Posted on 04/16/2003 8:31:56 AM PDT by Zacs Mom
ABC's Peter Jennings sees an ominous new threat in the world. Not weapons of mass destruction or terrorism, but another vast right-wing conspiracy at home, specifically, the supposedly “well organized and aggressive efforts to make life very difficult for celebrities who speak out against the war.”
Jennings ended Tuesday's World News Tonight with this plug for Wednesday's show: “That is our report on World News Tonight. Tomorrow on the broadcast, the well organized and aggressive efforts to make life very difficult for celebrities who speak out against the war. I'm Peter Jennings. Have a good evening, and good night.”
I can't wait to hear how all the celebrities who were regularly appearing on cable news before the war were suppressed. And if people choose not to watch their shows or buy their CDs, that's the free market and the public just expressing its disagreement with their views.
Apparently Jennings doesn't consider it newsworthy to examine how celebrities erroneously predicted disastrous events would result from the war or whether some owe an apology, like Janeane Garofalo who promised that she'd admit it if she were proven wrong. (See item #7 below for more on Garofalo.)
That's probably because he too would have to admit that he was wrong.
Jennings' agenda is probably inspired by some recent whining from actor Tim Robbins, who was Tuesday's luncheon speaker at the National Press Club. On Monday's Today show, prompted by the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelling an appearance by him, Robbins contended that the message is that “if you would disagree with this administration you can and will be punished."
MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens caught how on the April 14 Today Matt Lauer tossed up a bunch of softballs to Robbins, who used Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey's decision to cancel an event marking the 15th anniversary of the movie Bull Durham in which Robbins starred, as an excuse to spout off about how he's being oppressed.
Robbins charged: “He basically says that if you do not agree with this President you don't have the right to this particular forum. You do not have the right to come to Cooperstown. Which is a very punitive and, and aggressive kind of way of dealing with the situation....And by doing it in the public way he did, by sending it to the AP at the same time he's sending it to me he's trying to, he's trying to send a message out which is basically, if you would disagree with this administration you can and will be punished."
Robbins echoed himself: “We're sending out messages to the public on an almost daily basis that they have no right to protest against this President."
Matt Lauer cued up Robbins: "So when the Dixie Chicks say, 'I'm embarrassed by President Bush being from Texas,' radio stations pull their music and people stomp on their CDs."
Robbins spun a conspiracy tale: "But let's not forget the connection between Clear Channel or the Bush administration or the connection between Petroskey and the Reagan administration and prominent Republicans that he's worked for including Elizabeth Dole. This is, this is an endemic problem and it's a terrible situation, a terrible message to be sending out."
If Robbins fears Elizabeth Dole, about as mushy a moderate as you can find, he really has insecurity issues.
Lauer tossed Robbins another softball pitch: "How did this climate get created, in your opinion?"
Robbins: "We are fighting, we are fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people right now, so that they can have the freedom of speech, yet we are telling our own citizens that they have to be quiet at home, that they have to acquiesce to this president in a time of war. And he said, okay, he said, 'This war will be lasting a long, long time.' So when can we disagree with him?"
Lauer finally challenged him: "You, you've said in the past you think this is a war based largely on oil. When, when you see the scenes of people celebrating in the streets of Baghdad and tearing down statues, does it change your opinion as to our need to go in there at all?"
Robbins is still unmoved: "No, I am ecstatic that they feel this freedom. I hope that they, that we have the resolve to, to get in there and make it work. So far we've lost our focus on Afghanistan, it seems to me. And, and we have a terrible track record as far as our military leading to democracy. Look at Panama, look at Nicaragua. It's not, it's not in our best interest for some reason to keep it going."
Back for a second round after the 8:25am local news break, Lauer re-cued Robbins for his spiel: “What do you think about the climate we're living in right now where the Dixie Chicks records are pulled, where Madonna pulls a music video because she's afraid that people will misinterpret as anti-war, anti-troops?"
Robbins: "Yeah, well it's, it's kind of scary. It's kind of scary because not, not because of me or Susan or, you know, the, her United Way thing being cancelled or the Baseball Hall of Fame. Those things are in, in the radar, we get, we get to talk about them, we get to discuss them and we get to, you know call Dale Petroskey to the, to the carpet on, on his actions. What, across the country this kind of stuff is happening on a daily basis. We were just down in Florida this weekend at a family reunion and almost everyone I talked to was telling me about something in a school, in a local district, that is not being reported, about, you know kids being intimidated for anti-war views, people being suspended for wearing peace signs. An event cancelled because they chose to pray for Iraqi civilians that were killed. Really crazy stuff. A disc, one of these, a talk radio person in the South calling for the murder of Hollywood celeb, a particular Hollywood celebrity. Crazy stuff. What is going on here?”
