Posted on 12/18/2006 1:42:46 PM PST by radar101
Army prosecutors have sent subpoenas to journalists in Oakland and Honolulu demanding testimony about quotes they attributed to an officer who faces a court-martial after denouncing the war in Iraq and refusing to deploy with his unit.
The Army's subpoenas, which the journalists said they received last week, put them in the uncomfortable position of being ordered to help the Army build its case against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who faces up to six years in prison if convicted.
"It's not a reporter's job to participate in the prosecution of her own sources,'' said Sarah Olson, an Oakland freelance journalist and radio producer. "When you force a journalist to participate, you run the risk of turning the journalist into an investigative tool of the state.''
But Olson, who received her subpoena Thursday, acknowledged she has no legal grounds to refuse to testify, since she is being asked only to confirm the accuracy of what she wrote about Watada and not to disclose confidential sources or unpublished material.
Normally, she said, "no one, myself included, has any problem verifying the veracity of their reporting.'' The ethical problem in this case, she said, is that she would be aiding the prosecution of one of the dissidents and war critics who regularly trust her to tell their stories to the public.
Watada, 28, faces a court-martial in February at Fort Lewis, Wash., where he is based. He is charged with missing a troop movement -- because he refused to deploy -- and with conduct unbecoming an officer for his quotes in articles in June on the Web site truthout.org and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. In the news reports, Watada criticized President Bush and the Iraq war.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Chickens come home to roost for resister's rooters.
so the army wants her to testify that her article was the truth, and she has a problem with that?
"The ethical problem in this case, she said, is that she would be aiding the prosecution of one of the dissidents and war critics who regularly trust her to tell their stories to the public."
A dried up well isn't an ethical problem, honey. Glad you don't make your living interviewing child rapists. Idiot "journalists".
There is a jail cell waiting
The most encouraging thing about this is that it looks like Lieutenant Wannabe is gonna get himself very thoroughly convicted by a court-martial, perhaps he can spend the next 20 years or so breaking rocks in Leavenworth. It's a pity we don't have punishment battalions for guys like him: let him be the point man in minefields and potential ambuscades.
Seriously-she's upset that she's being asked to tell the truth. All you need to know about leftism in one short sentence.
not a "journalist" but an activist posing as one:
"Before sending subpoenas to the journalists who reported Watada's comments, the Army asked them to verify their quotes voluntarily, but they refused. Olson said last week that free expression is endangered by both the Army's case against Watada and its attempt to enlist journalists.
"If conscientious objectors know that they can be prosecuted for speaking to the press and that the press will participate in their prosecution, it stands to reason that they would think twice before being public about their positions,'' she said. "What we need in this country now is more dialogue and not less.''
Watada's going to spend some time at Leavenworth and it's appropriate that these two reporters who are sympathetic to him are going to help put him there.
Ahhhhhhhhh Sarah you need to put some ice on that.
Dialogue with the prosecutor, and defense council in a court room is what is required by the subpoena.
She gets what she says is needed.
The same should apply to reporters who do not identify anonymous leakers in other government documents.
Watada, 28, faces a court-martial in February at Fort Lewis, Wash., where he is based. He is charged with missing a troop movement -- because he refused to deploy
The main issue, Seitz said, is "whether he had First Amendment rights to say what he did.'
What's First Amendment rights have to do with disobeying and order to deploy with his unit? Was he in the military or wasn't he ???
Bump!
Could be, but I know about such things from the Russian Army. You would be sent to a punishment battalion for cowardice or insubordination and you could only get out of one by an incredible display of bravery-of which there were plenty of opportunities as they were invariably thrown against the Germans before any other unit. One of the nasty little secrets of WWII is that many Russian snipers were employed shooting troops who tried to desert.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."
We'll leave off the last part, lest you choke, Ms. Olson.
See the movie "Stalingrad".
Germans who were suspected of fleeing the enemy (Russians), trying to escape, or otherwise not going to their imminent deaths, were assigned the tasks of body retrieval and, as mentioned before, clearing minefields. They earned their right to return to front-line combat.
I'll check that out. Sounds like an interesting flick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.