Is dissent now treason? (Arnett the Patriot)

Boston Globe ^ | 4-3-03 | Joan Vennochi

[Lance Romance]

ETER ARNETT should make journalists feel uncomfortable. His performance on Iraqi state television captured, in extreme example, a time-honored tradition: the art of ingratiating oneself to a source. This happens at all levels of journalism, from small-town police reporters to White House correspondents. To gain information from people who don't want to give it up, journalists tell the information-holders what they want to hear. Normally. this is a private transaction between journalist and source. The goal is to gain access and knowledge that will, hopefully, shed light on an issue or event. The public usually gets to see only what the journalist does with the information, not how it is obtained.

[Lance Romance]

Anyone notice that the liberal defense these days has become a game of hair splitting.

. "I don't agree with out foreign policy, but I support our troops" or " I think what Peter Arnett did is reprehensible, but I support his right to do so".

The quagmire of the squishy middle.

[mware]

What Arnett did was not dissent, it was giving aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war.

[goldstategop]

Treason is now excused if its to bash America. That's viewed as politically correct and protected free speech.

[SolutionsOnly]

"Is unpleasant truth now treason?"

Of course not. telling blatant lies and voluntarily being a propaganda tool of the enemy is. DUH!

[syriacus]

Arnett is the little boy who cried "Wolf."

Who will trust Peter and the wolf?

[Thebaddog]

The word "Truth" is the first victim of stories like this. Her "Opinion" is on good display and it is one that I disagree with.

[syriacus]

Peter Arnett

[MissAmericanPie]

What Arnett did was encourage the enemy to continue fighting. They can nit pick all they want, but that is treason in most people's book.

I am sick of hearing about their smarmy rights, what about our right not to have to listen to fools and parasites? We have the right to reject, say "Hey stupid get a grip", and we have the right to ignore. That is what they are really screaming about, no one is throwing them in jail for voicing their stupid opinions, they are mad because no one is listening to their tantrums and hand wringing, they are furious because their opinion gets no respect.

Their opinion doesn't rise to a level of respect, they are use to their phoney little unreal world where they high five each other. They can't cut it in reality, or when confronted with reason, they are misfits, they just don't want that pointed out.

[chainsaw]

Is aiding and abetting yhe enemy in a time of war now treason? (Arnett the Taitor)

You bet it is.

[TheBattman]

What part of "Aid and Comfort to the enemy at times of war" do these idiots not understand? They deal in black-and-white everyday of their lives - they should be able to read and comprehend a simple sentence like that.

Of course, Hanoi Jane Fonda wasn't arrested for treason from Vietnam and she was as bad or worse....so I doubt anything will come of this either.

[Jim Noble]

Is dissent now treason?

Article III, s.3

We report, you decide.

[G L Tirebiter]

The writer tries to excuse Arnett's a**kissing performance by saying he was cultivating his sources.

A more likely explanation - given Arnett's subsequest dispatches for the London Mirror -is that the opinions were heart felt and that he prefers an Iraqi victory.

I have to agree with the 'hair splitting' characterization of liberal analysis of the incident. Frank Rich (ugh...) was on Imus as I drove to work. To him NBC's decision to fire Arnett was a close call - one he thinks went the wrong way.

[lowbridge]

[ODDITHER]

I say, since he loves the Iraqi government so much. We should use the Iraqi code of conduct to punish him.
Let's cut out his tongue, and leave him to die in the public park.

If they allow him back into the country without at least detaining him as a Enemy combatant in Gitmo, then we have lost the war of words.

[lowbridge]

If Arnett's comments concerning the ''failure'' of the initial US war plan are condemned as such, then the country has a rather large collection of unpatriotic retired generals, all providing paid commentary on network and cable TV.

None of whom are broadcasting from Iraq...for Iraq.

One of them, retired General Barry R. McCaffrey, who appears regularly on NBC and MSNBC, wrote this in an opinion piece published on Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal: ''The `rolling start' concept of the attack dictated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has put us in a temporarily risky position.'' He went on to state: ''We should be fighting this battle with three US armored divisions and an armored cavalry regiment to provide rear area security. We also have inadequate tube and rocket artillery to provide needed suppressive fires for the joint team.'' How different is McCaffrey's published commentary from Arnett's comment that ''The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance''?

Arentt was broadcasting from enemy territory. He was stating an official line from enemy propaganda. Retired generals stating what weapons we should fight with is a whole different thing from stating the whole war plan is a failure (and as far as I know, we are still on that first war plan)

Arnett was basically stating the current conventional wisdom, available 24/7 on American TV.

No. He was stating Iraqi propaganda. Those who take Iraqi propaganda as "conventional wisdom" are fools.

[handy]

Thanks for the article.

The Globe: A reasonable person could argue that it is patriotic, not unpatriotic, to question the Pentagon's initial strategy, particularly when motivated by concern for the safety of US troops.

Point #1: When they want to marginalize those who oppose them, they intimate you are UNreasonabel if you disagree with their way of seeing things. Favorite ploy of x42.

Point #2: I believe the Boston Globe cares more about the safety of the Democratic Party than the safety of US troops. Their criticism of the initial plan was designed to inflict damage on the White House, pure & simple.

Point #3: The initial plan is kicking some serious elite (NOT!) Republican Guard A$$, and operation "Operational Pause" has been amazingly effective.

[irish_links]

"....Those who take Iraqi propaganda as "conventional wisdom" are fools....."

....or traitors. If I were on a jury I wouldn't hesitate to conclude that Arnett was no fool

[kallisti]

wiggle room in that squishy middle is becoming increasingly hard to find

[Cincinatus]

You know, this pun "Benedict Arnett" is funny, but very unfair -- to Benedict Arnold. Arnold served his nation with distinction, including having a critical role in winning the battle of Saratoga, THE decisive battle of the Revolution. After he turned traitor, all this was forgotten.

As near as I can tell, Peter Arnett has never done anything for America. Thus, Arnett is a "never was," not a "once was."

[Gaelic]

Don't forget that McCaffrey was clinton's drug czar who lost the war on drugs. So what the hell does he know about the new school of fighting, he's still slog and slash.