Peter Arnett has Sealed the Deal - His free speech threatens

[Ghost Writer]

Peter Arnett, a reporter for National Geographic and NBC, has put himself in a position where he has become a propagandist for the enemy. He appeared on Iraqi T.V. on Sunday night, and told the Iraqi regime that the U.S war plan has been an utter failure, and he also complimented the Iraqi forces for their sheer determination.

Unfortunately, for those on the left, this action taken by Arnett, will have consequences for the antiwar movement. Serious fallout over the comments that Arnett made in an official interview with Iraqi officials will hit the Beltway tomorrow. It has become necessary to start charging those who deliberately sabotage the antiwar movement. It seems that the Justice Department is going to have to issue a number of arrests to demonstrate that this kind of activity is no longer tolerable in a time of war.

There are three different crimes that people like Arnet can be charged with.

1.) Article 3 of the United States Constitution

Section 3. 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.

It will be no problem finding two witnesses, as this interview is currently airing all over the world.

2.) The U.S. Sedition Act of 1918

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

Obviously, his remarks were meant for those purposes in bold print.

3.) Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 105, Section 2153. - Destruction of war material, war premises, or war utilities

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency as declared by the President or by the Congress, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, or, with reason to believe that his act may injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, willfully injures, destroys, contaminates or infects, or attempts to so injure, destroy, contaminate or infect any war material, war premises, or war utilities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both.

(B) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

I don't think it would be too hard to prove the conspiracy charge on the part of the news agency that gave him the go ahead to do the interview and then released it for public consumption.

Things are about to get tough for those antiwar proponents, as they have put themselves in direct violation of these laws in many cases. Unfortunately, your free speech is going to suffer as a result of a few irresponsible journalists. I assume the ramifications of the Arnett interview will be felt for years, as another chilling effect will occur because of the need to crack down on enemy propaganda. If our news networks are going to produce propaganda for the enemy, then they should be subject to these laws.

source: CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/)

[redstar2000]

Your concern for our welfare is touching, Stormin Norman, but you must be aware that "freedom of speech" was knocked out of the "bill of rights" almost before the ink was dry--the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1800 or thereabouts, remember?

"Freedom of speech" has always been a matter of government policy in the United States...not a principle. Whenever the government has felt seriously threatened, "freedom of speech" has turned out to be an empty phrase...a lie, pure and simple.

If Peter Arnett is prosecuted for his appearance on Baghdad television, it will come as no surprise. Since our imperial oligarchy now has the legal powers to disappear people at will, Arnett would be one of the lucky ones who actually gets a trial...even if the verdict is a foregone conclusion.

They could just declare him an "unlawful combatant" and he'd never be seen again.

:cool:

[Pete]

Norman, I would like to thank you for pointing out another reason to call America hypocritical, and its institutions false.

[Larissa]

"God bless America´s 'Freedom of Speech' and its government's dictatorship"
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=25&topic=764 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=25&topic=764)
Also, I'm pasting here (again) a mail I received from a colleague:
"It is said repeatedly to try to shut up
anyone here in the US who speaks against US war policies. "You wouldn't
be able to do that if it weren't for the military protecting your freedom
of speech." You will have to imagine the "if looks could only kill" look
in the eye of one US Marine spouse who said this to me once when I was
passing out leaflets in opposition to the wars by proxy in Central
America ... . She obviously wanted dissent (and dissenters) to disappear,
and felt very threatened by even the rather innocuous signs I had
concocted in the most patriotic language I could muster (which was
considerable, since at the time I still thought the flag could be
redeemed by thorough washing).

Of course it's ridiculous. The only thing that protects freedom of speech
is using it. No military power in the world can protect it. Military
power cannot protect freedom or democracy in general. The irony is that
any dictatorship in the world would be very pleased with the folks who
make such claims, since they invariably are the ones who agree with the
government... Really, is there any government in the world that would
prevent its citizens from praising it?

But it's also understandable that people who have loved ones in combat
zones (or who may end up in combat zones any time) will want very much to
believe that the risk is worth it, that their loved ones are fighting for
freedom and democracy, flag and country. The illusion doesn't protect
anybody - here or there - but it's the way they cope with the stress. So
visible dissent to this view is quite disturbing to them.

