Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." John Podhortetz asks in a NY Post op-ed that "Is Peter Arnett guilty of treason?"The question is whether Arnett's comments on Iraqi state-run television, a propaganda arm of Saddam Hussein's regime, constitute "aid and comfort" to the enemy. If you analyze his remarks strictly as a matter of rhetoric, the answer is unambiguously: YES. Arnett used his time on Iraqi television to praise the Iraqi government and people in a way that might stiffen their resolve and lead them to hunker down against allied forces. Certainly, in a 21st-century context, his words were a "comfort" at the very least. [...] Of course, the U.S. government will never attempt to try Peter Arnett. If he were to be charged with treason, reporters and news organizations everywhere would rise up to declare him a martyr. That's because of the bizarre notion that because people make their living by interviewing other people and delivering information to the masses, they are in some way released from their obligations as citizens of the nations in which they live. Their obligation is not to their countrymen but to "Truth" - as they define it. [NYPost, April 2, 2003]
Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky) also comments:
"I think he should be brought back and tried as a traitor to the United States of America, for his aiding and abetting the Iraqi government during a war," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. Later in a speech on the Senate floor, Bunning said: "Mr. Arnett can apologize all he likes for being a `useful idiot' for Saddam and his barbaric regime. But that's not enough for me, and it's certainly not enough for our soldiers and many Americans." [Try Arnett for treason, senator says, Enquirer]
Peter Arnett's actions may or may not be treasonous (I am no constitutional lawyer); but they are desipicable--even for a modern "journalist." Comment's Paul Blair:
John Podhoretz arguing straightforwardly that what Peter Arnett did in Iraq falls under the meaning of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, and that he should be prosecuted for treason. I agree. If we have laws against treason, and they are objective laws, then we should identify what they mean, and enforce them.
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Regarding the American POW that was rescued yesterday by American special forces, a long-time friend and military expert sent me an email with these observations:1. When you have less than 10 highly valuable propaganda tools, (AKA POW's) the only reason you would leave one of them within a couple of miles of the USMC is if your backfield is getting completely torn up. When the military professional journals come out next year we are going to find out just how effective we have been.
2. Our intelligence sources are getting better and better. Many Iraqis must be talking to us.
3. Don't make the American military mad at you. It is extremely bad for your health. If I were an Iraqi, I wouldn't get within 10 miles of a US POW.
Now considering that the POW was a 19 year-old girl I can only imagine the wrath that was reigned down upon those Iraqis.
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
My letter to the editor made it into the New York Sun today:
Your article on Columbia professor Nicholas De Genova's expressed wish for a "million Mogadishus" in Iraq has various university figures congratulating themselves on Columbia's respect for the First Amendment and freedom of speech ["Professor Is Condemned for Speech, But Likely Will Keep Post at Columbia," Julie Satow, page 2, March 31, 2003]. Yet the freedom of speech includes the freedom to boycott; it does not require anyone to provide support for anyone else's ideas. Firing Mr. De Genova would not be a violation of the freedom of speech but an expression of it.
"Academic freedom," on the other hand, is the pseudo-right of tenured professors to be as irresponsible as they wish without accountability to anyone. Mr. De Genova's case is merely one result of our universities' stated policy of refusing to act against intellectual malpractice within their ranks. This policy explains why our universities have largely become factories of dishonest and destructive ideas. They will remain so until the American public wakes up and stops supporting its destroyers.
Paul Blair
Manhattan
The Sun also runs a follow-up:
Columbia University students arriving yesterday at a Latin history class taught by professor Nicholas De Genova were told the instructor feared for his life and had left the campus. "He has been receiving thousands of death messages," one of the professor's three graduate students told the undergrads....In [his talk at the anti-war "teach-in"], Mr. De Genova said patriotism was "inseparable" from white supremacy and said that "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military." [New York Sun, 4/2/03]
Needless to say, death threats are a violation of the freedom of speech. But of those "thousands" of alleged death threats, how many are just people legitimately expressing anger? Have there been any actual death threats? I wouldn't believe it just because some grad student said it, particularly since the claim coincides with the professor's propagandistic interests.Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Newsday published the following Letter of mine. It earned me 5 minutes on WLIE 540 Talk Radio (Long Island, NY) this morning (April 2), with host John Gomez, who read my Letter on air and was 100% on my side. The same Letterwas published in the NY Sun and Jerusalem Post about 10 days ago:As a Canadian, I strongly condemn the decision of Prime Minister Jean Chretien to not support the United States (and its allies) in the justified war against Iraq. By adhering to the United Nations charade, he effectively and shamefully placed Canada on the side of abject appeasers, anti-American leftists, brutal dictators and Islamic terrorists.
