Mainstream Western Media: Blatant Treason

[Sean Osborne]

CNN committed treason angainst this US in its dealings with Saddam Hussein. CBS and others while the US is at war. Now it's NBC which shows its true lack of allegiance and treasonous mindset.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4420_0_2_0_C/

Traitors at NBC News
By Cliff Kincaid | March 21, 2006 What's next? Exclusive footage of American troops being massacred while NBC News and Commander Ismail look on and film it for the evening news?
Our readers have reacted with outrage to our report that NBC News secretly interviewed a Taliban terrorist in Afghanistan, "Commander Ismail," who kills U.S. military personnel. We asked: What's next? Exclusive footage of American troops being massacred while NBC News and Commander Ismail look on and film it for the evening news?
One reader responded: "Just wanted to thank you for the report about NBC and their seditious and treasonous acts. There can be no doubt that the big media outlets in this country have tried their best to undermine this country and this President at every turn…The New York Times should be tried under the treason and sedition laws for their part in aiding and abetting the terrorist in revealing the NSA wiretapping program. These traitors have weakened this country's defense, [they] triumph the rights of the terrorist bastard scum and blame President Bush for everything under the sun. They will stoop to ever deepening lows as evidenced by the childish and hateful behavior towards the President and the First Lady at Mrs. King's funeral. There is no bottom to the pit these snakes come from. Keep up the great work."
Another said: We need more articles of this caliber. Thank you and your organization for hopefully pointing out one of the bigger problems with this war. News items and stories rarely invoke strong emotion or cause me to be physically ill. But your column today has done just that. I wanted to write you and thank you for your continued effort to highlight the treachery and betrayal that our news media regularly practices."
Another replied: "I as an American am so appalled by the conduct of the news agencies that I lack the words to convey my disgust. I am thankful that people like you are putting into words what so many Americans feel."
One said: "I just read your article about the NBC News people interviewing our enemy. I think in WWII if a newsman tried to interview the enemy, they would have been killed by the enemy-not like it is today…"
Another said: "Since the Viet Nam war, they have been allied to our enemies (no matter who they are) and have a sense of accomplishment in the defeat of America. It's too bad the American people cannot recognize treasonous acts and bring those responsible to justice. If the Rosenbergs had committed their treasonous act in today's society, they would have been treated as heroes and been given their own nightly commentary show."

[Malsua]

Thank you and your organization for hopefully pointing out one of the bigger problems with this war. News items and stories rarely invoke strong emotion or cause me to be physically ill. But your column today has done just that.

About sums it up perfectly.

I cannot understand why there hasn't been anyone held to account for sedition and treason. Start with Jimmah Cawter.

-Mal

[ExplodedMind]

Modern American thought, influenced by teachers, professors, liberal think tanks, and the MSM, has rendered the concept of treason meaningless. We now allow activists and traitors to self-define. Even those who advocate the violent overthrow of our government define themselves as patriots (as did Benedict Arnold and John Wilkes Booth).

There is no such thing as treason in America today. Any attempt to raise the issue, even in a mild form of criticism of un-American actions, brings cries of "police state" tactics. This type of thinking is pervasive now in America, and it is a very serious problem.

EM

[American Patriot]

If it is as prevasive as you say, Em, then we all need to make a lot of noise about this. The more, the merrier. The more calls of "treason" the louder the voice, the more people will have to listen.

[Brian Baldwin]

Rick is right. We can't just sit here telling each other that the media groups of this nation are commiting treason because we all know it and can do little about it ourselves. We have to let others in power know we feel that way. email or snail mail your senators, congressmen, and Fox News about the situation and your feelings on it. ACCEPT NO excuses.

[Sean Osborne]

Of course Rick is right. Many of us here and around the web have been screaming about this -- as well as the fact that the threat posed by Islam to our way of life has obviously not been addressed... which IMHO is directly related to this thread. The point of this thread is not only the treasonous aspect of our media reporting and its inherent identifier of their political agenda but also a direct attempt by myself to tick people off enough so that the get into the action to defend this nation and not be idle - you may or not remember the great Conservative "Silent Majority".


