Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: syriacus
And for any viewer who likes to be able to trust what reporters say, it probably doesn't matter which of your descriptions actually fits him the best

That's a given. The question of intent was to establish whether he committed treason. As for most crimes, without intent there is no crime.

439 posted on 04/03/2003 5:54:22 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies ]


To: VRWC_minion
That's a given. The question of intent was to establish whether he committed treason. As for most crimes, without intent there is no crime.

I wasn't clear enough...The question about treason is an important one. I only meant (as you pointed out) that it is a given that Arnett stepped into "it" and it will be difficult for anyone, even his supporters, to really take him seriously.

His supporters might pretend he has important things to say, but I doubt they would make any personal "life and death" decisions based only on what he says.

440 posted on 04/03/2003 5:26:02 PM PST by syriacus (Arnett had the word SUCKER pasted on his big forehead ... and the Iraqis knew how to use him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson