Peter Arnett = TRAITOR?????

[airhead]

WICKED TRAITOR!!!! I couldn't believe what I was hearing!
What was he thinking???? Why would he do that?

 

[Olaf]

Originally posted by airhead
Why would he do that?

Ego

 

[delswife]

Thanks for the link Dan..
Bye,bye Baghdad Pete

Wonder where he will go now?

 

[Laz]

Bagdad Pete doesn't deserve to write labels on toliet paper.

 

[nativetxn]

Thanks for the link, Dan.

 

[MrsMud]

I emailed MSNBC and this was the canned response I got (not 5 seconds after clicking SEND):

Thank you for your thoughtful comments about Peter Arnett. He will not report for MSNBC again. Granting an interview to Iraqi TV was wrong and the commentary within the interview was disgraceful. As you may know, Arnett did not work directly for MSNBC and NBC. And now he will no longer even appear as an on-scene correspondent.

Sincerely,

Erik Sorenson
President, GM
MSNBC

 

[TinkHappy]

He called himself an American today on the Today Show, after he apologized. He should not be allowed back in the USA. If he does come back he should be tried as a traitor. . Shame on Him!!!!!!!!!

 

[AirForceRocks]

I think it might be good for all of us to remember the definition of treason. This definition is included in the U.S. Constitution, and is not something that can just be thrown about lightly.

Section. 3.

Clause 1: 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.

While I agree that Peter Arnett's comments were outrageous, I personally fail to see where they provide aid or comfort to the enemy.

 

[Lanshark]

Brenda,

It has been reported, although it doesn't make it true, that Arnett's interview has been played over and over again on what little Iraqi TV is left. It is obviously a propaganda bonanza for Iraq. Whether by the military definition this constitutes comforting the enemy, I have no idea, but I would think this comes pretty close.

 

[PamOKW]

I don't know if it would hold up in a trial for treason but he did aid and abet the enemy in their propoganda machine. He is in a foreign country with which we are at war. He made comments derogatory to the United States that encouraged the enemy into believing they are on a winning track against the United States.

 

[Laz]

Bagdad Pete has provided emotional and pyschological aid and comfort to the enemy. He has given them fuel to convince Iraqis to pick up weapons and fight. It could very well lead to more coalition body bags. War is fought on many fronts, including the mind. Bagdad Pete has committed treason. Of course he will never be tried for it because congress has not declared war.

 

[madcoco]

Innocent until proven guilty?It may not fit the exact definition of military treason,but he has been accused before.
This section from a defense journel article on Media Imperialism from a few years ago. Deja Vu?

Peter Arnett of CNN’s reports from Baghdad gave the Iraqi regime a powerful instrument of propaganda.

On February 20, 1991 in a testimony before the Senate Committee on governmental affairs, retired U.S. Army Colonel Harry G. Summers, JR. denounced Arnett for “Treason” for “Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy”. White House accused Arnett of ‘Speaking for the Iraqi Government’ and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf of “Aiding and Abetting an Enemy”.

One of the most effective means of warfare is through propaganda, which is an intricate science and a planned exercise to undermine the will of the people. The primary tool of propaganda is the media.

Some of the techniques adopted through media to gain the desired effects are discussed below:-

1.Repetition:- ‘Repeat a lie so often that it appears to be the truth’

2.Opinion as a Fact:- By presenting one’s personal opinion disguised as a fact can easily mislead readers.

3.Half Truths:- Quoting out of context or presenting only one aspect of information is a favourite ploy of propagandists.

It goes on to list a number of others.

Just based on his interview onIRAQI TV he is guilty of misleading his Iraqi viewers of false hope that leads to further bloodshed. Is this not aiding the enemy?

 

[Geoff_M]

This whole event reminds me of the Civil War quote from U.S. Grant, who viewed reporters as one notch short of being spies. He said (paraphrased): "If we killed them all, there'd be news from Hell before morning!"

 

[April76]

I give NBC and National Geographic a lot of credit for taking a stand against the self-serving windbag.

His irresponsible actions/words certainly give emotional comfort and spur on those who might otherwise have given up the fight - seeing it as a no-win situation for them.

With his words, he single handedly sparked more passion for fighting, protesting, and taking the lives of our colition forces.

The most peaceful end to this war would come about if the enemy troops continued to surrender and their forces were dismantled.

