[CLUE-Talk] [Fwd: MRC Alert Special: ABC's War News Touts Doubt and Dissent]

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 11:01, Randy Arabie wrote:

*snip*

> > On a recent edition of his nightly program, O'Reilly said that "Once the
> > war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support
> > our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and
> > indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once
> > the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.
>  
> Is that any worse than the protesters I've seen marching with signs that
> say "Bush is the Terrorist"?  I don't agree with O'Reilly there, and I
> don't think his opinion that protestors should "shut up" reflects the
> opinion of most conservatives.

Does it have to be worse? You asked for examples, I provided them. 

I do think that his opinion is representative of a large number of
conservatives -- some are more vocal than others about it. 

Do I agree with the rhetoric that some of the lefties are using? No. I
think it's designed to incite rather than inform - and I think it ends
up running contrary to their goals. "Bush is Wrong" would be more
effective in reaching moderates who might be swayed...

> > A recent column by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin echoed Senator
> > Graham's sentiments: "What color is a human shield?" Malkin writes.
> > "Crayola needs to invent a new hue weaker than lemonade and paler than
> > jaundice: Traitor Yellow." Malkin says that the human shields are as
> > "willfully treacherous as American al Qaeda enemy combatant John Walker
> > Lindh. The only place that's fit for these stateless turncoats to call
> > home is a detainee bunk bed at Guantanamo Bay."
> 
> By definition, treason is "Violation of allegiance toward one's
> country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging
> war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its
> enemies."

Your definition differs from mine. From Webster's:

"The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to
which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the
hands of a foreign power"

>From the Constitution:

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.

Aid and comfort are covered in some detail here:
http://supreme.paxtv.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/24.html#6

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think their actions qualify. 

> If a US citizen travels to Iraq and positions themselves as a "human
> shield", on behalf of Saddam Hussien, then they are traitors.  While
> thier intentions may have been to protect the Iraqi people, they have
> effectively become the pawns of the Saddam's regime.  I read an account
> from some human sheilds who left, becuase the Iraqi's directed them to
> take up positions in front of military targets.

If a citizen travels to any country prior to the beginning of
hostilities and declaration of war (have we declared war on Iraq? I
don't think so...not formally) and state an intention only to put their
own bodies in harm's way as an objection to a potential war I don't
think that fits with my understanding of treason. 

Bush has stated, many times, that the people of Iraq are not our
enemies. If you're taking Bush at his word, and the people acting as
"human shields" are only placing themselves in civilian areas and not
purposely protecting military targets, I don't think you can call them
traitors. Their stated intention is to try to protect innocent Iraqis,
not Saddam. There's a big difference there. 

If they were to, for example, try to provide an obstacle between U.S.
ground troops and Iraqi forces then I would say they are being traitors
by endangering any U.S. troops who might be put in harm's way trying to
avoid shooting one of them. That hasn't happened, though. 

Further, I'd say that you have to respect the resolve of someone who is
willing to risk being bombed to stand up for their beliefs. As long as
they are only trying to protect Iraqi civilians and not interfering with
ground troops I have no beef with what they're doing. I'm not sure I
agree that it's worth the risk or that it is likely to be at all
effective -- it's probably not -- but I don't think they should be
labeled traitors for what they're doing. Looney, perhaps... 
 
> > In "An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch" dated March 4, the
> > Nashville-based country western singer Charlie Daniels wrote: "Sean
> > Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and
> > comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, 'fact
> > finding trip' to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we
> > didn't have the stomach for war."
> 
> Did he give "aid and comfort" to Saddam Hussein?  If he did, then he is
> a traitor.  I personally don't know what Sean Penn did while he was in
> Iraq.  I heard he came back and declared that Iraq has no weapons of
> mass destruction.  Sound like he has become a mouth piece for Iraqi
> propaganda, which could be construed as aiding the enemy.

As I understand it, he just went to gather information or some such. I
don't know of anything he's accused of doing other than actually
traveling to Iraq and being against the war. 

