David's Daily Diversions

The Peter Arnett furore has

The Peter Arnett furore has gone fairly unnoticed over here. I saw some sort of brief mention on a new programme, but that was it. From what I’ve heard out of the States, there are those who want Peter Arnett tried for treason, for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I’m not sure if this is because he gave the interview to Iraqi television, or because he’s now writing for the Daily Mirror. The latter, is after all, much more anti-American. All of the other newspapers have gotten behind the war effort, even if they were opposed to it before the outbreak of hostilities. The Mirror, like Robin Cook, continues to be as negative as possible, looking for ways to undermine public support.

But honestly, I don’t think there is honestly a chance of prosecution. I’ve been going on about the problems with this war in international law. For all the fighting, a state of war does not exist between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq. There is actually not an enemy, even if it would be difficult to explain this to troops in the line of fire. The United States is involved in an armed conflict pursuant to a United Nations resolution, even if the United Nations doesn’t support the US prosecution of the war. If the US and UK governments believe that Saddam is an actual threat to our countries, which is one of the reasons given by both W and Tony, then they should have the courtesy to draw up a formal declaration.

This is one of the hazards of fighting politically correct, propaganda-based wars.

And before I go, I should mention that veteran blogger Natalie Solent (one of the blogs I check daily) quoted from one of my Meanderings today and gave me a nice plug. Cheers, Natalie!