Wrong. I correctly characterized Arnett's actions as treasonous. You continue to demonstrate your inability to distinguish between antiwar sentiment expressed domestically and that expressed for propaganda purposes on Iraqi state television. No matter. You don't matter. You are a minority of precisely one.
You did no such thing. You gave yoru opinion without stating what constitutes treason and how that applies here. The first requirement is intent and you have provided no evidence to support that. The last requirement is "aid and comfort". Have the courts defined that ? I couldn't find it. With your superior IQ, I'd be cerain you can.
You continue to demonstrate your inability to distinguish between antiwar sentiment expressed domestically and that expressed for propaganda purposes on Iraqi state television.
You finally get to the issue that I can begin to agree with. If he is guilty of anything, it is the act of granting and giving the interview no matter what he said. The mere fact he showed up had propaganda value and he should have known better.
As far as defining the line he crossed to be "expressed for propaganda purposes on Iraqi state television", I don't think that quite captures the offense. If that were true then I could make a case that Dan Rather's interview would have served the same purpose. I think the issue is that we have begun the war not that he participated at all. I have come to the conclusion that he crossed the line (regardless of his personal opinions) when he agreed to do the interview while we are at war.
No matter. You don't matter. You are a minority of precisely one
In the final analysis, we all are.