Why I object to testifying against Lt. Watada by Sarah Olson
peaceandj...@gmail.com
By Sarah Olson, Editor and Publisher (Commentary). December 30, 2006
* * Republished by CommonDreams.org, Znet.org, and MichaelMoore.com
* * See Free Press Working Group for more info:
http://www.FreePressWG.org
In May of this year, I conducted an interview with Ehren Watada while
working as a freelance journalist. Watada is a 1st Lieutenant in the
U.S. Army and is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse
orders to deploy to Iraq.
In the interview, Lieutenant Watada asserted that he had a duty as an
officer to evaluate the legality of his orders and conduct himself
accordingly. He said that he could not participate in the Iraq War
because it was "manifestly illegal" and that his participation would
make him a party to war crimes.
In June, Lieutenant Watada made national headlines when he refused to
deploy to Iraq.
Lieutenant Watada continues to report for duty at Fort Lewis in the
state of Washington while awaiting a February 2007 court-martial on
one charge of "missing movement" and four charges of "conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." Each of the latter four
charges is based entirely on political speech. If convicted on all
charges, Lieutenant Watada could spend up to six years in prison.
The U.S. Army has cobbled together portions of my interview with
Lieutenant Watada and these statements comprise the foundation of one
charge of conduct unbecoming an officer. To substantiate this alleged
crime, the Army has subpoenaed me to testify on behalf of their
prosecution.
The dynamics of the situation are clear. When the military chooses to
prosecute a soldier for expressing dissenting political positions to a
member of the press, that journalist is unwittingly and inevitably
forced into the middle of the conflict.
Among multiple issues this raises, it begs one central question:
Doesn't it fly in the face of the First Amendment to compel a
journalist to participate in a government prosecution against a
source, particularly in matters related to personal political speech?
It is my job as a professional journalist to report the news, not to
act as the eyes and ears of the government. I am repelled by this
approach that jeopardizes my credibility and seeks to compel my
participation in muting public speech and dissenting personal opinion.
Further, it is stunningly ironic that the Army seeks my testimony -
the testimony of a journalist - in a case against free speech itself.
What could be more hostile to the idea of a free press than a
journalist participating in the suppression of newsworthy speech?
When journalists are subpoenaed to confirm the veracity of their
reporting, they typically agree to this limited request. What makes
this case different is that the thing in question is the political
nature of Lieutenant Watada's speech. Participating in the U.S. Army's
court-martial forces me to build the case against my source and
contribute to an act of suppression against the media's ability to
report the news.
As a journalist, I cannot support or criticize the thoughts of an
interview subject. My job is to record those thoughts accurately and
provide a public forum for debate. If the Army succeeds in turning me
into an arm of their investigation, it will chill not only press
freedom but also free speech. This is a slippery slope that bears
watching and requires vigilance.
It seems clear that the U.S. Army is attempting to redefine the
parameters of acceptable speech and to classify dissent as a
punishable offense. Subpoenaing journalists in this case unequivocally
sends the message that dissent is neither tolerated nor permitted.
Utilize your constitutionally guaranteed speech rights and go to
prison. What rational soldier would agree to speak with me or any
other member of the media if jail was a likely result?
When the press cannot or does not reflect the vibrant and varied
perspectives within our society, it is reduced to a simple transcriber
of government press releases. The record of existing dissent is
erased, and a dumbed-down, homogenized version of "The American
Experience" is all that's left in its place.
I stand firmly by a conviction I share with many: a member of the
press should never be placed in the position of aiding a government
prosecution of political speech. This goes against the grain of even
the most basic understanding of the First Amendment's free press
guarantees and the expectation of a democracy that relies on a free
flow of information and perspectives without fear of censor or
retribution.
You may ask: Do I want to be sent to prison by the U.S. Army for not
cooperating with their prosecution of Lieutenant Watada? My answer:
Absolutely not. You may also ask: Would I rather contribute to the
prosecution of a news source for sharing newsworthy perspectives on an
affair of national concern? That is the question I wholly object to
having before me in the first place.
* * *
Distributed by the FREE PRESS WORKING GROUP
For more information about Sarah Olson, and U.S. v. Watada:
http://www.FreePressWG.org
peaceandj...@gmail.com
* * *
Subscribing:
To subscribe to the list, send mail to lawof...@lists.riseup.net.
Unsubscribing:
To unsubscribe from the list, send mail to
lawofcolor-...@lists.riseup.net,
where listname is the name of the list. Alternately, you can login,
click 'Your
Subscriptions', click on the name of the list, then click 'Unsubscribe'.