NZ reporter fired from NBC - DPChallenge Forums

03/31/2003 10:21:10 PM · #26

He's a Kiwi...he can't be tried for treason as he's not at war, and not an American. In one sentence you're slagging the fact that he's from New Zealand, and the next you're saying he should be tried for treason. You're not making any sense!

03/31/2003 10:26:53 PM · #27

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

actually he is not even loyal to his country of origin. he became a US citizen a few years before the gulf war...

Hoogie

Nikon D50

03/31/2003 10:31:45 PM · #28

Wow i cant believe the rubbish these 2 guys are saying...very amusing.

sorry i started this thread ,i actually agreed with jimmy in a previous post that he rightfully was fired.

But to shoot him..lol...for saying something that was indeed true?? gee i think the Iraqi's know that the USA plan isnt working as expected so i fail to see how his true comment would affect the war.

but hey if your answer is to kill those who say something you dont like well so be it, personally being fired was the right move.

03/31/2003 10:41:22 PM · #29

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
He's a Kiwi...he can't be tried for treason as he's not at war, and not an American. In one sentence you're slagging the fact that he's from New Zealand, and the next you're saying he should be tried for treason. You're not making any sense!

actually he is not even loyal to his country of origin. he became a US citizen a few years before the gulf war...

Well my mistake, but to the best of my knowledge you can' tbe tried for treason for exercising a first-amendment right, and most certainly can't be deported to New Zealand if he's American.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/31/2003 10:47:01 PM · #30

Originally posted by Hoogie:

actually the plan is working fine... the only ones saying it isn't are the left wingers who want the US to fail... step back and look at it from saddams perspective... we have supreme air power, control of his oil fields, his port, control of supply lines, he and his sons have not been seen alive in days, over 4500 of his troops have been captured and many others have deserted, our troops are knocking on his door 300 miles into his country, we are bringing in humanitarian aid and more troops... things seem to be going extremly bad for him and good for us... we've lost what 40 men? out of 150,000 plus to start? war never goes exactly as planned... none of them ever have... when we liberated grenada which is 178 square miles it took 11 days... the first gulf war we bombed for 78 days before the ground war began... in world war II when we landed on normandy we lost 5,000 troops in the first 5 days and only moved 2 miles into enemy territory... yes, things are going bad, but not for us, they are going bad for saddam... his time is limited... things for us seem to be going remarkably well... for you to say it isn't going as expected, well that's just foolish.... the plan is working fine... maybe not 100% perfect, and war never is, but it is going well, very well indeed... your comments serve no one but saddam and his supporters

Message edited by author 2003-03-31 22:47:17.

Hoogie

Nikon D50

03/31/2003 11:02:45 PM · #31

Anachronite do you read previos posts if you had you would know that i stated that i personally wished the USA plan would work regardless of being anti-war.

does this make me pro saddam?

I hope USA prevail with minimal casualties as 99.9% of NZers do, but did you know that 50 percent support war in my country and yet even though australia have committed forces the majority of people in australia dont support war! last i heard (may have changed) it was roughly 70% of aussies dont support the war. (lisae may correct that if wrong).

And everyone knows Anachronite that this war isnt going "PERFECTLY" to plan it was expected to be swift and if you stop and notice your sharemarket you will see evidence of that.

But everyone also knows that USA will prevail

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

03/31/2003 11:04:14 PM · #32

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Well my mistake, but to the best of my knowledge you can' tbe tried for treason for exercising a first-amendment right, and most certainly can't be deported to New Zealand if he's American.

Well Jimmy, you CAN be tried for Saddition/Treason, and it's not "to the best of my knowledge" either, it's a FACT and a law of the US. Same goes for the protestors in the US... They can rally and voice objections peacefully with no problem, but once they obstruct civil activities (during war) they CAN be tried for Saddition and given a sentence of not more then 30 years in prison.

And Arnet isn't an American (even tho he may have citizenship) he's garbage (Euro trash). He's an embarrasment to EVEN NBC who is liberal... Gee, what does that tell you?? I hope the US has enough balls to prosecute him if at all possible.

Hoogie

Nikon D50

03/31/2003 11:07:38 PM · #33

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Well my mistake, but to the best of my knowledge you can' tbe tried for treason for exercising a first-amendment right, and most certainly can't be deported to New Zealand if he's American.

Well Jimmy, you CAN be tried for Saddition/Treason, and it's not "to the best of my knowledge" either, it's a FACT and a law of the US. Same goes for the protestors in the US... They can rally and voice objections peacefully with no problem, but once they obstruct civil activities (during war) they CAN be tried for Saddition and given a sentence of not more then 30 years in prison.