I have to edit my comments on the symposium I had copied and linked. Something very important has come to my attention and I cannot support the symposium or the organizers. In fact - when word gets around of some the underhanded and deceptive dealing, not to mention palin old underhandedness the organizers have engaged in, I suspect the featured speakers will, one by one, opt out of appearing.

My apologies for linking the report in the first place.

[ExplodedMind]

Treason (dictionary definition)

1. 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.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence. [EM's bolding]

The definition of treason under federal law is very specific. (Sorry, I don't have time to look for it right now.) We are in the minority when it comes to calling our media outlets treasonous. You guys are right that we need to debate this topic, but there are only two ways to have an effect.

1. Public opinion change through public debate and speaking out.

2. Lobby of elected representatives.

People are worried about impinging freedom of press, and with good reason. This is a problem as right under our Bill of Rights have become absolute in many people's minds. Any limits proposed are attacked as "heading for a police state."

Our elected representatives have no spine for this kind of discussion, I'll guarantee you that.

EM

[Sean Osborne]

We are in the minority when it comes to calling our media outlets treasonous.

EM,

That's just fine and dandy. The crucial point here is that irregardless of the numbers who think the media reporting is treasonous - we who do are in the right, our view is the correct and proper legal view - and that's all the justification I personally require.

Our elected representatives have no spine for this kind of discussion, I'll guarantee you that.

Of course they don't - they're politicians.

Well, I must qualify that statement in that at least MOST of them are spineless politicians. On the human evolutionary (social) scale I place politicians just below lawyers. In fact, as I see it, MOST politician's are devolved lawyers. It's a slippery de-evolutionary slope often well greased greenbacks.

[American Patriot]

( I just can't believe that in two posts in one thread people said "Rick is Right". In the last 6 months to a year, all I've heard is "You're wrong!" from lots of people on lots of subjects.... thanks guys.)

[American Patriot]

Treason
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war. --http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

(US Constitution states....)
Article III
Section. 3.

Clause 1: 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.

Clause 2: 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.

Article IV
Section 2
Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Please see this discussion by Hurst on Treason: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_4.htm -- it is a historical look at the subject.

Then there is this little piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

They Heard It All Here, And That's the Trouble

By Dennis Pluchinsky
Sunday, June 16, 2002; Page B03

I accuse the media in the United States of treason.

I have been analyzing terrorism for the U.S. government for 25 years. My specialty is "threat analysis." This is a rather difficult field that requires the imagination of Walt Disney, the patience of a kindergarten teacher, the mind-set of a chess player, the resolve of a Boston Red Sox fan, the mental acuity of a river boat gambler, and the forecasting ability of a successful stock market analyst.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4349_0_2_0_C/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html

Rumsfeld: Situation in Iraq 'exaggerated' by media

Tuesday, March 7, 2006; Posted: 11:40 p.m. EST (04:40 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Tuesday the potential for civil war in Iraq but slammed the media for "exaggerated" reports about the security situation following recent violence between religious factions.

Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon that he thought the news coverage since the February 22 bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Iraq had been filled with inaccurate information that would inflame the situation there.

He based his comments on remarks made Friday by U.S. Army Gen. George Casey, the top-ranking U.S. military official in Iraq.

"From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey," Rumsfeld said. "The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated."

Much of the sectarian violence that has followed the bombing of the Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra has pitted Shiites vs. Sunnis.

On Friday, Casey said the military had confirmed about 30 mosque attacks and about 350 civilian deaths. CNN and other media outlets, citing local officials, have reported more than 100 mosque attacks and at least 500 deaths during the same time.

"Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side," he said. "It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq."

Some Iraqi and U.S. officials have worried about the possibility of civil war flaring in Iraq. President Bush, for example, said last week that Iraqis need to choose between "chaos" and "unity."

Reporters asked Rumsfeld about a Los Angeles Times story in which U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said that "the potential is there now for sectarian violence to become a full-blown civil war."

