Traitor in Baghdad (Peter Arnett)

[DmitriA]

What do you guys think?

I'm just wondering if there had been a US journalist in Berlin in 1944 giving an interview to some Nazi paper or radio station about how the Normandy invasion was a complete favor because of high casualties and misunderstanding of the fierce and brave resistance of the valiant German soldiers - I'm wondering how long it would've taken for him to end up on an electric chair for treason after his return home?

[DDRio]

Iraq monitors his reports.

[Nick]

sources, links, please.

[DmitriA]

Ok. I guess I'm the only one who saw it. Fox was showing it tonight.

Basically, this was not a report, but an interview Arnett gave to the Iraqi State TV where he was saying that the US war plan has FAILED because of the brave resistence of the Iraqi soldiers and that US is now rewriting the whole plan. He is also saying that his reports of civilian casualties is making an impact back home and that because of that the support for Bush and the war is dropping!
If that's not treason (assuming he didn't have a gun to his head - but he certainly didn't look like it, in fact he was more than eager to volunteer all that B.S), I don't know what is

Here is the link - Peter Arnett to State-Run Iraqi TV: American War Plan Has Failed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82656,00.html)

[mainedish]

This guy was fired from CNN for making up a story.The segment, narrated by Arnett, concerned Operation Tailwind, a secret incursion by Army special forces into Laos in September of 1970. The TV report, a production of CNN and Time magazine,(No Big Surprise) presented made up evidence that US commandos had used deadly sarin gas in an operation to kill American soldiers who had defected into Laos from Vietnam. He is a very sad man but should fit in very well at MSNBC.

[MikeW]

From the link:

Arnett was the on-air reporter of the 1998 CNN report that accused American forces of using sarin gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill U.S. defectors. Two CNN employees were sacked and Arnett was reprimanded over the report, which the station later retracted. Arnett ultimately left the network.

[firephoto]

I think he should go to some of Saddams palaces in the evenings and do some reporting. ;) Any time after dark would suffice.

[Richard King]

This is the same person who said he couldn't take sides in 1991's version of the Gulf War because of "journalistic standards" and that if he heard something that would help America back then that he wouldn't report it. I hope his career is finally done for good after this one.

[firephoto]

I have an even better idea.
A final interview with Saddam! He just has to leave his satellite phone with the GPS turned on when he goes to meet him. :D

[RichW]

It's Jane Fonda all over again. This guy is so outrageous that I wonder if he is really a CIA plant trying to cozy up to Iraq.

[Richard King]

MSNBC just announced that he will no longer be "reporting" for them from Iraq. Now, they have taken half the step, it is time to fire him from National Geographic also.

[Sandman]

Fox is reporting that Arnette has been fired from NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic

Bob

[jcrash]

Originally posted by DmitriA
Ok. I guess I'm the only one who saw it. Fox was showing it tonight.

Basically, this was not a report, but an interview Arnett gave to the Iraqi State TV where he was saying that the US war plan has FAILED because of the brave resistence of the Iraqi soldiers and that US is now rewriting the whole plan. He is also saying that his reports of civilian casualties is making an impact back home and that because of that the support for Bush and the war is dropping!
If that's not treason (assuming he didn't have a gun to his head - but he certainly didn't look like it, in fact he was more than eager to volunteer all that B.S), I don't know what is

Here is the link - Peter Arnett to State-Run Iraqi TV: American War Plan Has Failed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82656,00.html)


TREASON? God forbid someone be against the war and voice it. I see only an ethical conflict - reporters are supposed to report the news not be the news. It was poor judgment to imply he doesn't support the war effort, but other than that I have no beef with what he said. It certainly was NOT treason.

Folks, in case you hadn't noticed over HALF the world hates us now due to this "liberation" effort. It will take the US generations to recover from the social and geo-political problems caused by Bush's need to please Papa.

[Richard King]

Jerry Rivers has just been kicked out of bed by the troops in Iraq. Jerry is also known by some as Jeraldo Rivera and was embedded in Iraq with our forces. He has been sent packing for passing on sensitive information. This is per a report on CNBC. It's fun watching the media try to one up eachother. :D

[DDRio]

It was improper for Peter Arnett to express his views on the issue. When I watch the news I just want the to see and watch truth not half truths with personal hidden agendas.

