Quote:
Originally posted by TimPoet
It's the fact, Paul, that he said these words that comforted the enemy (as he very well knew they would) on enemy soil, sort of like Hanoi Jane.
|
I think that trying to draw a connection between what he said and giving "comfort" to the enemy is pretty frightening. I think giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy in a time of war is supposed to be interpreted as giving explicit, material aid and comfort. Giving an opinion, especially an opinion like Arnett gave, hardly qualifies. Again, Arnett did not say that he wants Iraq to win, or that he wants the U.S. to lose.
As for trying him in court, I think the question to ask is "Did he intentionally and materially give Iraq aid in the war?" I think not. He cluelessly gave an interview that could be used for propaganda purposes, but I don't think his deliberate aim was to help Iraq defeat the U.S. Thus, if he didn't do it on purpose, the only point of putting him on trial would be to make an example out of him to the rest of the press. That, to me, sounds like the actions of the Soviet Union, not the United States of America.