The defense secretary said, "I certainly am not going to try to disagree with it. There's always been a potential for that."

But, he added, he does not "believe they're in a civil war today."

Rumsfeld reiterated Casey's stance that the "levels of violence" are similar to the weeks before the Golden Dome mosque attack. He went on to praise Iraqi army and police units, which he said have taken the security lead and performed well during recent weeks.

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that Iraqi security forces "are loyal to the central government" and have been protecting Iraqis and their religious sites.

"You're seeing all of the things you would want to see to preclude the kind of things that would lead to civil war." He said Iraqis have "looked into the abyss and have said, 'This is not where we want to go. We want to have calm. We want to have a peaceful future.' "

Rumsfeld did acknowledge that violence is slowing Iraq's progress and that militias pose problems for the government.

He said the terrorist group al Qaeda "has media committees" and tutors people on how to "manipulate" news organizations.

"Now I can't take a string and tie it to a news report and then trace it back to an al Qaeda media committee meeting. I'm not able to do that at all," he said.

"We do know that their goal is to try to break the will; that they consider the center of gravity of this not to be in Iraq, because they know they can't win a battle out there; they consider it to be in Washington, D.C., and in London and in the capitals of the Western world."
Iranian troops in Iraq?

Both officials said Iran, a largely Shiite nation, is trying to exert its influence on its neighbor to the west.

Rumsfeld claimed Iran was sending "Iranian Quds-force type people," or a division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, into Iraq.

"They're currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said. "And we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment. "

Rumsfeld said he suspected Iran was backing the military forces. Revolutionary Guard-type forces don't "go milling around willy-nilly, one would think," he said.

Pace added the U.S. military believes some of the homemade bombs used in Iraq "are traceable back to Iran."
U.S. examining troop strength

Rumsfeld said the United States had fewer troops in Iraq --- 132,000 -- than during the December elections and noted that future reductions will depend on the level of violence.

"We'll let this settle down and we see where we are," he said.

"We're adding some people to train and equip and to embed with the police. And at the same time, we're taking other people out," he said.

I think the last one says it all. Rumsfeld believes that there is, according to his message, a distinct advantage being given to the other side, and to those who hope for failure in Iraq. The media has pushed the hopes of the terrorists to winning, and given those who hope for failure the thoughts they might win.

Rick

[American Patriot]

By the way, my suggestion is, if you haven't read Ann Coulter's "Treason", you really ought to.

If nothing else, she is amazing accurate on everything she says. Her research is damned good, and she tells it like it is.

Also, as of now, since I've got admin privleges... I'm going to institute a new rule. Just like Free Republic. If you mention Ann Coulter you MUST provide a picture.

[catfish]

I think this speaks for itself.

[ExplodedMind]

Rick: I didn't say you were right, but two out three ain't bad!

Oh what the hell, you are right.

History has now been made, though the world will little note nor long remember and so forth...

EM

[Sean Osborne]

This is good stuff and dead on correct.

The Saddam Tapes and Media Distortion

By Bill Tierney
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 24, 2006


Media outlets invested in our defeat in Iraq have put forth serious efforts to discredit the reasons for going to war. One only need hear the absolute certainty in Tim Russert's voice to know that the liberal media considers the Iraq WMD issue over and done with. After countless repetitions of “no WMD,” you would think that people were thoroughly trained. It comes as no surprise that when the Saddam Tapes came to light, they had to be dealt with.

The first salvo in the liberal media’s unsuccessful attempt to deep-six the tapes came from Newsweek, when they published “The Saddam Tapes, What They Don’t Prove” a week before the presentation of the tapes. The writers, Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff, stated the tapes were taken without permission from an FBI-run translation center. They never asked the government why they gave the CD an UNCLAFFISIED label and shipped it out to a translation agency without knowing what was on it. It was from there that the CD ended up at my front door. They could have seen the canceled checks for services rendered had they asked

Newsweek then trotted out the “years old" response. According to this argument, since the tapes are years old, they are insignificant. The only relevant issue is whether the discussions took place during the time frame when Iraq said it was complying with UN resolutions. All the discussions cited took place during this time frame.