[RichW]

The trouble was that MSNBC wanted to capitalize on Arnett's ability to stay to stay in Baghdad while other western reporters have been kicked out, or worse. He really wasn't an MSNBC employee, but essentially a paid "stringer" because of his situation. He really works/worked for National Geographic. This little ploy backfired on NBC in their effort to get a scoop on Baghdad news. I would be surprised, however, if he isn't also fired from NG over this. I am not in favor of this war and even I found his commments offensive. He doesn't represent my point of view.

[John Corn]

Peter Arnett is not a "respected journalist". He is also not a traitor. He is just a dork with an extremely inflated opinion of his own importance.

He will now perversely get his wish for fame and recognition. He will forever be the example that journalism schools use to remind students that you are there to report the news, not create it.

[The Old Wizard]

Here is a link to the MSNBC article about Arnett's firing. There is also a Windows Media Player video that has his appolgy that was aired on NBC's Today Show. http://www.msnbc.com/news/893115.asp?0si=-

[platinum]

Originally posted by jcrash



TREASON? God forbid someone be against the war and voice it. I see only an ethical conflict - reporters are supposed to report the news not be the news. It was poor judgment to imply he doesn't support the war effort, but other than that I have no beef with what he said. It certainly was NOT treason.

Folks, in case you hadn't noticed over HALF the world hates us now due to this "liberation" effort. It will take the US generations to recover from the social and geo-political problems caused by Bush's need to please Papa.

I could care less if half the world hates us....the rest of the world can kiss my a**

[sampatterson]

I don't like Peter Arnett but he does have a right to free speech and his own opinion. (probably against the rules of his contract with NBC/Natl Geographic though). He remarks, while dumb are not treason.

[DmitriA]

Originally posted by jcrash


It was poor judgment to imply he doesn't support the war effort, but other than that I have no beef with what he said. It certainly was NOT treason.

He wasn't voicing his opinion. If that was his intention, he could've done it in one of his reports to NBC or an interview to some other media organization (even French). That would've been perfectly fine. However, he didn't do that. Instad, he gave an interview to a state-run television station that I believe is owned by Saddam's son. In that interview, he LIED by saying that the US is now rewriting the whole war plan because of the brave Iraqi resistance (even if that were true, he is certainly in no position to know that sitting there in Baghdad - so he just made that up). If that's not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, I don't know what is

[DmitriA]

Originally posted by Rking401
Jerry Rivers has just been kicked out of bed by the troops in Iraq. Jerry is also known by some as Jeraldo Rivera and was embedded in Iraq with our forces. He has been sent packing for passing on sensitive information. This is per a report on CNBC. It's fun watching the media try to one up eachother. :D

Just saw Geraldo giving a live report from some place in Iraq interviewing US soldiers. The anchor asked him about the report of him being kicked out and he said that he first heard about it when he phoned back to New York with his report. He said that no one has tried to kick him out so far and that his former network is just spreading lies about him
Incidentally, if he didn't have explicit permission from the commanders to do what he did, he should absolutely be kicked out and never be allowed to come close to a military installation ever again. It was a really stupid thing to do and could put the lives of those troops in danger

[Nick]

...aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war?

[Ken_F]

First off, does anyone seriously believe that Peter Arnett did that interview for fun? The Iraqis allowed Peter Arnett, one of the few non-Arab reporters in Baghdad, to remain while others were kicked out. Iraqi television obviously approached him to do the interview. And if you are going to go before Iraqi television, obviously you have to give them a little of what they want to hear. Peter Arnett should have refused the Iraqi government, and left the country instead, but there were probably other things on his mind as well. Arnett is among those seeking to locate missing American and British reporters in Iraq; obviously, he can't do that if he is kicked out of the country.

As far as supporting Iraqi propaganda, reporters on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC support and perpetuate American military propaganda every single day. American news has become an outlet for U.S. military propaganda; in that regard, it is of little more value than Iraqi TV. If you want to see both sides of the picture, tune into the BBC or another foreign channel where reporters do not merely repeat word-for-word (as gospel) the words of the U.S. military.