History demonstrates that the root cause of war is dictatorship and its appeasement. Only a dictatorship can force its people to attack other countries. Only a dictatorship can extort money from its citizens to buy weapons of mass destruction and support terrorist organizations.
The UN is an inherently destructive organization - the worst enemy of global peace and prosperity - by the very fact that it legitimizes dictatorships and grants them the power to undermine a free country's sovereignty and right to self-defense. The United Nations should be the next to go after Saddam Hussein.
America is on the side of peace and prosperity because it is on the side of liberty and the right to self-defense, which includes the right to strike against threatening dictatorships, especially if they possess weapons of mass destruction. America is Canada's and the world's greatest benefactor. It deserves our wholehearted support and gratitude.
Glenn Woiceshyn
Calgary, Alberta
P.S. My wife and I attended a pro-American rally in Calgary on Sunday. About 1000 people showed up waving American flags, cheering for America, and booing their Canadian government. It was wonderful!
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In the village where Ansar had their headquarters... Sheikh Malik Naqshbandi, a religious leader, [was returning] to his home after two years....Sheikh Malik's house was used by Ansar and destroyed by an American missile. He said he didn't mind. "I don't think there will be a happier day in my life." [Daily Telegraph, 4/1/03]
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Socialist Workers Party, long allowed to keep its donors secret because of the danger of harassment, should continue to receive the special protection, Federal Election Commission lawyers say. The party asked the commission to extend its exemption from FEC reporting requirements that other political parties face, including identifying its contributors, the candidates it supports and the businesses it buys from....
The Socialist Workers Party advocates a Marxist revolution to overthrow the U.S. government. Taking the Russian and Cuban revolutions of the 20th century as models, it wants to replace the country's capitalist system with a government of workers and farmers. [Associated Press, 3/31/03]
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
By the time you're reading this everybody knows it, but it's interesting anyway: "American troops have rescued Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who had been held as a prisoner of war in Iraq since she and other members of her maintenance unit were ambushed March 23, the Defense Department announced Tuesday. (AP, 4/1/03)" Without a doubt, by tomorrow she'll be the most famous woman in the world. Oh, Well Done!Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
According to a mail sent out by Patriots for the Defense of America, there will be a pro-U.S. rally tomorrow (April 2) at noon, at Columbia University: "The location is above Alma Mater on Low Plaza. Security will be tight. It will start with the Pledge of Allegiance, then the National Anthem, then the speakers, none of whom will be allowed than 5 minutes each. There will be no Q&A. The whole event is scheduled to last 45 minutes."Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Men, women and children rushed to greet paratroopers as they advanced into the oldest part of Basra, completing the capture of Saddam Hussein's second city....[T]he British troops found themselves having to fight off not enemy attacks but swarms of smiling children asking for water and trying to practise their English. There was a succession of thumbs-up gestures, waves and salutes, while women wearing chadors appeared in doorways smiling and waving as the demise of Saddam's regime in Basra became apparent....English-speaking Iraqis came up to reporters to express their own delight. Among them was Saad Ahmed, a 54-year-old retired English teacher. "We have been waiting for you for a long time," he said. "We are now happier than you. You are victorious as far as the war is concerned, but we are victorious in life. We have been living, not as human beings, for more than 30 years." [Daily Telegraph, 4/8/03]
[But some angry residents are unhappy over the anarchy taking place...]