And Arnet isn't an American (even tho he may have citizenship) he's garbage (Euro trash). He's an embarrasment to EVEN NBC who is liberal... Gee, what does that tell you?? I hope the US has enough balls to prosecute him if at all possible.

You seriously need help!

Message edited by author 2003-03-31 23:08:32.

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/31/2003 11:19:30 PM · #34

Originally posted by Hoogie:

You seriously need help!

Really, what did I say that you dispute? Or are you "just not extending courtesy" that you say is so important in a debate? :p LOL, you hypocrite.

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/31/2003 11:46:23 PM · #35

That's a ridiculous comparison between Saddam and Hitler.

Hitler and US were almost equal adversaries :) Saddam is not, at least on direct battle field combats, and thus they have to fight unconventionally to try to equalize the differences.

This is what the Iraqi will do. You see the 50% attrition rate? They may or may not be soldiers. That is, satellite images gives you an idea that maybe 50% of the armors are destroyed. I'll bet the Republican guards have pulled into Baghdad and waits for the US to go into urban warfare.

Just ask the Israelis on how well they did in Lebanon in the 80's when they go into a civil war in an urban environment. Or the Russians in Chechnya. Once it goes into the cities, the armors, the airpower, etc. are not as effective. And once the troops gets mixed in with the civilians, there will be lots of casualties on both American and Iraqi civilians, but mostly on Iraqi civilians. That in turn may lose public support for the war in the U.S.

It's that not that simple to capture a city without killinga lot of civilians, and killing civilians with those images on TV will make a profound impact on public opinion in the US alone.

We could've won in Vietnam. You know, that's true. But we'd have to kill every Vietnamese in there and we chose not to commit genocide. There was NO public support for the war from the Vietnamese, and until we see public support of the war in Baghdad, it'll be another Vietnam.

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Hoogie:
Wow i cant believe the rubbish these 2 guys are saying...very amusing.

sorry i started this thread ,i actually agreed with jimmy in a previous post that he rightfully was fired.

But to shoot him..lol...for saying something that was indeed true?? gee i think the Iraqi's know that the USA plan isnt working as expected so i fail to see how his true comment would affect the war.

but hey if your answer is to kill those who say something you dont like well so be it, personally being fired was the right move.

actually the plan is working fine... the only ones saying it isn't are the left wingers who want the US to fail... step back and look at it from saddams perspective... we have supreme air power, control of his oil fields, his port, control of supply lines, he and his sons have not been seen alive in days, over 4500 of his troops have been captured and many others have deserted, our troops are knocking on his door 300 miles into his country, we are bringing in humanitarian aid and more troops... things seem to be going extremly bad for him and good for us... we've lost what 40 men? out of 150,000 plus to start? war never goes exactly as planned... none of them ever have... when we liberated grenada which is 178 square miles it took 11 days... the first gulf war we bombed for 78 days before the ground war began... in world war II when we landed on normandy we lost 5,000 troops in the first 5 days and only moved 2 miles into enemy territory... yes, things are going bad, but not for us, they are going bad for saddam... his time is limited... things for us seem to be going remarkably well... for you to say it isn't going as expected, well that's just foolish.... the plan is working fine... maybe not 100% perfect, and war never is, but it is going well, very well indeed... your comments serve no one but saddam and his supporters

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/01/2003 12:02:27 AM · #36

Originally posted by paganini:

And once the troops gets mixed in with the civilians, there will be lots of casualties on both American and Iraqi civilians, but mostly on Iraqi civilians. That in turn may lose public support for the war in the U.S.

Why do you assume there will be only American and Iraqi civilian causualties? If any Iraqi civilians die it's because of the cowardly actions of the Iraqi government, who will hide behind the dresses of their own woman and children. We know that the Iraqi military are cowards and murderous to their own people. THAT will sway opinion IN FAVOR of our efforts, not the other way around.

Originally posted by paganini:

It's that not that simple to capture a city without killinga lot of civilians, and killing civilians with those images on TV will make a profound impact on public opinion in the US alone.

You're right it won't be easy, but it will get done. In the end the Iraqi people will benefit so there's no debate as to the benefit of this. They will be free and enjoy the benefit of democracy, freedom, and money from THEIR own resources. Saddam will no longer strangle them and keep them poor.

Originally posted by paganini:

We could've won in Vietnam. You know, that's true. But we'd have to kill every Vietnamese in there and we chose not to commit genocide. There was NO public support for the war from the Vietnamese, and until we see public support of the war in Baghdad, it'll be another Vietnam.

Gee, if you lived in Iraq as a common citizan under the threat of instant death of your family if you voice oposition against Saddam, I don't think you would have much oppisition to him either at this point. Is that so hard for people to see? After he's gone you'll see the differance.