[Ken_F]

maindish,

This guy was fired from CNN for making up a story.The segment, narrated by Arnett, concerned Operation Tailwind, a secret incursion by Army special forces into Laos in September of 1970. The TV report, a production of CNN and Time magazine,(No Big Surprise) presented made up evidence that US commandos had used deadly sarin gas in an operation to kill American soldiers who had defected into Laos from Vietnam.That's BS. Peter Arnett, as CNN later admitted, was simply reading from the script that had been prepared for him. CNN producers had specifically requested and paid Arnett do to the voice overtures for the program; he had nothing whatsoever to do with the preparation of that material.

[mainedish]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ken_F
maindish,

That's BS. Peter Arnett, as CNN later admitted, was simply reading from the script that had been prepared for him. CNN producers had specifically requested and paid Arnett do to the voice overtures for the program; he had nothing whatsoever to do with the preparation of that material. [/QUOTE
CNN lied about the whole thing so I really can't believe what they say about anything. Peter had more to do with this story then CNN told you. And after what he did yesterday I believe all the bad things I have heard about him.

[DmitriA]

Originally posted by Ken_F
If you want to see both sides of the picture, tune into the BBC or another foreign channel where reporters do not merely repeat word-for-word (as gospel) the words of the U.S. military.
What BBC? Oh, you mean this BBC?

BBC man criticises 'war bias' (http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html) :

"The BBC's coverage of the war has come under fire from one of its own correspondents in the Gulf who has fired off a furious memo claiming the corporation is misleading viewers about the conflict in Iraq.

Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent who is based at the coalition command centre in Qatar, complained that the corporation was conveying a untruthful picture of how the war was progressing.

Adams accused the BBC's coverage of exaggerating the military impact of casualties suffered by UK forces and downplaying their achievements on the battlefield during the first few days of the conflict."

[Ken_F]

Dmitri,

Other reporters have said just the opposite. When people on both sides criticize you, you know you are doing a good job.

[DmitriA]

Originally posted by Ken_F
Dmitri,

Other reporters have said just the opposite. When people on both sides criticize you, you know you are doing a good job.

Heh. You can say the same about Fox or any other news channel that as you say "perpetuates American military propoganda"

[Ken_F]

Dmitri,

I don't think you'll find many people criticizing FOX in the same way. FOX has publicly described itself as the "pro-war" channel that "wants to see an American victory as soon as possible." You don't see FOX giving any air time to anti-war advocates.

[DmitriA]

Originally posted by Ken_F
Dmitri,

I don't think you'll find many people criticizing FOX in the same way. FOX has publicly described itself as the "pro-war" channel that "wants to see an American victory as soon as possible." You don't see FOX giving any air time to anti-war advocates.

Actually, you do. Or at least did - when that debate was relevant, there were quite a few anti-war advocates on almost all the shows.
BTW, I have a real problem watching an american journalist that does NOT want a victory as soon as possible. That shouldn't impede their ability to report the truth no matter how bad it is, but I want them to root for their country and want their troops to suffer as few casualties as possible. Maybe I'm just crazy that way

[mainedish]

You don't have to give the Anti-War crowd any air time on Fox. Thats what the other 3 networks do. So I would say thats about even .

[psycaz]

I wonder if Arnett had much of a choice. I saw some blurbs on the Fox scrawl that several journalists that were still in Baghdad are now missing. Wonder if they refused to do the interview that Arnett did?
I don't agree with what Arnett did, but after hearing it, I'm hard placed to call it treason.

[mainedish]

Originally posted by Ken_F
Dmitri,

I don't think you'll find many people criticizing FOX in the same way. FOX has publicly described itself as the "pro-war" channel that "wants to see an American victory as soon as possible." You don't see FOX giving any air time to anti-war advocates.
Not Pro-War but Pro-American is what I would call Fox News. :)

[jcrash]

Originally posted by platinum


I could care less if half the world hates us....the rest of the world can kiss my a**

Mr Hussein, I presume?

[Richard King]

Britain's Mirror Hires Fired Veteran Arnett

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61888-2003Mar31.html

An hour after vigorously apologizing on the NBC Television Network, Arnett stated:

"I report the truth of what is happening in Baghdad and will not apologize for it," he told the tabloid newspaper, one of the most prominent opponents of Britain's involvement in the war.

[waydwolf]

Originally posted by sampatterson
I don't like Peter Arnett but he does have a right to free speech and his own opinion. (probably against the rules of his contract with NBC/Natl Geographic though). He remarks, while dumb are not treason.

