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

[Randy Arabie]

On Wednesday, 26 March 2003 at 19:06:35 -0700, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
<clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:

<---snip--->

> > 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:

I got mine from Dictionary.com, Mr. Webster wasn't in the room.

<---snip--->

> 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. 

There is, but then in a country where hospitals and schools are also the
headquarters for the local militia, how could a human shield be so
foolish to think they were protecting the people?  

Good intentions? Maybe.  Smart move? Definately not.

I was simply intending to demonstrate the difference between protesting
and being a human shield or doing whatever Sean Penn did.  I don't know
if the human shields should be considered traitors and I don't know if
Sean Penn did anything treasonous.  Even if he did, I wouldn't suggest
he be shot or even jailed.  As far as traitors go, I would consider him
a pretty harmless (and stupid) one. 

That said, I think both are getting pretty close to the treason line but
neither have crossed it.

Getting back to the whole point....I don't find it outrageous that some
"right-wingers" have called Sean Penn and/or the human shield traitors.
They are dancing pretty close to the fire.

<--snip--->

> 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. 

Well, I didn't say he was a traitor, and I didn't say being a propaganda
mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein is "aiding the enemy".  I did say it could
be construed as such.  I didn't say that was my interpretation.

Also, I don't think a state of war must exist for one to commit an act
of treason.  That's my interpretation, but I'm no Constitutional
scholar.

<---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. 

Or, maybe they were just _reporting_what_they_found_!

> 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. 

Is that a FACT, or is that just what you THINK?  I THINK you might be
WRONG. I think many of them do care about who is funding them, and might
not participate if they new it was ANSWER and the Worker's World Party.
But that's just what I think...I won't try to pass it off as fact.

> > 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. 

I didn't suggest that all of his comments were fair and even-handed.
But that wasn't the issue, now was it?

> > 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. 

So, I can't call the Marxists Marxists because it may undermine their
message?  That's stupid.  What shall I call them?

They are what they are.  Same goes for conservatives, liberals, gays,
socialists, Muslims, Jews, and Christians.  Labels are good, they help
us identify things and distinguish them from other things.

Of course I'm not advocating derogatory labels, like racial slurs.  But I
don't think being called a Marxist is derogatory.

> > 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. 

<---snip--->

> > 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. 

And I could say the same, just reversed.  I think MRC is attempting to
bring up issues that should be covered...namely the left leaning media
bias.

> 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. 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/