Next came ABC’s World News Tonight broadcast and Nightline segment three days before the presentation at the Intelligence Summit, a private conference where intelligence professionals and concerned citizens can discuss intelligence and national security matters away from the normal bureaucratic constrictions. To ABC’s credit, they did play a segment on Hussein Kamel stating how Iraqdid not tell UNSCOM everything about their weapons program. However, on the discussion between Saddam and Tariq Aziz, they jumped to a suspect conclusion.

This contentious section can be read either that Saddam had our best interests in mind two years before the war, and warned both Britain and us of an unspecified future WMD attack, or musings on how an attack could be conducted through proxies. Would Saddam have told a US or British Ambassador that there was going to be a WMD attack by unspecified parties on Washington, but not provide any detail? How did he know?

In preparation for their story, ABC interviewed a native Iraqi that not only knew Tikriti dialect, military and Baath Party jargon, but had actually addressed Saddam in similar meetings, General George Sada. According to General Sada, ABC asked him to listen to the tapes, and he stated that Saddam was probably discussing an attack through third parties to set up plausible denial if he were accused. He suggested that Saddam made the outburst of “terrorism is coming” during Tariq Aziz’s briefing, then realized he was on tape and came up with the "warning” to cover himself. This possibility adds yet another layer of complexity. Brian Ross went on to interview General Sada for forty minutes, attempting to get a sound bite to dismiss the tapes. The general knew his intention and didn't oblige; so this man, probably the most qualified man in the world available to the media, was omitted from ABC's story.

Early on Saturday February 18th, the morning of the presentation, CNN ran a special on how the inspectors found nothing in Iraq. Later that day, they ran a television piece which filled the time focusing on their strenuous efforts to translate the tapes, and then in their television piece, reported only the Saddam – Aziz conversation. Apparently, status reports on rebuilding the chemical and nuclear weapons programs were not worth the cut.

A common media dismissal technique is to state that the tapes don’t prove that WMD was in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Since none of the tapes date from the time period immediately prior to the war, this is an irrelevant point. The tapes do show that the Iraqis had weapons programs; they had an intensive concealment mechanism; and that Saddam stated the war was ongoing. Iraqi press throughout the Nineties took the view that the U.S. was at war with Iraq, so it is up to the skeptics to show where Saddam, in a fit of conscience, gave up his weapons program before the war, after successfully removing the inspection teams in 1998. Just when did Saddam’s change of heart take place, and where is the evidence?

The liberal media’s wishful thinking extends to print media also. On January 7, 2004, the Washington Post printed Barton Gellman’s story ” Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper.” In this article Gellman cites a letter supposedly written six days after a senior Iraqi official, Hussein Kamel, defected, which stated that “destruction of the biological weapons agents took place in the summer of 1991.” However, in 1995, UNSCOM forced the Iraqis to admit they had a facility used to produce biological weapons, which was destroyed in 1996. Are we to assume that they had a bioweapons facility between 1991 and 1996, but didn't produce any bioweapons? After Hussein Kamel's defection, the Iraqi’s initial spin was that Kamel had a secret weapons program that he kept hidden from the rest of the Iraqi government. The Saddam Tapes include a briefing of a coordinated response system if there were a biological outbreak. The Washington Post article failed to mention that Iraq finally admitted to producing ricin in September of 1995, after numerous previous opportunities to do so. The Iraqi Survey Group concluded that the Iraqi Intelligence Service produced ricin during the Nineties, and tested it on political prisoners.

With the posting of the documents and tape transcripts to the Foreign Military Studies Office site at Fort Leavenworth, it didn’t take long for AP to run a story stating Saddam was frustrated that no one believed he had given up his WMD. The story quotes extensively from the transcripts, but makes no mention that the speakers are rehearsing their version of events for the United Nation. They could be expected to say ”We told the U.N. we have no weapons.” This is no guarantee of ground truth. At least eight of the tape transcripts focused on negotiations with the U.N., and must be understood in this context.