04/01/2003 12:06:25 AM · #37

Originally posted by Hoogie:

this is the problem with the world today. so many people like you, want to sit back and claim that your idealistic ideas can actually be implemented. when it kills you to realize that it is impossible. yes if a journalist did something like that in WW2 i would have shot him if i was a soldier, and no one would have said anything. firing him isn't justice at all. he has already signed with a british TABLOID, so now he can spread his crap even more freely. your attitude just shows that people abuse the idea of free speech, and don't care because it's all in the name of blessed political correctness and peace and harmony. too bad saddam doesn't believe in political correctness, peace and harmony. he doesn't have any time to think about that stuff because he's too busy putting people in woodchippers

04/01/2003 12:08:21 AM · #38

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by paganini:
And once the troops gets mixed in with the civilians, there will be lots of casualties on both American and Iraqi civilians, but mostly on Iraqi civilians. That in turn may lose public support for the war in the U.S.

Why do you assume there will be only American and Iraqi civilian causualties? If any Iraqi civilians die it's because of the cowardly actions of the Iraqi government, who will hide behind the dresses of their own woman and children. We know that the Iraqi military are cowards and murderous to their own people. THAT will sway opinion IN FAVOR of our efforts, not the other way around.

Originally posted by paganini:
It's that not that simple to capture a city without killinga lot of civilians, and killing civilians with those images on TV will make a profound impact on public opinion in the US alone.

You're right it won't be easy, but it will get done. In the end the Iraqi people will benefit so there's no debate as to the benefit of this. They will be free and enjoy the benefit of democracy, freedom, and money from THEIR own resources. Saddam will no longer strangle them and keep them poor.

Originally posted by paganini:
We could've won in Vietnam. You know, that's true. But we'd have to kill every Vietnamese in there and we chose not to commit genocide. There was NO public support for the war from the Vietnamese, and until we see public support of the war in Baghdad, it'll be another Vietnam.

Gee, if you lived in Iraq as a common citizan under the threat of instant death of your family if you voice oposition against Saddam, I don't think you would have much oppisition to him either at this point. Is that so hard for people to see? After he's gone you'll see the differance.

also if you believe that there are paralells to sieges like stalingrad, you can rest assured the iraqi army will be killing 10000-20000 of their own troops

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

04/01/2003 01:37:40 AM · #39

From everything I've read, the things he said are the same things all kinds of journalists all over the world have been saying for the past few days, especially since that investigative piece was printed in the New Yorker a couple of days ago saying that Rumsfeld pressured military planners to reduce the number of troops and start the campaign too early. The only difference was that Arnett said these things to the Iraqi media.

So his crime is to say the same things everyone has been saying, but to the wrong people?

04/01/2003 02:16:53 AM · #40

Originally posted by lisae:

Not a crime, by any means. Just to the wrong people.

Message edited by author 2003-04-01 02:17:16.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

04/01/2003 02:21:57 AM · #41

Hardly sedition.

04/01/2003 02:24:10 AM · #42

Originally posted by lisae:

Hardly sedition.

don't you mean Saddition?

04/01/2003 02:26:54 AM · #43

Going on the enemies government sponsored Television station and saying things that can boost the morale of enemy troops and possibly help keep them fighting can cause casulties on our side and possibly extend the conflict... his actions could definately be considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"... which would be reason enough to put him before a firing squad.... had he said it here on our television, I don't think the reaction from his employers would have been as bad

04/01/2003 02:55:56 AM · #44

Originally posted by Anachronite:

What you're describing here is treason, not sedition, to clarify, and in the history of the US approximately 30 people have been tried for treason. This is a decision made by congress, not soldiers. Furthermore, sedition is not even on the books anymore as a crime (the original 1798 and 1918 acts were repealed on first amendment conflicts, and were originally designed with specific conflicts in mind anyhow).

Treason has proven to be particularly difficult to pin, given the low numbers, and indeed isn't automatically punishable by death, despite what you may read. Sedition was NEVER punishable by death.

Treason requires active participation against your country, not just words. The full verison of what you posted reads, as below, 'only in levying war against them...' which does absolutely not mean giving an opinion through interview. If this were so, knowingly speaking out against the war on CNN could be grounds for treason, as Iraqis can watch CNN.

The fact that the case against John Walker Lindh was quietly dropped suggests that it takes a good deal of evidence for motive to convict someone of treason.

If you were a soldier and shot this reporter, however, rest assured that you would be tried for murder...

