 |
|
||
|
|
|
 Military Harasses Reporter Over Watada TrialPosted on Jan 10, 2007
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.”
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Obama’s Thankless Thanksgiving
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
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 thisBy 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 thisBy 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 oneciting 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 thisBy Dan Wun, January 11, 2007 at 5:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
eib on 1/10 at 5:02 am WROTE: I dont care if a citizen is in the military or not, a citizen has the protections of the First Amendment. Period.
Report thisIn peace or war, I dont give a damn. The First Amendment is practiced and respected or it doesnt 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.
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 thisBy 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 thisBy 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 thisBy 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 thisBy eib, January 10, 2007 at 10:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t care if a citizen is in the military or not, a citizen has the protections of the First Amendment. Period.
Report thisIn peace or war, I don’t give a damn. The First Amendment is practiced and respected or it doesn’t exist.