Lauer: "You mention timing. I mean it seems as if the rules is if troops are engaged do not criticize."
Robbins: "We will have troops engaged and we have had troops engaged for the last 20 years somewhere in the world. It's not, you can't go on that, on that basis. This war, according to the President, is going to last a very long time. Do we cancel the next election because we can't criticize this guy? Why, why are they so concerned? Why can't they engage in the debate of it? Don't they have points that they have to, that they can make. I mean the problem is we are dealing with a, with a situation where people are, are abdicating their First Amendment rights in fear. This is not what we, what this country is built on. We, we are supposed to be able to vigorously talk about issues and debate subjects."
How exactly are you being silenced when the most-watched national morning television show gives you a platform?
See a picture of Robbins and a rundown of his film roles, check the page for him on the Internet Movie Database.
No - I cannot see how you can hang a snake... hand me the shovel.
After WW II, a British subject who went to Germany and broadcast pro German propaganda during the war, was tried for treason and found guilty. The only uncertainty in his defense was whether he was actually an American citizen rather than a Brit (he was ethnically Irish, an "Orange" one; his family and personal history were cloudy on a number of points). Ezra Pound broadcast propaganda for Mussolini's Italy, and was also tried for treason (he plead insanity).
Notice than in these actual cases of prosecution for adhering to enemies during a time of actual war, propaganda support alone was considered quite sufficient. Nobody pretended Pound or "Lord Haw Haw" shot Allied soldiers, blew up trains, etc. What Peter Arnett did in Baghdad during this war came remarkably close to what those two did during WW II. It was not as sustained or as free of any nuance, perhaps.
There is every right to criticise the government even in time of war. There is no requirement than any of us like or support it. But in addition, there is a positive legal duty to support our government in war in deed rather than speech, and to refrain from giving aid and comfort to public enemies, whether by deed or by speech. You can say "I think this war is unwise" until you are blue in the face - that is advice to our own government. But "I hope we lose, we deserve to, I hope the enemy wins" crosses a definite line. It does not advise our own government, but fights against it.
And whether anybody likes it or not, that is what legally constitutes "treason". Which as the previous poster pointed out, is explicitly recognized as a crime by the constitution itself.
The constitution does intend "treason" to be construed narrowly, and says so. There had been scandals in England earlier, in which bills of attainder labeled political enemies traitors, pretty much at the whim of parliament or of the crown. The US constitution forbids that, restricting treason to actual aid and comfort to public enemies in time of war. But it definitely thinks treason exists and is a crime.
Plenty of moderns don't seem to. Indeed, the 20th century saw a positive epidemic of treason, from ideological extremists at both ends of the (conventional) political spectrum. Who put their ideology above their country. In the middle east, some do the same with their religion. We had a clear case of treason in this war already, when that sergeant in the 101 fragged his officers because he put loyalty to Islam above loyalty to his country.
No, people do not have a "right" to decide to put other organizations above their country like that. Whether that other organization is Islam, communism, the UN, CNN, "the left", "the press", or the Democratic party.
Anyone know what he's talking about?
To quote that great historian and social commentator Janeane Garofalo, ""They're always making this s*** up."
You are right but it can be stated in a simpler fashion
These entertainers produce a work product, if it's good they sell a lot, if it sucks, no one buys.
When they use they work status to produce another product -ie their political views, the same criteria apply, if their audience thinks it sucks, they vote with their dollars.
It has nothing to do with free speech or aggressive tactics.
It's about free markets and freedom of choice.
I have no more interest in Barbra Streisand's politics than I have in George Bush's singing voice.
And I have no more interest in Streisand's singing voice than I have in Tim Robbins' statesmanship or George W. Bush's news anchoring.
Robbins apparently advocates the US staying and colonizing whatever countries it liberates, rather than leaving the nation to its' own devices.
Be there or be square ;-).
It doesn't matter if he has bigger boobs than you.
Even for just a little while ;-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.