It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arnett for Treason

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:03 PM
link   
IDIOT for Saddam

CLICK!!!

DID HE COMMIT A CRIME?




posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I don't think he is an American citizen so he can't be tried for treason here. Was what he did stupid? Indeed. Criminal? Maybe, but the US can't touch him.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Read more closely...

"Born in New Zealand, Arnett is a naturalized citizen of the United States"

I think "treason" is a bit severe....true, it could technically be stated that he provided "comfort" to the enemy....but treason is a bit extreme in this case....



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Ah ha.. see.. I was unaware that he was a naturalized citizen. So technically he might be able to be brought up on charges but I have to say I am with Gaz on this one. Treason is a tad harsh.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Good. We can now show these other anti-American citizens of the USA that they cannot say they hate America. I hope he is tried for treason. He cannot go over there and basicly give them aid liek that.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 04:04 PM
link   
God!

You people are getting a bit extreme with your judgements and views?

He is just a journalist! Do you want to put him in a gas chamber to sentence him to death? Just follow up on Saddam's example, I suppose.

So just because some one is antiamerican , you people link him/her with terrorists, Al-Quaeda.

You can be antiamerican in a positive way, which means you do not agree with American policies, with the way they are going about things. This does not mean I want to kill you.

Just because you are the US does not make you the perfect race of the world or give you the right to be right.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The point is he was giving vocal support to the enemies of the country he is a citizen of. He should not be put to death though just arrested.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaxatron
God!

You people are getting a bit extreme with your judgements and views?

He is just a journalist! Do you want to put him in a gas chamber to sentence him to death? Just follow up on Saddam's example, I suppose.

So just because some one is antiamerican , you people link him/her with terrorists, Al-Quaeda.

You can be antiamerican in a positive way, which means you do not agree with American policies, with the way they are going about things. This does not mean I want to kill you.

Just because you are the US does not make you the perfect race of the world or give you the right to be right.


It seems you don't fully understand the scope of the situation. The fact that he is a journalist is not a security blanket for him but even more cause to deal with him.

That being said, let me say this. Jane Fonda, one of the most famed traitors in recent American history (Unless you want to include Clinton's propaganda ploys in the Soviet Union and sells of nuclear secrets to the Chinese for political and personal financial profit), barred from entering military bases still, has her workout videos and the PX. Considering this, I can't see how one can demand that Arnette swing from a tree limb.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Born in NZ?? im ashamed to call my self a Kiwi (NZer)



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I hope he is not arrested. He is one of the only reporters who tells the truth. Americans have the right to freedom of press. He was just expressing that right. Just because the american government is mad at him for telling things they didnt want the enmy to know, does not mean he commited treason.

I see reporters as neutral, execpt for suddam husaines news reporters. Reporters are there to give the news, not take sides. We want unbised information from reporters and that is what he was giving. You could portray saying that the america war strategy is a failure is biased, but he probably heard it from some high ranking military person.



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 06:03 AM
link   
You are simply amazing, pizza. Point of the matter is that he DIDN'T tell the truth. Are you having TV reception problems? Can't see the news?

Where's the truth he's told? His anti-American spin is so incredible that only a fellow America-loather could miss it.

Think about it. We're in Baghdad now. Soon The nation will no have Hussein and his murderers running the show. So how could Arnette's crap have been true?

Arnette has, for some reason, been the mouthpiece for this horrible regime. Take for example the chemical plant struck by allied bombs during the first Gulf War. Hussein had them wear tags in English that said "Baby Milk Factory"! Come on, do you not see propaganda when you are being bludgeoned to death with it?



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 06:27 AM
link   
okay so now anyone who voices an opinion contrary to the propaganda of the war machine is a traitor. i'm not comfortable with that word being tossed around. what's next? we obviously can't accept that these comments are treasonist because he's just a journalist observing facts through his limited vision and reporting them to the folk we are so called liberating.

beyond that i see nothing in his statements that gives up any inside information (as if he has any) to the enemy. should iraqi's only have one view of what americans think and feel about this war? there are people against it all over the world should we become a mini Saddam in Iraq and censor the information that normal iraqi citizens are privy to?

this is prolly the most maddening misuse of taxpayer dollars i have come across. if that sentor doesn't sit his do-nothing butt back down in his chair and come up with something more productive than treason-hunting...he should be tried for treason and theft.

[Edited on 4-4-2003 by Saphronia]



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 08:10 AM
link   
You mean...he is one of the only reporters that accepts lies as truth (see TC's Baby Milk Factory comment, as just one example...). Most reporters worthy of the name "reporter" would look beyond such obvious ruses.

Here's some truth for you... We control most of Iraq, we've surrounded the capital, with less than 100 losses, and we control Iraq's skies, with Saddam believed dead. What part of that translates to a "flawed battle plan"?

Please....


dom

posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Sorry Gazrok, do you mean less than 100 coalition losses? I thought so... if we take all dead people together we're probably over 10 000 dead people by now. As long as they're not Westerners though, that makes it ok I guess.

This war has not gone as well as it could have. By now Basra should have had a civilian uprising, and Baghdad should be in the middle of one. That didn't happen, hence this war has not gone according to the optimistic plan of Rumsfield and company. I'm not saying that some of the military generals weren't a little bit more realistic, but it seems that some at the top weren't.



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 08:51 AM
link   
but to say "flawed" is a huge stretch....and that was my arguement...




top topics



 
0

log in

join