If his interview helps to renew the commitment of just one suicide bomber or enemy soldier and they take the life of even one of our men, then Arnett is guilty of aiding the enemy -- in my opinion.

A valiant, patriot person would never have granted the interview, let along make the comments he made --- he IS a traitor!

 

[Grog]

If his words make one Iraqi soldier fight a little bit harder, then he has aided the enemy. By making them think that they have us against the ropes, he provided comfort. This meets the definition of treason.

 

[PamOKW]

It would have been better if NBC/MSNBC had fired him immediately. They first tried to justify his actions but re-thought the matter. Possibly the 8,000 e-mails it's said they received helped in the reconsideration. In any case, they did finally do the right thing.

Arnett's "apology" was sorely lacking in acknowledgment of true wrongdoing. It's a shame they even gave him any airtime.

 

[Laurajean1014]

Arnett today made another statement apologizing that he made a misjudgement and created problems in the US - not that his comment was a problem and that he apologizes for that.......
He is still making big mistakes.... take him out. His 15 minutes are up!

Put Rob Morrison on - he's a scud stud. Arnett's an old dud.

 

[off2disney]

Peter Arnett has already been hired by a British tabloid paper, the Daily Mirror. He stated that he was "in Shock and Awe" at being fired, and retracted his apology.

I think he is a traitor and should be proscecuted:

quote:

Article 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason as:

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.

Well, thousands of viewers saw and heard his comments (and I don't believe he had a gun to his head) when he gave his interview, and Iraqi television has run that spot over and over for propoganda purposes. That has certainly given aid and comfort to the enemy.

Let him stay in Iraq....we certainly don't want or need him,

 

[fklhou]

This thread is interesting. As noted, Mr. Arnett was out of work for less than a day. See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12795796&method=full&siteid=50143

THE reporter sacked by American TV for telling the truth about the war is joining the Daily Mirror.

Veteran newsman Peter Arnett was axed by NBC yesterday accused of being a Saddam stooge. He told state-run Iraqi TV the conflict was not going to plan because of fierce resistance and said his Baghdad reports "help those who oppose war"...

.After his sacking, Pulitzer Prize winner Arnett said: "I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologise for it. I have always admired your newspaper and am proud to be working for it."

The New Zealand-born journalist was vilified across the US for an interview in which he said: "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan. Clearly, thewar planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces. In my TV commentaries I'd tell the Americans about the Iraqi forces and their willingness to fight.

I am still trying to figure out what was wrong in Arnett's comments. It appears that these are the same comments being made in the US press , i.e. mistakes were made in the planning of the attack. This has been widely reported in the US press.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55177-2003Mar30.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/international/worldspecial/31CAPI.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,926227,00.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01PENT.html and http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...8mar28,1,3119600.story?coll=la-home-headlines For example, mistakes were made in estimating the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition. See http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=91541

Wallace stirred a controversy last week when he bluntly told reporters what officers in the field were saying privately: that a longer war was likely because the military had not anticipated the kind of war being fought by para-military forces. Wallace also said that overextended supply lines were stalling the war effort. It is widely believed here that the comments angered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.....

Boltz now acknowledges that there were miscalculations, including the resisilence and strength of Iraqi paramilitary units almost fanatically loyal to Saddam. "We thought the majority of their technical vehicles - pickup trucks with heavy machine guns and air defense weapons - would stay in Baghdad, but Saddam has used them to come down south," Boltz said.

Nor was it expected that Iraqi paramilitary units like the Ba'ath Party militia would, among other tactics, resort to suicide missions like car bombs and standing in front of American tanks and opening fire. The tactics are especially ominous as the U.S. prepares to move into Baghdad.

It is also amusing seing Karl Rove's fingerprints on some articles distancing Presdent Bush from the planning mistakes. See
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5510092.htm

President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.*Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said....But some senior U.S. officials now acknowledge that they might have underestimated the threat from Iraqi paramilitary units, which have engaged in guerrilla warfare against U.S. and British forces and threatened or executed Iraqis trying to surrender

 

[Mermaid02]

I think a lot of what was wrong with Arnett's comments was where he was when he said them..... Basically he sat there stroking the ego of Saddam Hussein's regime- there is something wrong with the man.

So Arnett is working for a UK tabloid.... Anna Nicole has her own show too- there's no accounting for taste.