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

04/01/2003 03:18:07 AM · #45

Jimmy, I never said it was sedition... you must have me confused with someone else... go back and read my posts.. I said treason right from the start... and when he was convicted of it, that we take him to Guantanimo Bay and put him in front of a firing squad... other than that you really made no point... CNN is not owned and operated by the Iraqi's... Arnett was "in-league" with the enemy by going and sitting in on the enemy controlled propaganda machine... that is where the difference lies... also, Iraqi's are not allowed to have satellite dishes and therefore can not watch CNN (Communist News Network). Also, the fact that so few people have been convicted of treason illustrates how horrendous of an act Peter Arnett's blabbering was, if it is indeed treason... and if I was an Iraqi soldier, yes I probably would shoot someone like him, but as an American soldier, if he was unarmed I would take him into custody and let the system deside his fate... just as Johhny Walker was taken into custody... now as for the case against Johnny "Ratboy" Walker, his case was not quietly dropped... he saw that he was going to be convicted and plead guilty in exchange for a lessor sentence... a very common practice in our court system... the way the judge explained it to me when I last sat on a jury was that it is better to have 9 guys plead guilty and get some prison time, then to have 9 guys get-off free and get nothing... while I do not necessarily agree with plee bargaining, it is a part of our system ... and his case was not dropped ... all that aside, there is still a case for treason with Benedict Arnett...

On a side note the news is broadcasting live photos of captured Al Samuud (SP) missles... funny, the UN resolutions said that this type of WMD was not supposed to be designed, developed, engineered, built, and or deployed, yet there they are in bright brilliant color...

funny, saddam was supposed to have destroyed all these, at least he said he did... I guess in Iraq when then say "destroyed" it translates to "hiding under trees and bushes"

Message edited by author 2003-04-01 03:36:42.

04/01/2003 04:16:22 AM · #46

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Sigh...I'm too freaking tired to pick all the stuff out that's troublesome with this post. I was responding to both yours and Chris' post. Bottom line is that he wasn't doing anything but speaking. The forum is absolutely irrelevant. You can't be tried for speaking. Acting out against your forces with force is treason.

The treason charges against John Walker Lindh were indeed dropped, regardless of the reasons, and a lesser sentence was issued. This was an admitted combatant, mind, and not some dude who gave a TV interview. To suggest that you would shoot a person for giving a TV interview is hideous. To say that the small numbers of treason cases shows that his is a severe violation has no basis in logic, as you've presumed that he will indeed be found guilty of treason.

Finally, a missile is not a WMD in and of itself. It needs to be carrying agents, either chemical, nuclear or biological, to be considered a WMD. Agents, by the way, which have yet to be found.

James.

Message edited by author 2003-04-01 04:22:12.

04/01/2003 07:40:15 AM · #47

wrong there have been many people tried for speaking. double agents that gave secrets to russia for example

04/01/2003 09:20:42 AM · #48

actually the missle itself is banned regardless of whether it has chemicals inside it or not... do you honestly believe saddam has destroyed all of the chemicals? that he stopped his mobile bio-weapon experiments? he has done nothing but prove his disdain and lack of respect for the UN and it's resolutions... you really believe he has none? or that if he is trying to hide and destroy them now so they won't be found? if not, then what on earth are you debating the issue for? surely your not really naive enough to think these missles that have been found are the only banned weapons he has???

as for johnny walker, who cares if the treason charge was dropped... he was guilty and he would have been convicted... and that is why he made his plee...

as for Arnett and being tried for speaking, you keep forgetting that it wasn't the speaking itself that makes it treason, but where, what, and who he said it too... obviously even he and his employers thought he did something wrong.. he was fired and apologized (I loved it when he called him self an idiot) ... and I never said I would shoot him for giving a tv interview. I said when he was found guilty, and yes I think he is guilty and there is a case against him, then he should be shot... and yes, if someone is found guilty I think having them shot by firing aquad is appropriate...

PS: Go Troops!

Message edited by author 2003-04-01 09:22:08.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

04/01/2003 10:39:55 AM · #49

Bad news Anachronite.... no chemical or biological weapons have been found despite the fact that several of the US's top intelligence leads have been captured and searched now:

From the Washington Post:

At the same time, U.S. forces have tested 10 of their best intelligence leads, four that first day and another half-dozen since, without result. There are nearly 300 sites in the top tier of a much larger list that the Defense Intelligence Agency updated in the run-up to war, officials said. The 10 sites reached by Friday were among the most urgent. If equipped as suspected, they would have posed an immediate threat to U.S. forces. "All the searches have turned up negative," said a Joint Staff officer who is following field reports. "The munitions that have been found have all been conventional."

On the other hand, the coalition forces HAVE themselves used weapons of mass destruction that are forbidden by a UN resolution - shells carrying depleted uranium:

From this article:

BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'