Lord Haw Haw has nothing to do with this, steissd. No one is accusing Arnott of treason. Well, maybe you are...
Steissd
Get a grip on it, man.
Treason!!!
Undermining the moral of troops!!!
The guy was saying what he felt.
I know you live in Israel, but here in the United States, we think speaking one's mind is commendable -- not contemptible.
He could choose another option to express his opinion. The enemy's television is not exactly the place where any loyal citizen should criticize his government. The First Amendment still exists, so he could do the same thing on the U.S. TV while, for example, being a guest of some talk show. But he wanted a complimantary audience, and Iraqis provided him with this. I guess, if he said the same things on any talk show, the other participants of it would throw in his face the rotten tomatoes.
By the way, all this has nothing to do with Israel. Here on TV journalists often utter the most non-complimentary criticism toward government. In late '90s media destroyed political reputation of Mr. Netaniahu that led to his leaving the PM office. But I cannot imagine Israeli non-Arab journalist doing the same things while being interviewed by Syrian or French TV.
steissd, Different venue, different politics. Can't compare apples and oranges. c.i.
steissd wrote:By the way, all this has nothing to do with Israel.
COMMENT:
You seem to be very anxious to disassociate Israel -- and your being an Israeli -- from your remarks lately.
The thought that has come to my mind is: He doth protest too much!
I'm confused. Most of what I read in the Arnett report seems to talk about the Iraqi reaction to all this - which is contrary to what we've been spoon-fed. Since damn all have been allowed into Iraq to report, the other reporting has been outside, and dependent a great deal on what is given out to them, or by interviews by reporters of friendlies.
I can't see any indication in the Arnett story of any kind of information given to the enemy; it really seems to be a reporting of a view contrary to that held by the administration.
And what kind of information would be leaked anyway? We ourselves seem to leak a great deal. We are a huge invasion force of a relatively small country. The Iraqis are fighting back, in a way the administration apparently feels they had no right to. Reporting on this is reporting. Much other "reporting" is editorializing or opinion giving.
steissd wrote:When I hear about Peter Arnett's behavior, I recall in memory the British citizen Mr. William Joyce, better known as Lord Haw Haw. I want to remember to Mr. Arnett that this "lord" that has never been a member of the House of Lords was hanged for treason in 1946. Mr. Arnett should feel himself lucky for being only fired.
Since the USA is a republic, and there are no lords, I think that Mr. Arnett should get a nickname "Haw Haw" without any noblesse titles.
Did Arnett lie about anything?
Did he reveal secret information?
Why was he sacked? I find this very curious because at first his employer supported him. The Pentagon works in mysterious ways!
Here's another example of how this administration is taking away our freedoms. Their threat, "If you're not with us, you're against us" is not a shallow threat. c.i.
A little frightening, isn't it, CI? And on PBS on the Lehrer show there is yet another spokesman for the military, who says the party line so much he may as well just be a recording. Isn't this just turning out to be a regime.
The whole Arnett thing bothers me too. I'm surprised I didn't see this thread sooner. He was being a journalist - laying out facts, following his nose, and verbalizing what he saw. I was appaled that he was let go. Same about that christian science monitor journalist (anybody remember his name... too late to look it up now).
The Daily Mirror, a UK tabloid newspaper which opposes the war, says it has hired veteran reporter Peter Arnett - a few hours after he was sacked by the American NBC TV network.
Article in the Daily Mirror
HOME OF THE FREE: ARNETT JOINS MIRROR Apr 1 2003
THE reporter sacked by American TV for telling the truth about the war is joining the Daily Mirror.
Veteran newsman Peter Arnett was axed by NBC yesterday accused of being a Saddam stooge. He told state-run Iraqi TV the conflict was not going to plan because of fierce resistance and said his Baghdad reports "help those who oppose war".
He joins the Mirror on the day it was revealed that 8,700 bombs have rained down on Iraq in 12 days, including 3,000 missiles over the weekend.
After his sacking, Pulitzer Prize winner Arnett said: "I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologise for it. I have always admired your newspaper and am proud to be working for it."
The New Zealand-born journalist was vilified across the US for an interview in which he said: "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan. Clearly, thewar planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces. In my TV commentaries I'd tell the Americans about the Iraqi forces and their willingness to fight.
"President Bush says he is concerned about the Iraqi people. But if Iraqi people are dying in numbers, then American policy will be challenged very strongly."
Arnett, 68, added that there was growing opposition about the conduct of the war.'
He said: "Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the US. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy."
On Sunday, NBC praised the reporter for risking his life to deliver news from Baghdad.
The station said of the Iraqi TV interview: "He answered their questions out of professional courtesy. He saw it as purely analysis."
But the furious White House said Arnett spoke from "a point of complete ignorance".
They day after backing him, NBC cut him loose.
Yesterday Arnett said on NBC: "I want to apologise to the American people. It was clearly a misjudgment talking to Iraqi TV.