So we are called unpatriotic, traitors and communists and now terrorists
(and of course always accused of "helping the enemy") even in relative
peacetime for simply disagreeing with the federal government on matters
of war and peace. A common feeling is that fighting in a war is always
patriotic, no matter how stupid the soldier may think the war is;
fighting against a war, on the other hand, especially after the war has
started, is widely viewed to be more or less unpatriotic. The same people
generally don't have the same problem with dissent over domestic
policies. It is only in foreign policy that our political leaders are
assumed to have godlike knowledge and wisdom. We ALL know they are
hopelessly ignorant and unwise about problems here at home....

I am envious of those of you who say you live in countries where people
are relaxed about "patriotism" and not "rabid" about it. Here, it seems
pathological so often, with the flag (the primary object of idolatry)
used to beat up the heretics. The common invocation "God Bless the USA"
sounds innocuous until you realize that the unspoken rest of the sentence
is actually "and to hell with the rest of the world... ." I never
questioned the patriotism religion myself until it was used against me
(isn't that always the way?).

Meanwhile, the most hopeful lantranews I've read today is about the 3 UK
soldiers who refused to fight and the snippet about 1/3 of UK reservists
not showing up when called. Sure hope it's true. We'd probably still be
in Vietnam No. 1 today if it weren't for the fact that more and more US
draftees never showed up for induction. The number of no-shows reached
50% eventually, I'm told (I imagine calculated for a certain period of
call-ups, although I'm not sure).

Wish we could figure out a way for Bush to pull out of this while saving
face -- tempting though it is to just wish that he falls on his face....

Peace, Cathy Flick"

[Larissa]

I forgot to add this other comment...

"A lesson in US media writing for Brits, or how the NYT Op-Ed editor taught Boris Johnson, MP, that it was ok to take a dig at Chile, but not at Guinea.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?ta...3-03-22&id=2907 (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-03-22&id=2907)

Amusing, I thought. Kind of language related, too ... it briefly deals with "Gee" as euphemistically derived from "Jesus".

Haydn Rawlinson".

[Invader Zim]

lol this thread reminds me of this picture New Democracy found...

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/03/10/tomo/story.gif

[Larissa]

Quoting a friend of mine...

"Seems that tolerance is something Brits take for granted (except of course for sartorial matters :-) in the grand old tradition of John Stuart Mill's negative liberalism (do anything you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else), whereas the Yanks have to make a conscious effort (and boy does it hurt!) in the Prussian tradition of what's specifically permitted in black and white is OK and everything else is banned. Hence the need to painstakingly stake out each little clearing of liberty in a jungle of prohibition.

Wow. Never thought I'd actually see this hoary old bugaboo rearing its head again! Takes me back to the stone age.

Now who was it wrote about Repressive Tolerance as the American approach par excellence?

Choppa"

[synthesis]

Norm, the Sedition Act was repealed in 1921.

[lukecrouch]

I don't know why everyone assumes freedom of speech is the same thing as freedom from the consequences of speech.

If you tell someone they're spouse should die and they kick your ass...you earned it.

Should the government censor people? No.

Should the government allow anyone to say whatever they want without consequences? No.

What about freedom of expression? I feel a good way to express myself would be to kill the next 5 random people I see....should I suffer no consequences for that?

I don't think the man should be KILLED for what he said...but I think NBC did well when they fired him.

[redstar2000]

I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but Luke actually offers one of the practical definitions of "free speech" in America.

Say whatever you please, as long as you agree with the boss.

If you really want to exercise your "freedom of speech" in America, it's pretty important to be independently wealthy or be prepared to spend the rest of your life sleeping in doorways and eating out of dumpsters. Arnett, I'm sure, is financially quite comfortable. For the average person, "freedom of speech" is a "luxury-good"...on the same level as owning a yacht, perhaps.

Very good, Luke, a little insight on class society. "Freedom of speech", to the extent it exists at all, is just one more freedom reserved to the capitalist class.

:cool:

[Larissa]

It's curious how freedom of speech and freedom of expression refer to killing someone.

