March 31, 2003

NBC sacks Arnett

Once again, Arnett's propensity for injecting his own personal views into his journalism has cost him his job, and rightly so. His mistakes were many, this latest being a prime example of how not to be a journalist. Rather than reporting a story, he made himself part of the story by allowing himself to be interviewed on Iraqi TV a step which completed his transformation from reporter to PR flack. His objectivity has been questionable ever since he reported that US troops had gassed US defectors in Laos during the Vietam War. He lost his job at CNN over that little dustup, and CNN retracted the story.

You know, this is probably the only time in history that Ted Turner fired someone for being too liberal.

I still remember his reports from the first Gulf War, telling everyone that the US had bombed a baby milk factory. He showed video of the workers to back up his claims, workers wearing uniforms with "Baby Milk Factory" printed on the back of them.

In English.

Slick reporting there, Ace. No chance that it may have been staged, right?

Peter Arnett himself acknowledges his bias when he said:

He said the Iraqis allowed him to stay in Baghdad because they respect him and "see me as a fellow warrior."

It's bad enough that Arnett compromised his 'journalistic detatchment' by being the subject of an interview; he compounded his error by stating his opinions as fact, another breach of sound journalism. It made it even worse that his opinions were so wildly wrong. He said that the US battle plan had failed, due to Iraqi resistance being stronger than expected, and that the US was "rewriting the war plan."

Let's take a brief look at how Arnett defines failure:

  • The single most rapid advance of troops in the history of military conflict, transporting 90,000 men and all their equipment 300 miles over hostile terrain in a matter of days.
  • The capture of the southern oil fields before they could be destroyed, preventing a huge ecological disaster.
  • The capture of the port city of Umm Qasr
  • The elimination of mines in the harbor, allowing the flow of humanitarian aid to starving Iraqis.
  • The surrender of thousands of Iraqi troops (3 divisions), the defeat and capture of thousands more, with only minor Coalition losses.
  • The ongoing destruction of Iraqi armor and equipment, again without Coalition casualties.
  • The encirclement of Baghdad, pinning down a significant portion of the Republican Guard.
  • The capture of the western airfields, H1-H2-H3, preventing attacks by Iraq to Israel or other Coalition allies.
  • The near eradication of Ansar al-Islam, a fundamentalist terrorist group with ties to Osama bin Laden, in Northern Iraq.
  • The elimination of Iraqi military and government targets in and around Baghdad with minimal collateral damage and non-combatant casualties. With thousands of bombs and missiles dropped, so far the Iraqis have only claimed that 4 were off target, giving an accuracy of 99.99%
  • The air drop of 1000 troops into Northern Iraq, and their work with the Kurds pushing Hussein loyalists into Mosul, opening yet another front on Baghdad.

All of the above has taken place in less than 2 full weeks of fighting, and Arnett calls it failure.

He wasn't fired for being disloyal or unAmerican. He was fired for being stupid.

Posted by Rich at March 31, 2003 9:57 AM | TrackBack
Comments

But is he a traitor? Some people are calling him that. Is there a legal ramification for what he did, or do people just wish there was?

Posted by: Barry on March 31, 2003 10:24 AM

Here is how the constitution defines treason:

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 he
testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

Arnett did not levy war, but his actions could be construed as "Aid and Comfort." After WWII, the SCOTUS decided that the Aid and Comfort clause contained ttwo tests. For an act to be treasonous, it must give aid and comfort to the enemy, and the perpetrator must perform that act specifically in order to benfit the enemy. The court further determined that acts performed in the normal course of your duties can be treasonous if done with the intent to help the enemy.

This forms the crux of the case against Arnett. His statement undoubtably gave aid and comfort to the enemy; however, it would also have to be proven that he intended those statements to do so in order to result in a conviction under the Aid and Comfort clause.

Arnett's past acts, particularly the spurious charges of gassing defectors can be used to prove intent to harm the US, but it would still be a difficult case to make.

So the short answer is yes, there are legal grounds with which to charge him with treason, but it is highly improbable that he will be charged, as the case would be difficult to make.

Posted by: rich on March 31, 2003 11:47 AM

I'm just curious as the language, as technically it would seem that when our medics and doctors attempt to save the lives of injured enemy soldiers that would be giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy.

I know I saw Hawkeye and BJ work on North Koreans all the time, and Frank never once called them traitors. Oh, wait, he did. But he was an idiot :)

File that under "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as highly ambiguous language. Not to mention terribly difficult to spell...(sigh)

Posted by: Barry on March 31, 2003 4:45 PM

Like I said, the aid and comfort clause contains two criteria, the act must help the enemy, and the intent must be to betray your country. Giving medical aid to enemy POW's may meet the first measure but fails the second, therefore it is not treason.

Posted by: rich on March 31, 2003 5:42 PM
Post a comment