the source. :)

[Occhidiangela]

I heard that Al Jazeera lost a reporter in a fire fight last night, maybe the editors at Al Jazeera could use an experienced reporter. :)

[Sir_Die_alot]

Warblade, the fact there is a discussion at all shows he pushed a line. I am not qualified to say if he crossed it or not, but American citizens who have participated in enemy propaganda have been tried for treason before. So please have your own head examined.

As for what he said I have more of a problem with "So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments." This sounds like a sanitized version of 'I am deliberatly playing up civilian casualties and playing down Iraqi defeats to help stop this war.' I think this definantly pushes direct participation in, and support of enemy propaganda. Does this small slip qualify him to be tried as a traitor? I am not lawyer or legal scholar and not adaquately qualified to answer. I can merley ask the question. Personally though, I am happy with the fact he has ruined his reputation, and (probably) won't work for anything more than minor names in media again.