Military Harasses Reporter Over Watada Trial

Email    Print    Share x

RSS Feed
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz

Posted on Jan 10, 2007

sfgate.com

Sarah Olson

The military is trying to coerce freelance journalist Sarah Olson to testify against Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse to go to Iraq. Olson, whose story about Watada appeared on Truthout.org, has resisted the military because, in her own words: “Journalists should not be asked to participate in the prosecution of political speech.”

San Francisco Chronicle:

“Journalists should not be asked to participate in the prosecution of political speech,” Olson said. “Dragging a journalist into court like this ... really damages the barrier between press and government. When speech is the crime, the journalist really can be the investigative arm, the eyes and ears of the government.”

Would she be as passionate about not testifying in court if she had been reporting the views of, say, a Nazi? Yes, Olson said. “I’m kind of hard core about the First Amendment.”

Although Olson is not the only journalist whom federal officials are trying to coerce information from, some First Amendment advocates and military justice experts are somewhat baffled as to why prosecutors continue to chase her. Military officials aren’t asking her to turn over her notes or unpublished material. And it’s not as though a 30-second Google search couldn’t provide prosecutors with an iPod-full of audio and video of Watada’s numerous anti-war statements since his first news conference in June.

She is going into a military court, where free speech hasn’t traditionally had the same protections as in the civilian world. If Watada were a civilian and said, “The war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law,” as he did in his June news conference, he wouldn’t be facing six years in a military prison for conduct unbecoming to an officer and for missing a troop movement.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

TAGS: court martial journalism media military olson quagmire watada

Related Entries

• November 11, 2009 Gorbachev’s Sermon on the Mount
• November 10, 2009 A Disappointing Year With Obama
• November 10, 2009 When a Time Bomb Is Ticking
• November 9, 2009 Rupert Murdoch vs. Google (and Reality)
• November 9, 2009 Afghanistan’s Sham Army

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Second U.S. Air Raid in Somalia

Next item: Dems to Force Escalation Vote

Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Lefty, January 12, 2007 at 1:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

To Sean:

And if the contract is not fullfilled (not performed), if Lt. Watada decided that the war in Iraq was illegal and based on fraud and theft and that he didn’t want to have anything to do with it and resigned from the military, what would the legal ramifications be?

Report this

By Lefty, January 11, 2007 at 2:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

To The Uncivil Litigator,

I didn’t say that the military court didn’t have subpoena power.  I just do not think that the military court, a court of extremely limited jurisdiciton, has subject matter jurisdiction, or subpoena power, over civilians. 

I also do not think that the military court in Washington D.C. has personal jurisdiction over a civilian in California. 

I am absolutely certain that the small claims court in your state does not have personal jurisdiction over me, and cannot compel me to answer a subpoena or appear before it, unless it also happens to be in my state.

According to the United States Supreme Court, before a state court can acquire personal jurisdiction over a foreign person or corporation [foreign meaning from another state], that person or corporation must have “certain minimum contacts with the state so that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). Further, there must be some act by which the foreign person or corporation “purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state, thereby invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958).

Unless it can be shown that Ms. Olson has purposely availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in Washington D.C, thereby invoking the benefits and protection of its laws, I don’t think the military court has personal jurisdiction over her. 

Now, if there is a military court exception to these basic, well established constitutional due process rules of law, I’d like to know what they are and how they reconcile with well established rules of constitutional due process.

Report this

By Sean, January 11, 2007 at 6:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I had no intentions of posting comments to this site but I had to do so on this one—citing free speech is no excuse for the dereliction of duty. When a legally binding agreement is signed, terms of that agreement must be carried out under the rule of law. I don’t care if the contract is with the United States of America, WalMart or “Jane and John’s General Store”. The contract must be fulfilled or one faces the legal ramifications. Furthermore, while I sympathize with Ms. Olson’s position, I’ve grown a little tired of journalists’ claim that they can’t be impartial and would lose journalistic credibility by testifying in court. The beauty of our justice system is that witnesses are examined then cross-examined by the opposing side. That ensures that both sides “are heard”. I don’t feel as strongly about the issue of testifying as I do about the charges at-hand, though.

Report this

By Dan Wun, January 11, 2007 at 5:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

eib on 1/10 at 5:02 am WROTE: I don’t care if a citizen is in the military or not, a citizen has the protections of the First Amendment.  Period.
In peace or war, I don’t give a damn.  The First Amendment is practiced and respected or it doesn’t exist.
***
Freedom of speech is severely limited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for those who serve in the Armed Forces. Watada knew that when he volunteered to join the military and before he spoke, now he must suffer the consequences.

Report this

By Outraged, January 11, 2007 at 4:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Another attempt of Bush’s Administration to subvert the law and call it “legal”.  They were dealt a hard blow during the November elections notwithstanding all the current investigations, lawsuits and indictments.  Did anyone really think they were going to lay down and die.  Hardly!  I’m guessing they took the little “pause” to reload the ammo. Now is the time to stand strong and support each other.  Use your voice, use your money or whatever it is you have.  If we don’t, they’ll win and imagine those consequences…..  This is a scare tactic directed at people who speak the truth.  Typical Nazi-style.  Do you think they’re serious…I give you this, were the Nazi’s serious…?  Bush and his coherts are dangerous people.  However, they are also human and for that reason they can be dethroned like anyone else.  Keep talking to people, keep the infomation going.  They say word of mouth spreads exponentially, USE IT!

Report this

By The Uncivil Litigator, January 10, 2007 at 3:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Lefty, before challenging jurisdiction, have you actually looked at the subpoena to understand under what authority it was issued? I haven’t seen it, but considering that it is pretty easy for almost every court of law in the country to issue a subpoena to any citizen no matter where they live, I’m skeptical of your claim that a military tribunal has no subpoena powers. If the small claims court in my jurisdiction has the power to compel you to come here and testify in court, what makes you think the military doesn’t have the same power?

Report this

By Lefty, January 10, 2007 at 11:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Conspicuously missing from this article is the legal basis upon which a military court has the jurisdiction (legal authority) to compel a civilian (journalist or otherwise) to travel to Washington D.C. and submit to interrogation in a military court, much less impose a penalty of “six months in jail or a $500 fine and a felony charge [upon a civilian] for a story she was paid $300 to write.”

As much as I support Lt. Wasada’s right to refuse to serve in a criminal war, and he and Ms. Olson’s right to tell the whole world why, Sorry, but, I’m skeptical about the notion that Ms. Olson may be compelled or coerced by a military court.

Report this

By Chaseme, January 10, 2007 at 11:04 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

It appears Sarah Olson is not one of the reporters who are on the CIA’s payroll.

If they can’t get to you on one level, they will surely get to you on the other.

Watada, Olson keep your fist raised high!

Report this

By eib, January 10, 2007 at 10:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

If Watada were a civilian and said, “The war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law,” as he did in his June news conference, he wouldn’t be facing six years in a military prison for conduct unbecoming to an officer and for missing a troop movement.

I don’t care if a citizen is in the military or not, a citizen has the protections of the First Amendment.  Period. 
In peace or war, I don’t give a damn.  The First Amendment is practiced and respected or it doesn’t exist.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!

Name:

Email: (won't be displayed on the site)

Your Web Site:

Your Comment:


Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?

Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.