Giving aid and comfort to any nation engaged in hostilities with their home nation can and has been regarded as fitting the charge of treason, which carries a sentence up to death.

What Arnett did was definitely aid and comfort. His report was no less than the sort of thing carried out by Lord Haw-Haw and at the very least he should see prison time for the actions.

Our rights of speech and press are absolute, however, they are also actions and people in a lawful society are held responsible for their actions. Say "fire" in a crowded theater and if people are in any way harmed by your hoax, you are responsible. Words are just thoughts until voiced and when voicing is action and actions have consequences.

In this case, Arnett gave the Iraqis a boost to their morale that may well cause many more of them to fight longer than otherwise might have and increase the statistical likelihood of coalition soldiers or innocent Iraqis being killed in the futile defense of Saddam Hussein.

Arnett should be tried in a court of law for his actions.

[waydwolf]

Originally posted by jcrash


Mr Hussein, I presume?

I agree with the other guy. The rest of the world can kiss our rear ends.

Consider the rest of the world and world history. The United States is the first nation in human history to enjoy the sort of freedom, democracy, stability, and plenty that we have today.

The rest of the world? Former colonial empires, their former colonies, and backwater sh*tholes where man's better natures are rarely if ever seen and the ancient law of the jungle is supreme.

Only here in the USA will you see Jews, Muslims, and Christians set up houses of worship within a few hundred yards of each other and no one ever thinks once that a battle could break out. You can't even conceive of there not being violence between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland and they're both Christians and Northern Ireland is supposedly a first world nation.

Only here in the USA can women be anything from nuns to porno startlets or anywhere in between and change tack 180 degrees whenever they want and get a movie of the week on Lifetime if anyone so much as peeps a disagreement. You don't seem them having their genitals mutilated as part of every day life and anyone who attempts it is looking to end up dead in prison when another red-blooded inmate finds out what a sick b*stard they are.

Neo-Nazis march and chant slogans and wave flags as they march past a synagogue and then... they go home. There's no gun battles, no mass murders, no city-wide rioting.

We have more public violence over a football or basketball game than we ever have over the more basic hatreds that consume the rest of the planet.

The rest of the world could do far far worse than see this planet go quietly into a Pax Americana. And it does far far worse. Every single day. There are web sites chock full of the bloody images. The kind you don't see every day here.

And if you want to engage in moral equivocation, then you're out of it entirely. There's a big difference between the occasional serial killer, dishonest politician, or inequity here in the USA and systematic brutality, inhumanity, and degredation foisted on other humans around this planet by despots, tyrants, and monsters.

We have a right to judge the belief systems and governments around the world, especially insofar as people are treated based on those things, because these are fellow humans we're talking about, not fictional aliens protected from human meddling by a fictional non-interference directive. Homo Sapiens Sapiens across the world are treated as less than dog cr*p on the boot of the rulers and Hussein should only be the first to go down.

[jcrash]

Originally posted by waydwolf



In this case, Arnett gave the Iraqis a boost to their morale that may well cause many more of them to fight longer than otherwise might have and increase the statistical likelihood of coalition soldiers or innocent Iraqis being killed in the futile defense of Saddam Hussein.

Arnett should be tried in a court of law for his actions.

How is what he said any different than what the guy said at the Oscars? I'm sure they got the Oscars via Satellite in Iraq, should he be summarily tried and hanged, too?

[jcrash]

Originally posted by waydwolf


......
The rest of the world could do far far worse than see this planet go quietly into a Pax Americana. And it does far far worse. Every single day. There are web sites chock full of the bloody images. The kind you don't see every day here.

....



But, the problem is if you really believe all that, then you should also believe you cannot force democracy on anyone. I'm not saying a dictactorship is better, it isn't. But, just because democracy is "better," does that mean if someone doesn't want it we get to go kill them? Please don't throw me the line about Weapons of Mass Destruction - as that argument is wrong in so many ways.

[CoriBright]

From www.bbc.co.uk/news

The movements of those reporting from Baghdad are restricted and their reports are monitored by the Iraqi authorities.

Reporters with the US and British military are restricted in what they can say about precise locations or military plans


I hear Mr Arnett has now signed a contract with the tabloid Daily Mirror in London. Doubt he'll be returning to the US any time soon.