Interesting ... is no one allowed to have an opinion that conflicts with the official 'party line' anymore ?
The US Sedition Act Appropriate Today?
by ThiChi 51 Replies latest social current
-
-
mustang
Simon,
With all due respect, I submit:
Suppression of dissension (and consequent loss of Freedom of Speech) seems to be implied here. That's not really the issue; lots of this kind of discussion is going on INSIDE THE U.S. @ the moment. There is a tendency, out of courtesy, to delay the bulk of the criticism until AFTER THE WAR, but that isn't universal.
These are the issues:
1) This person is a Journalist, and is supposed to be REPORTING to US sources, not DISSEMINATING to IRAQI sources. There seems to be a conflict of interest with his nominal job description.
2) He has interposed himself into the position of the US Dept. of State or perhaps the USIA (US Information Agency). Freedom of Speech AMONGST OURSELVES is not a problem; such Freedom of Speech with DECLARED OR SWORN ENEMIES is not within the purview of the individual citizen. He now appears to have assumed the position of an Ambassador!!!
3) He also seems to have attempted to INTERPRET American Domestic politics to the Iraqi's. This seems to be the position of a Political Analyst, for a Foreign Power. (To do such, a US Citizen might be required to be registered as an Agent of a Foreign Power.)
4) And he certainly seems to have made it palatable to the Iraqi's, saying what they would like to hear and thus encouraging them.
This is dangerously close to the "aid and comfort to enemy" and "or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements" clauses. He may have actually prolonged the war.
Frankly, as far as Journalists, travelers, and US citizens in a "theater of War" are concerned, this sort of discussion is best left to INTERNAL CONSUMPTION for the time being. It would have been best to let the Iraqi's come to their own conclusions, or they can ask an Ambassador or officer of the State Department.
All in all: this was an inappropriate venue for this manner of discussion.
If he wasn't under duress, it may be that he has grown tired of US citizenship.
Was he now rehired by the Iraqi's??? This and numerous other questions will be asked.
This latest portion of his adventure was foolhardy on his part. This is an unenviable position.
Mustang
Nothing that I write or utter is to be considered legal advice. Consult proper counsel for such matters. Further, all that I write or utter, is protected by religious freedom under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the "free exercise", as well as "freedom of speech" clauses.
-
SloBoy
This war/invasion/liberation will meet it's true destiny. While being conceived, many months before 9/11, there were voices warning of it's fallacy. Kudos to the Bush propaganda machine for even making it this far. From here on though, it will be about saving face, and scrambling mightily to mitigate the onslaught of gestated terrorisim. I am truly saddened for all the present and future victims.
-
Trauma_Hound
Bush is an idiot, you have to wonder about the inteligence of a person that would blindly follow him. Following an idiot, doesn't increase your IQ points.
-
SloBoy
Hey Trauma...you still up? How you doin? I enjoyed our visit in Seattle. Stay cool, keep it comin.
SloBoy
-
Trauma_Hound
What you talking about willis?
-
dubla
simon said:
Interesting ... is no one allowed to have an opinion that conflicts with the official 'party line' anymore ?
or maybe they canned him because of his newfound ability to contradict himself? just check his statements in the article:
"I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologise for it."
On the same broadcast, Arnett, 68, apologised to NBC and to the US public, saying he was "embarrassed" by the controversy.
"I want to apologise to the American people for clearly making a misjudgement," he said
hmmmm......
this is also interesting:
Within hours of his dismissal, Arnett was hired by the Daily Mirror, a UK tabloid newspaper strongly opposed to the war in Iraq.
compare with:
I am not anti-war, I am not anti-military," Arnett said
LOL.
aa
-
ThiChi
Slow Boy and TH:
Nice try...but you will have to do better than that. The fact is Bush, Blair and 49 other nations are making a difference. As I write, more evidence to connect Iraq and others to world terrorism is unfolding. You will not win.
You two can’t stand it. The facts and History are not on your side. Your appeasement to the Rats of the world did not work. The Eagles will win. The Rats will loose. By pontificating your fallacies , and supporting Rats like Saddam, it is not Bush, but you, who are the "Enemy Within"
-
Trauma_Hound
Slow Boy and TH:
Nice try...but you will have to do better than that. The fact is Bush, Blair and 49 other nations are making a difference. As I write, more evidence to connect Iraq and others to world terrorism is unfolding. You will not win.
You two can’t stand it. The facts and History are not on your side. Your appeasement to the Rats of the world did not work. The Eagles will win. The Rats will loose. By pontificating your fallacies , and supporting Rats like Saddam, it is not Bush, but you, who are the "Enemy Within"
Yawn, once again, the bushtonian, has nothing better to add or debate, so he has to call us saddam lovers. ThiChi let's get something straight, I don't support saddam, repeat after me, I don't support saddam, do you get it yet? One more time, I don't support saddamn, am I getting through to you yet, or are you autistic, woops don't want to insult autistic people. Facts and history are in fact on my side, I don't support killing baby's, and you seem to. I don't follow people with IQ's half mine, you seem to. 49 Nations? Is this like the last time you said 20 nations, someone else posted a list, and I started to punch holes in that list. So what 49 nations are actually fighting in this? The bushtonians said there were more nations then the first gulf war, this is utter crap on both fronts. There are only 3 nations with troops there, American, Britain, and Australia. There was no international consesus for this war, there is no arab backing like the first war. Bush is a chicken, how long do you think we'd be at war, if bush actually had to fight in it? Probibly not long.
-
Simon
Ah ... dubla ... where do I start ...
or maybe they canned him because of his newfound ability to contradict himself? just check his statements in the article:
"I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologise for it."
On the same broadcast, Arnett, 68, apologised to NBC and to the US public, saying he was "embarrassed" by the controversy.
"I want to apologise to the American people for clearly making a misjudgement," he said
hmmmm......
Well, these are not contradictory: he may report the truth of what is happening and doing that may be a misjudgement as the American people obviously do not want to hear it or else the powers that be don't want them to.
this is also interesting:
Within hours of his dismissal, Arnett was hired by the Daily Mirror, a UK tabloid newspaper strongly opposed to the war in Iraq.
compare with:
I am not anti-war, I am not anti-military," Arnett said
LOL.
And again ... how are these contradictory? If I am pro-war or anti-war, does this affect what the truth is? Are only "anti-war reporters" (whatever they are) allowed to report for a newspaper that has voiced some opposition of the war?
Of course you have avoided the real issue here and done your usual trick of picking up on odd words and sentances and trying to fashion an argument around them:
Is it right that he was fired for saying what he did? I don't think so ... it smacks of "silencing the media".
BTW: It is accepted practice that reporters in Iraq give interviews to the Iraqi's while they are there. Lot's of our reporters ended up having articles in Bhagdad newspapers during the last war - it really is not a big deal and is to be expected. Part of the 'deal' they make to be allowed to report at all.
Instead of focusing on what this reported said, which by all accounts was pretty accurate, I'd me more interested in questionin what Donald "liar, liar, pants on fire"
bumpsfelt, sorry Rumpsfeld is coming out with.