Replies

Wrong. I correctly characterized Arnett's actions as treasonous.

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.

Well he is also incompetent. He made statements about our military's battle plans changing when he had no knowledge of them in the first place. He was also factually incorrect in stating that Americans increasingly are not supporting the President and the war. He said these things as if they are facts. So, at a minimum, he should have fired for incompetence and irresponsible journalism. I just hope some ex-marine serving our country will see him on the street some day and kick the crap out of him.

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.

You keep trying to set the content of his interview aside, as if you're trying to keep any consideration of *what* he said off-limits. That's a mistake.

Accepting an interview on Iraqi TV during a war would itself have been unobjectionable if he had used the opportunity to present the American reasons for going to war, or attacking the Iraqi position/lies/etc.

His failure, however, was in giving an interview on Iraqi TV during wartime which was *sympathetic* to the Iraqi side in the war and *undermining* to the American side. He was, in short, trying to bolster the chances of an Iraqi war victory and undercut the chances of an American victory.

That's where it goes over the line into treason.

He could have said the same things "back home" and just been another one of the anti-American/anti-war chorus. But to do it on Iraqi propaganda TV was to knowingly do it *for the purpose* of giving "aid and comfort" to the wartime enemies of the US.

Jane Fonda had the same problem. Lots of idiots mouthed off about the Vietnam war. Fonda, however, did it IN NORTH VIETNAM, in a way that was *purposely* done for pro-NV propaganda value.

And if you *watch* the Arnett interview, it's impossible to escape the same conclusion. He was sympathizing with the Iraqis (and on their home turf, to boot) during a time when the US is at war with them.

I would shed no tears whatsoever if he were imprisoned or executed for treason. And this has nothing at all to do with "journalism" or "freedom of the press" -- people who happen to work for news organizations are under the same legal restrictions as the rest of us when it comes to undermining the US during times of war.