"We are caught between two enemies, Saddam and the British," said Osama Ijam, a 24-year-old medical student in the grounds of the rundown Basra General Hospital. "Is this what they call a liberation? We want our own government. We want our own security and our own law." The hospital, like many government buildings, stores and offices has been looted in recent days..."When I see my college looted and destroyed in front of my eyes I wonder why they (British troops) allow this to happen," said Ijam. "Are they here to help us or just to help themselves?" [Reuters, 4/8/03]
This is the mentality our "humanitarian assistance" is designed to appease and to cultivate: Those who stamp their feet at reality and demand that their wishes be enacted regardless of cause or context: "You started this war; this is your fault. Now satisfy us." To which the proper response would be: "We don't owe you a damned thing. This war is the fault of your government. We're not here for you; we're here for us." But no, such a response is too scary for those who worry about what the unthinking might think. There is no reason to care what they think. We don't need them.Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From its beginning, America has stood for the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, individual rights, capitalism, the pursuit of happiness. The dominant trends in America today, however--trends endorsed not only by our leadership, but seemingly by the public at large--represent the opposite of these ideals. The talk explores this contradiction, along with our current moral cowardice, giving special emphasis to foreign policy. Dr. Leonard Peikoff will be speaking in Boston on Sunday, April 6, 2003 on "America vs. Americans." The talk will be held in the Blackman Auditorium, Ell Hall, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston. The lecture is free and open to the public. The auditorium will open for general seating at 4:15 PM.; for members of the Forum, seating will begin at 3:45 PM.Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis sends along this paper published by the International Monetary Fund. Bruce says, "This paper says that the odds of a stock market bubble ending in a bust on its own are low, suggesting that the Fed's effort to prick the bubble was ill considered. That's classic Bruce: tactful and circumspect. I would have said: "This paper shows that Alan Greenspan's jihad against so-called 'irrational exuberance' trashed the American economy on a personal whim, without theoretical foundation and for no good reason -- and to add insult to injury, now Greenspan claims he didn't do it!" I guess I just don't have the high-level approach.Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Sergeant Kenneth Wilson said Arabic-speaking US troops made contact with two busloads of Iraqis fleeing south along Route Seven towards Rafit, one of the first friendly meetings with local people for the marines around here. "They had slaughtered lambs and chickens and boiled eggs and potatoes for their journey out of the frontlines," Wilson said. At one camp, the buses stopped and women passed out food to the troops...Khairi Ilrekibi, 35, a passenger on one of the buses, which broke down near the marine position, said he could speak for the 20 others on board. In broken English he told a correspondent travelling with the marines: "We like Americans," adding that no one liked Saddam Hussein because "he was not kind." He said Iraqi civilians living near him were opposed to Saddam Hussein and that most were hiding in their homes and were extremely tired. Lance Corporal David Polikowsky... said he had been moved by comments from local civilians. He said they told him: "We welcome you. What is your name? We will pray for you." [Agence France Presse, 3/31/03]
Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
James Taranto dug up these fascinating passages from the Arab News, "Saudi Arabia's First English Daily"--whose reporter Essam Al-Ghalib is in southern Iraq:
Arab News asked several of the refugees waiting to enter Basra what they thought of regime change. Accompanying Arab News were several international TV crews. What the refugees said on and off camera were very different things. On camera, the general feeling among the crowd was sorrow at losing Saddam. Off camera, the citizens of Umm Qasr and Basra appeared genuinely exhilarated at the prospect of a brighter future, after Saddam had been removed. [Arab News, 3/28/03]
When we finally made it to Safwan, Iraq, what we saw was utter chaos. Iraqi men, women and children were playing it up for the TV cameras, chanting: "With our blood, with our souls, we will die for you Saddam." I took a young Iraqi man, 19, away from the cameras and asked him why they were all chanting that particular slogan, especially when humanitarian aid trucks marked with the insignia of the Kuwaiti Red Crescent Society, were distributing some much-needed food....He said: "There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else." Different versions of that very quote, but with a common theme, I would come to hear several times over the next three days I spent in Iraq. The people of Iraq are terrified of Saddam Hussein. [Arab News, 3/30/03]
I asked several what they thought of the US/UK plan to remove Saddam. They told me: "Now that they have started to remove him, they cannot stop. If they do, then we are all as good as dead. He still has informants in Umm Qasr and he knows who is against him and who isn't." When asked about what they think of this war, most Iraqis said that they were against the loss of innocent life and the destruction of their cities, but they seemed adamant about the removal of Saddam. They were happy about the "liberation" of Umm Qasr but were disappointed in the US/UK for not keeping their promises to provide humanitarian aid. [Arab News, 3/31/03]
Taranto notes:
An Arab News editorial, however, seems to come from an alternate universe: Iraqis are being subjected the "wrath of invading forces" by a "power that has come to occupy and conquer" and aims for the "wholesale destruction" of Iraqi society, "criminal enterprise--unjustified, unprovoked, illegitimate, catastrophic." Iraqis "do not believe for one moment a word of the marauders' promises." Do the Arab News editorialists read their own newspaper? ["Best of the Web Today," 3/31/03]
Mar 31, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Washington Post:Journalist Peter Arnett, covering the war from Baghdad, told state-run Iraqi TV in an interview aired Sunday that the American-led coalition's first war plan had failed because of Iraq's resistance and said strategists are "trying to write another war plan." Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize reporting in Vietnam for The Associated Press, garnered much of his prominence from covering the 1991 Gulf War for CNN. He is reporting from the Iraqi capital now for NBC and its cable stations.