Since we, as Americans, enjoy almost total protection under the First
Amendment for political speech, I don't agree with your assessment that
being a mouthpiece is "aiding the enemy." You can shout the Iraqi
government party line from the rooftops, it doesn't help Iraq at all
unless by "help" you mean "changing public sentiment through normal
channels of participatory democracy." 

It might make him an asshole, but it doesn't make him a traitor. 

> I distinguish a difference between protesting, excercising your right to
> free speech, and actually travelling to the enemies camp to offer
> assistance, aid and comfort.

AFAIK Penn didn't offer any assistance, aid or comfort to the Iraqi
government. I don't see how you could forbid someone from traveling to
Iraq before the beginning of hostilities in an effort to see firsthand
what the real situation is in that country. 

Let's say the U.S. and another country are ramping up to a possible
conflict. It would make me a traitor to go to that country prior to the
beginning of hostilities to see for myself what the situation was in
that country? That reeks of censorship to me. "You'll believe what we
tell you about Iraq, or you're a traitor." 

That doesn't really sit right with me. If Penn were to travel to Iraq
now to meet with Iraqi government officials, sure -- that would be
crossing the line in my opinion. 

> <---SNIP--->

> > > Here is a "right-wing" media story about that:
> > > 	http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81314,00.html
> > 
> > Yeah, note the spin: We won't criticize what they're saying -- just the
> > timing and costs. Where are the articles questioning abortion protesters
> > and the costs of protecting abortion clinics?
> 
> I think you missed the focus of the article, which was researching the
> source of funds for some of these large anti-war rallies.

No...I got that too. So, instead of criticizing what they're saying,
they tried to undermine the message by casting aspersions on the
organizers. 

Okay, so they're organized by ANSWER or the Worker's World Party. So?
The fact is that most of the people at the rallies don't know and don't
care who is funding it -- they're not being paid to be there, they're
just gathering to put out a message that they believe in. 

> Isn't it possible to be a Marxist and NOT be a traitor.  I think so. If
> you disagree, please please refer to the definition of traitor.  It
> makes no mention of your political leanings.  IMNSHO, Rush's statement
> most certainly does not qualify as an example of calling the protesters
> traitors.

Oh yes, let's nitpick...since he didn't specifically say "traitors" I
suppose all of his comments were fair and even-handed. Please. 

> You'll get no arguement from me there.  That's why I won't call someone
> a traitor, just because they are a Marxist.  You seem to believe that
> calling someone a Marxist, pro-Marxist, communist, anti-American, or
> anti-capitalist is the same as calling them a traitor.  It isn't.  Each
> has it's own, specific definition.

The point is the same. To undermine the message of the person by trying
to tag them with an unsavory label. And, for the record, all of those
labels were considered tantamount to being a traitor or treasonous not
so long ago. 

> I misunderstood your your statement. I took it to imply that the Bush
> administration was calling the anti-war protesters traitors and was
> attempting to stifle their voices.  It seems that your referrence to
> "right-wingers" was directed at many non-administration people who were
> expressing their opinions on the anti-war protesters. 

Yes. 

> I could likewise find accounts of anti-war protesters stating that
> "Bush is the Terrorist" and likening the USA to Nazi Germany.  Those
> are all instances of positions just as extreme as calling anti-war
> protesters traitors.

There are a few... I haven't seen anyone exactly saying that the U.S. is
Nazi Germany, but a few people have drawn parallels. 

> If you can unilaterally declare the Media Research Center "trash", I
> think it is fair for me to declare Alternet "trash".  I didn't say
> anything you said was untrue.

I would personally disagree - while I'll admit Alternet is biased, I
think they are at least attempting to bring up issues that should be
covered whereas MRC is content to slam anyone who dares to publically
disagree with the conservative viewpoint. There is a significant
difference. 

There are a few sites that skew towards a conservative viewpoint that
still practice responsible reporting. MRC isn't one of them. It's the
Web-based equivalent of the conservative talk-radio echo chambers. 

> I think the subscribers to CLUE-talk are smart enough to take the Media
> Research Center and Alternet for what they are, sources of informatin
> with well known biases.

I never said that they weren't. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net