"I'm not anti-war. I said what we all know about this war. But I've created a firestorm and for that I'm sorry."
Asked about his future, he joked: "There's a small island in the South Pacific I'll try to swim to. I'll leave."
Arnett was one of the few TV journalists in Baghdad. He said: "The Iraqis let me stay because they see me as a fellow warrior. They know I might not agree with them. But I've got their respect."
The reporter, the first Western journalist to interview Osama bin Laden and the last to interview Saddam Hussein, was accused of peddling pro-Iraqi propaganda while covering the 1991 Gulf War.
But he gained much of his prominence for reporting the last conflict with Iraq for CNN.
His Pulitzer Prize came for reporting in Vietnam in 1966 for the Associated Press.
Walter Cronkite: Sspeaking With the Enemy
April 1, 2003 - New York Times
Speaking With the Enemy
By WALTER CRONKITE,
Walter Cronkite was anchor of the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981.
Under the Constitution, giving "aid and comfort" to a wartime enemy can lead to a charge of treason. So far as I know no one has yet suggested that Peter Arnett be charged with that capital offense. But it seems that Mr. Arnett hangs by a rope of his own weaving.
Mr. Arnett, of course, is the former reporter in Baghdad for NBC and National Geographic who was fired for giving an interview to state-controlled Iraqi television. In the interview he criticized the American military effort and praised the morale of the Iraqi people and the cooperation of Iraq's information ministry ?- this latter despite the fact that many American correspondents have been ejected from the country and, indeed, two of them are missing, last heard from in Baghdad.
There is no excuse for Mr. Arnett's lack of judgment, and he has apologized for it. However, journalists ?- especially those who have had to deal with foreign governments at times of extreme tension ?- will recognize a motivation in his acceptance of the interview. They can recognize it without excusing it.
There is an adage concerning a reporter's dealings with the secrecy that surrounds most government activities, not only here at home but to a greater extent in countries that do not share the American concept of freedom of the press. The adage is this: A reporter is only as good as his sources.
Clearly Mr. Arnett, in granting the interview, was cozying up to sources he depended on for, first, their tolerance of him in Baghdad and, second, any information he could get: about Iraq's military posture, its claims of combat successes and techniques, and the morale of its populace.
In this regard, Mr. Arnett was a valuable correspondent in the enemy's capital. As long as he pleased and even seemed to sympathize with his Baghdad sources, he was permitted to broadcast to America. It is even conceivable that his inside look was of some value to our own military.
Mr. Arnett was an honored reporter for The Associated Press in Vietnam; he won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage. He earned respect from his colleagues for his extraordinary courage and daring and for his knowledgeable dispatches. His admired modesty suffered somewhat after he became a TV reporter and won acclaim for his bravado in staying in Baghdad in 1991 to report for CNN. He even said in his interview last weekend that if U.S. war planners had listened to his more recent broadcasts they would have known of the strength of the Iraqi Army and the devotion of the Iraqi people.
His long experience makes it all the more difficult to understand how he could have been so grossly irresponsible in granting that interview. He besmirched his reputation, offended a nation and lost his job ?- justifiably so ?- even though he will still report for The Daily Mirror in Britain.
But Mr. Arnett's firing is more than a personal setback. With him gone from the airwaves, Americans have lost an eye on Baghdad that had proved a valuable addition to our knowledge of a mysterious enemy.
Try Arnett for treason, senator says
Another fascist idiot senator heard from - hasn't he read the US constitution? BBB
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
Try Arnett for treason, senator says
Carl Weiser, Enquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Correspondent Peter Arnett should be "tried as a traitor" for remarks he made in an interview with Iraqi state television, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said Tuesday.
Arnett, a New Zealand native and naturalized U.S. citizen, said in the Sunday interview that Washington's "first war plan has just failed because of Iraqi resistance. ... Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."
NBC and its related network, for which the longtime war reporter had been covering the conflict from Baghdad, dismissed Arnett despite his apologies Monday. Later the same day, London's anti-war Daily Mirror hired him. In Arnett's first report for that paper, he retracted his apology.
"I think he should be brought back and tried as a traitor to the United States of America, for his aiding and abetting the Iraqi government during a war," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. Later in a speech on the Senate floor, Bunning said: "Mr. Arnett can apologize all he likes for being a `useful idiot' for Saddam and his barbaric regime. But that's not enough for me, and it's certainly not enough for our soldiers and many Americans."
"I think Mr. Arnett should be met at the border and arrested should he come back to America," said Bunning.
Gosh, Jim Bunning must be quite a patriot -- and quite a gutsy guy.
He sure has guts to stand up before the conservative congress and tell them that he thinks Arnett should be tried for treason.
And I'm sure he never even thought about the response of the voters in his conservative Kentucky district to his comments.
Boy, am I impressed with him.