From a CNN transcript of Peter Arnett speaking Iraqi state television:
In answer to your question, it is clear that within the United States there is growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war. So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments....
I've been mainly in Baghdad in the past few weeks. But, clearly this is a city that is disciplined, the population is responsive to the government's requirements of discipline and my Iraqi friends tell me there is a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain are doing....
The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance now they are trying to write another war plan. [CNN, 3/31/03]
My outrage was tempered by this later story from Fox News:
NBC fired journalist Peter Arnett on Monday, saying it was wrong for him to give an interview with state-run Iraqi TV in which he said the American-led coalition's initial plan for the war had failed because of Iraq's resistance. Arnett called the interview a "misjudgment" and apologized.
To express such a stupid opinion is unprofessional. To express it in an interview with the propaganda tool for our enemy is treasonous.|
Update: Oh, and he got hired by the UK Mirror already. Fox Reports that the UK Mirror is "vehemently opposed to the war." Punch a wall, slam the desk, throw a glass. Just don't kick the dog. I like dogs.
From Cox and Forkum:
Mar 31, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
It's been a long time since I looked at an issue of Forbes, a magazine I used to like. Now after spending most of my time with the New York Sun and James Taranto, I had a look at the latest issue yesterday. What struck me most was the overall tone--about as much backbone and principle as a plate of overcooked spaghetti. Here's Steve Forbes on the UN:
The comforting notion that the UN is somehow the legitimizer, the ultimate arbiter of international affairs, despite its sorry record, has been blasted away....
The UN won't cease to exist. It will still run refugee and health care programs. It will hold conferences around the world to pontificate on various global ills, real or imagined. It may play useful roles in building up civil institutions in war-torn areas, although it has exhibited little competence in that endeavor in Bosnia. The UN could even play the role of peacekeeper in parts of the globe that have no real strategic importance, such as it could have done--and murderously did not--in ethnically divided Rwanda in the mid-1990s. [Forbes, 3/14/03]
Now it's unfortunate that our president appears to think the same thing, but pundits don't have to worry about political constraints. And the idea that we would leave the primary protector of dictators in place just in order to run "humanitarian" programs is completely reprehensible. Now that the evil of the UN has been exposed for all Americans to see, this bozo still wants to compromise with it! And for what? For some important interest of America's? No, for reasons of inane altruism! It's so easy to see why the conservatives in this country have been so ineffective against the left, when they will bow and scrape and sign on behind injustice if it's justified in the name of altruism. It's disgusting. Thank God Steve Forbes never got close to being president.Mar 31, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the folks over at protestwarrior.com (be sure to check out the other shots in their protest gallery):
Other signs worth noting:
- Other than ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism War Has Never Solved Anything
- Saddam Only Kills His Own People It's None of Our Business!
- Communism Has Only Killed 100 Million People Let's Give It Another Chance
- End Racism & Sexism Now! Kill All White Males
- Socialist Action Network working to perfect the ultimate police state
- [Pictures of Arafat and Saddam] "America, how can we concentrate on pushing the Jews into the sea while you wage your RACIST war against our people?"
- My son suicide bombed a bus full of Israelis and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt (and $25,000 from Saddam)
- Say NO to War! unless a Democrat is president...
- Stop the vicious spread of Wealth Creation! Vote GREEN Let's all be poor and miserable equally!
Related Item: Pave France.
Mar 30, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Dr. Andrew Bernstein will present Highlights from his soon-to-be-published book, The Capitalist Manifesto. This seminar features key points and principles that have emerged from three years of research on this topic. The book's subtitle is: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire, and topics come from all three of these broad fields. Dr. Bernstein will present his integrated analysis of the development of Capitalism. The format will be lecture interspersed with opportunities for Q&A in an intensive half-day seminar.
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The San Francisco Chronicle's former tech columnist Henry Norr is upset that he's been suspended after getting himself arrested at a peace rally. He told his supervisors the day before that he intended to break the law and get arrested, but seems to think his employer shouldn't care about that. He's angry that they're suspending him for falsifying his timecard--he took a sick day for his time in jail: "I did so because I was sick--heartsick over the beginning of the war, nauseated by the lies and the arrogance and the stupidity that led to it, and deeply depressed by the death and destruction it would bring." Again he expects people to sympathize with his self-admitted dishonesty. If the Chronicle buckles to lefty pressure and reinstates him, you'll be seeing a vivid example of the sanction of the victim at work: this kind of nonsense couldn't go on without the acquiescence of good people who don't have the moral courage to stand up to it.
From the folks over at