Why I Object to Testifying Against Lt. Watada

author : Sarah Olson topic : Ehren Watada | Iraq occupation

by Sarah Olson

On Jan. 29, the Army dropped two charges of "conduct unbecoming of an officer" in the court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada. The dismissal means Watada now could face a maximum of four years in prison if convicted instead of six. It also means two reporters, including Sarah Olson, subpoenaed to testify for the prosecution regarding statements Watada made in interviews with them, will not be called.

Lieutenant Ehren Watada continues to report for duty at Fort Lewis in the state of Washington while awaiting a February court-martial on one charge of "missing movement" and [two] charges of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." The latter four charges are based entirely on political speech.

The US Army cobbled together portions of my May 2006 interview with Lieutenant Watada and these statements comprised the foundation of one charge of conduct unbecoming an officer. To substantiate this alleged crime, the Army subpoenaed me to testify on behalf of their prosecution.

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.

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.

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.

It seems clear that the US 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.

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.

You may ask: Do I want to be sent to prison by the US 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.

Sarah Olson is an independent journalist and radio producer based in Oakland, CA. She can be reached at solson75@yahoo.com.