[Anti communist]

Ghost Writer is now one of my best friends!!!!!!

[peaccenicked]

The Mirror has employed Arnett. Hooray.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Mar31.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61888-2003Mar31.html)

[Som]

Oddly enough, even if those laws are still on the books, they would not apply.

Because we're not at war.

This, like every american military action since WWII, is an operation.

Congress and the president have basically ignored that little part of the constitution where it says that only congress has the power the declare war.
So they just don't call it a war, a nice little loophole for them.

Not like law and justice and american wars ever seem to stick together anyway.

[Ghost Writer]

The Mirror has employed Arnett. Hooray.

Hip Hip Hooray! Arnett went from a world renound media outlet (NBC) to a leftist rag nobody has ever heard of. Great action. I want to see that son of a ***** tried and shot.

I know the Sedition Act is no longer in effect. Sorry, I got a little over zealous. It is at times like these when the utility of such a law really becomes clear. I think they should bring it back in another form. There are other laws on the books that will cover this activity. The title 18 sabotage law is just one. I will go digging for the rest. Purely, wishful thinking on my part. But I do think Article 3 alone would cover his actions. He should look for another citizenship somewhere else, that dirty bastard.

[Ghost Writer]

In all seriousness, if you want to know how I feel about the matter of internal security, espionage, treason, sabotage, sedition, and dissent, I think you should read Harry S. Truman's 1950 Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States.

His piece resembles what I originally said when I first brought up the 1918 Sedition Act in the "Ignorant Statements" thread. I must admit that the Sedition Act wasn't the greatest piece of legislation as it was too broad, and created the type of chilling effect that concerns me on many different political levels.

On the other hand, my patriotic views, and digust with people like Arnett does have the ability to send me into the type of hysteria that Truman warns about in his message. As I am more libertarian in nature than most of your average Americans, you must question the effect that you are having when you display such transparent hatred for the United States. If I can become prone to this type of hysteria, how do you think the silent majority is reacting? How much longer do you suppose that you can attempt to undermine the ideals that bind this country together before you get a reaction?

I must retract the statement I made about bringing back the Sedition Act, as I don't think it would be wise, gratifying yes. I can see the merits of the law, especially in the wake of this assault on our social fabric by liberals. However, if we react with such a broad sweeping broom will have have helped them to meet their objectives.

In Iraq, we are currently tearing down the only state symbol that they really have. That being the image of Saddam Hussein. This is a tactic that is employed by invading forces, and revolutionaries. I submit that this has been occurring in our country for some time, in a more subversive manner. Perhaps those mouthpieces of utter insanity are trying to rile this nation into abandoning the very principles most important to the strength of our democracy. Such a response would only help them to tear down our national symbols.

No, there are other (more appropriate) laws that can be applied to the subversive movement, and these are the laws that we should use. Anything less would be lazy and result in poor police work. Therefore, those smart enough to stay under the radar, would be given that much more of an advantage. Since the quality of our investigative work would also suffer out of a perceived lack of a need for hard work, we must not stifle the creativity of those agencies necessary for the internal security of this country. We don't need it, because much like Chinese imports it is too easy and it is too cheap. There is no substitute for the quality, and rigidness of the system we have created in America.

A work of art (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/trumanpapers/pppus/1950/207.htm)

[Ghost Writer]

I thought I would provide a link to laws that apply directly to antiwar protestors.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=22&topic=2047 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2047)

[Xvall]

I doubt he is going to come back to the United States and expect to be greeted with open arms. Don't worry about it.

[redstar2000]

"There is no substitute for the quality, and the rigidness of the system we have created in America." -- Stormin Norman

rigidness? You mean like obstinate? Or something more along the lines of an erect penis?

:cool:

[synthesis]

I know the Sedition Act is no longer in effect. Well, I'm not so sure about that, Norm. You've used it a couple times to justify an accusation of treason.

[peaccenicked]

http://www.learn.co.uk/glearning/primary/l...d4/resource.asp (http://www.learn.co.uk/glearning/primary/lessons/ks2/hd4/resource.asp)
See SN 2 million + Not exactly noone.
The Mirror is not exactly left wing . It has only ever been anti war on this occaision.