The Iraqis had provided the U.N. with declarations on their chemical and missile program, and were confident that they had handled all the technical questions on verification. However, they acknowledged numerous times on the tapes that the biological declaration had so many gaps that their allies on the Security Council, France and Russia, couldn't make arguments to close the biological file. The focus in these discussions is not the actual weapons program, but on how to end the inspection program. Also missing from these discussions were any problems arising from defector reporting. What Tariq Aziz tries to dismiss as traps by Rolf Ekeus (then UNSCOM Director) were probably reports on the WMD program from defectors.

The AP story quotes Hussein Kamel as stating “We played by the rules and paid the price.” The immediate context is his reiteration of this statement from the foreign minister as a response to the United Nations. He later states on page 6 of DOCEX Saddam 030306:

“It is possible, Sir, they have a problem that is a great deal bigger than the biological file: The types of weapons, the materials we imported, the product which we told them about, and the degree of their use. All of that was not correct. And all of them do not know. We did not say that we used them against Iran and we did not say the amount of chemical weapons we produced. We also did not say anything about the type of chemical weapons and the important materials in reality.”

On page 7 of the same document:

“On the nuclear file, Sir, we are saying that we disclosed everything? No, we have undeclared problems in the nuclear field, and I believe that they know them. Some teams work and no one knows some of them. Sir, I am sorry for speaking so clearly. Everything is over. But, did they know? No, Sir, they did not know; not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists, and not all the places.”

In this section, Hussein Kamel apologizes for speaking clearly, implying that the members of the Revolutionary Command Council were aware they were being taped and guarded their speech accordingly. By "everything is over," does he mean that the program is finished? If so, why are there still "undeclared problems with the nuclear file?

Saddam makes an interesting comment in another taped meeting (ISGQ-2003-M0004444 page 5) prior to the presidential site inspections

“When they pass Tikrit they are going to Al Makhoul. This we are learning from experience, between Tikrit and Makhoul the distance is 70 km, so we will know when they leave. We know that is a real complication, there is a complication... we do not need to divulge our position. I will tell them to please come in...this is what we have... we are going to move them during the week, take the entire Makhoul area...we don’t want to give up our position and don’t need to… the targets that we want them to deploy…we exhaust them so the real targets get lost.”

Intelligence from 1997 indicated that prohibited items were being held at Makhoul, and it was the only presidential site where an inspection was originally requested. It must have been understood among the attendees what "them" was going to be moved. We are left to guess at its meaning, but it’s a safe bet it was something Saddam wanted kept away from the Special Commission.

Another intriguing tape is ISGQ-2003-M0007133. It discusses retaining the expertise in PC-3, the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, by dispersing the engineers throughout other ministries and adjusting their pay and benefits so they will be available when needed. Near the beginning of the meeting, one of the speakers states:

“. . . The decision was made that this project should be included in the Industrial Military Organization, with confirmation from you, Sir, that the preservation of the unity of this project is a must. Because it is a unique experience.”

If Saddam really had a change of heart, and completely complied with U.N. resolutions, then why are they speaking of preserving the unity of the nuclear weapons project by hiding the technicians in other ministries? This fits nicely with the account of the scientist burying uranium enrichment material in his garden.

The writer of the AP story, Charles J. Hanley, is firmly in the "no weapons" camp. Although he states with assurance that all the weapons were destroyed in 1991, in a September 5, 2005 article he wrote that: "In April 2002, workers in the western desert were busy smelting down the last gear from a long-defunct uranium-enrichment project.” Why wasn‘t this destroyed in 1991 like everything else? How does Mr. Hanley know it was long-defunct? Did he or the government investigators take the Iraqi story at face value?

The liberal media will continue to dissect any further information on the Iraqi weapons program according to their template that “Bush lied, people died.” With the continuing release of documents, it will be interesting to see how long they can keep it up before they finally admit "We were all wrong."