Wednesday, April 02, 2003

Try Arnett for treason, senator says
My question for Sen. Jim Bunning is: does he think members of the pro-life movement, like Pat Robertson, are guilty of aiding and abetting the terrorists that murder doctors who provide abortions? Robertson and many others in the pro-life (anti-abortion) crowd regularly make statements that are as inflammatory as Peter Arnett’s statements, but no one seriously seeks to include them as accomplices to murder. I also have to correct Mr. Bunning: aid and comfort is the phrase he means, not aiding and abetting. Mr. Bunning seems fine with FOX’s Geraldo Rivera actions, so why is he grandstanding against Peter Arnett? Leave it to a politician to capitalize on a buzz issue. I am sure Senators Byrd and Rockefeller of West Virginia are already pining for a photo-op with Pvt. Jessica Lynch, not to mention every WV House member.

Bunning is frothing for effect, not for principle.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Arnett obviously has not levied war against the US and is not adhering to the “enemies,” especially since the framers would have required there to be a formal declaration of war in order for their to be an enemy, but that I am sure is a fine point most will ignore. If aid and comfort is the only standard, then any and every statement against the government at any point could be construed as “treason.” Mr. Bunning and the rest of the blood hungry hoards should instead look at the case of the 101 Airborne solider that killed 2 of his superior officers. That is treason. Exercising free speech needs to be intended to aid and comfort the enemy and be far more disparaging than what Arnett said. Repeating the same information as many others have stated in the public hardly raises this to a Federal case.

All of this being said, Arnett was either an idiot, or under duress. I am surprised conspiracy theorists have not reported the seeming coincidence of the release of the four journalists a day after Arnett’s interview on Iraqi TV. Could he have agreed to the interview in hopes of gaining their release? I seriously doubt it, but the coincidence makes for interesting speculation. Barring a Sidney Carton style self-sacrifice, Arnett was rightfully fired. He became the story, instead of covering the story, one of the worst sins a journalist could make. I just wish the chest beaters took a breather or at least focused on real treason, not politically motivated faux charges.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.