Features » February 23, 2007

In Defense of a Free Press (cont’d)

Independent journalist Sarah Olson speaks at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., in early February.

Did you ever waver in your decision to challenge the subpoena?

No. I was contacted by the Army in July and I was subpoenaed in December. I had a lot of time to think about the situation and work myself into a First Amendment frenzy. By the time I was subpoenaed I was very clear about what the issues were.

Can you foresee any circumstance in which you would testify on behalf of a government prosecution?

I think a person could make a reasonable case that there are certain situations when journalists should be compelled to reveal certain pieces of information.

For example, in a hypothetical situation, what if in the course of your interview someone told you they had a nuclear bomb that was going to go off in 48 hours and they told you where it was, would you reveal that information? This is just simply not one of those situations. Obviously I would take each situation at its face value.

Did you learn anything about the rights of journalists or the First Amendment that you didn’t know?

Absolutely. The first thing is that journalists don’t really have any rights. That was really shocking to me. I wasn’t aware that the courts didn’t uphold a journalist’s ability to object to a subpoena and I wasn’t aware that you could be compelled to participate in the prosecution of someone who is speaking to you.

You say that media workers—and not just members of the press—should be covered under shield laws. Why do you make that distinction?

It’s important to protect the whole scope of people who are engaging in acts of newsgathering. That includes bloggers, Indymedia journalists and people who are working on a contract basis, for example, people who are working as assistants, translators and fixers in Iraq. A whole host of people work in newsgathering who are not traditionally defined as journalists, and who don’t necessarily work for the Hearst Corporation or a huge paper.

Do you have any criticisms about how the media covered your role in the Watada cases?

The media did a fine job for the most part. One of the things I’ve learned through this process is how challenging it is for journalists to follow stories that address not just the who, what, where and when, but also the why. My situation might be very disturbing to me, my family and my friends, but the reason I began speaking publicly is not because I see this as a situation about me as a person. It’s not even a story just about Lt. Watada. It’s not about the individual players. I think we need to think more about why we don’t have a place in the daily news for stories that tackle the question of why.

What are the ramifications of the Army going after Lt. Watada for speaking out?

The Army’s own numbers show that more than 50 percent of the military is unhappy with the war and there are a number of high-profile objection cases or AWOL cases. This is the context in which Lt. Watada’s court-martial is happening—it’s a very political context. I do believe that the Army would like to send a message in some way.

I think that Lt. Watada’s court-martial will set legal precedent for decades into the future about what’s allowable speech, and it will set a political tone today for what is tolerated in terms of dissent.

We don’t know what is going to happen to Lt. Watada. What do you hope people take away from his court-martial and your role in his case?

I hope there is greater support in the United States for journalists to be able to gather and disseminate news without the government interfering in that process. That fundamental notion of press freedom is not as irrelevant to individuals and institutions as we sometimes think. When journalists are able to fight back against these subpoenas, it’s possible for them to be dropped.

With regards to Lt. Watada’s situation, I want to underscore that there is a growing amount of dissent within the military. A majority of the troops in Iraq would like to come home, and active duty members of the military are increasingly finding ways to express their discontent and opposition to the war. It is very important that we have a media that can cover that perspective.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 40% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  There doesn’t seem to be that great a difference between the USA today and the USSR back then when they jailed or sent to the Gulag any journalist who opposed their ideology.  There is probably no difference except in the finer distinctions of how to control dissent between the two countries (even today).  The USSR burned the books when it came to the rights of their citizens.  Here in America, we cook the books, and then send them to jail.

  Posted by davinci on Feb 26, 2007 at 8:22 AM

  “I, Ehren Watada , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

  Posted by texasindependent on Feb 26, 2007 at 4:57 PM

  So nice to live in a free society where we can imagine it is as bad as the former USSR out loud with no possibility of retribution. We can even say Bush is a Hitler or that the war in Iraq is a genocide. We do not have any responsibility to be accurate and very very few people are ever persecuted for political speech, regardless of accuracy. We can say what we please with no fear or retribution (military folks cannot disparage their chain of command, however)

  Perhaps davinci can enlighten me though? Any Jon Stewarts in the former USSR? How about code pinks or crazy cinda sheehans? How many people are deported to gulags in Alaska (or whatever “our Siberia” might be?)?

  Silly silly silly. Sure things are not perfect, things can be improved, but overexaggerating does not help ones case. . .

  Posted by wolf on Feb 26, 2007 at 6:58 PM

  Wolf and TexASS are two of the stupidest neocons to post here. You morons need to read Noam Chomsky and other intellectual giants like Gabriel Kolko and Chalmers Johnson instead of being the utterly stupid ass Bushites you are. Bush IS the primary enemy we have to defend our
  Constitution against.  The murder in Iraq IS mass murder based on lies, probably not “genocide” but hasn’t happened since ancient Biblical times. If you understate the evil of Bush & Co. that too is an exaggeration
  the other way and as wide of the mark the other way.

  Posted by blondemike on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:30 AM

  Yes, perhaps Wolf needs to be enlightened, as he says. His response to my post was simplistic and knee-jerk.  Perhaps he’s missed the entire point on the comparison between the USA and the USSR or simply refuses to acknowledge how things really are in the US were politicians publicly quibble over token policy issues so the people think their elected officials are doing something for them.

  Sure, Americans are allowed to say anything they want but the political class simply ignores them; that’s the beauty of that system because it’s difficult to fight against.  Americans say just about anything they want but nothing is really done about what they say, except, like I said, on token issues that don’t really matter. Mainstream media completes the illusion.

  As far as Gulags go, there is another form of “Gulag” that is highly popular in America today and it’s called America’s growing prison population.  America has more people in jail than any other country on earth.  And more are being built every day and run as private corporations.  This form of Gulag will continue to fragment the society and further divide the country into deeper class divisions.

  Posted by davinci on Feb 27, 2007 at 9:58 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Also featured Colombia’s Third Way
Counterinsurgency 101
Elders of the New Left

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Lisa Sousa

• A Different Duty
  I don't like doing this. It's not something I want to do," says… morePosted on July 18, 2005