Army goes after TruthOut

[lala_rawraw]

This is outrageous and is becoming a very disturbing pattern:
--

Army Targets Truthout for Subpoenas in Watada Case
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 13 December 2006

In a case that cuts right to the heart of the First Amendment, a US Army prosecutor has indicated he intends to subpoena Truthout Executive Director Marc Ash, a Truthout reporter, and two of the nonprofit news organization's regular contributors, to authenticate news reports they produced and edited earlier this year that quoted an Army officer criticizing President Bush and the White House's rationale for the Iraq War.

Captain Dan Kuecker, the Fort Lewis, Washington-based Army prosecutor, has stated his intent to compel Ash, Truthout reporter Sari Gelzer, and contributors Dahr Jamail and Sarah Olson to testify at the court-martial of First Lieutenant Ehren Watada. Kuecker is actively seeking the journalists' testimony so he can prove that Watada engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer, directly related to disparaging statements the Army claims Watada made about the legality of the Iraq War during interviews with Truthout and his hometown newspaper, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in June.

At a hearing earlier this year, a military court determined there was sufficient evidence to charge Watada with intentionally missing his deployment, contemptuous speech toward officials, and conduct unbecoming an officer, and proceed with a general court-martial. In September, those charges were amended to include an additional count of conduct unbecoming an officer. The contempt charges were dropped in November. Watada faces a maximum six-year prison sentence if he is convicted. The trial is expected to begin in February.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who for years has been arguing in favor of a shield law to protect journalists from testifying against their sources, said what's distressing about the Watada case is that the government is trying to use a reporter to build its case.

"The last thing a reporter wants to be identified as is an investigative arm of the government." Dalglish said.

In his aggressive attempt to haul members of Truthout's editorial staff into court, Kuecker bypassed corresponding with the organization's attorney and sent Ash a series of emails - one of which was sent late Sunday evening, December 10 - insisting that Ash provide him with information about the reporters so Kuecker can prepare his case against Watada.

---
read the rest here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121306J.shtml

And contact:
ACLU
Reporters w/o Borders
FAIR
and anyone else you can think of because TO cannot afford to fight this

[Wonk]

1. dupe thread, fyi

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2909616

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

2. And Karl Rove was indicted in May. n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

7. So did most everyone else, La'

I was wondering why it wasn't getting more attention.
:thumbsup: :)

[lala_rawraw]

9. Because people are confusing several issues...

1). Their personal feelings regarding a particular writer
2). The fact that Watada is GI
3). Freedom of the press (and my reason for screaming bloody hell)

The first two should not cloud the by far more important issue here, a direct assault on the 1st Amend. Watada signed up to be GI. But the publication made no such arrangements. This is very frightening and people should put their personal issues aside to address the bigger issue.

[G Hawes]

10. It might help if you were to post something other than

a link to the truthout site as a source. Personally, I won't click on any link to that site after the fiascos that they've been party to in the past, and I suspect that others feel the same way. This is pure speculation on my part, of course, but I'm only trying to be helpful.

Perhaps if you could link to a legitimate site instead, people might take it more seriously. Just a suggestion.

[lala_rawraw]

11. I don't understand...

I may be wrong here, so forgive me, but are you saying they are making up this whole Army thing? I don't know anyone reporting on this, or I would have posted it. But I would think that given all of the names are on the record (like the prosecutor), this should be easy to check. In any case, there is no other link. I am sad that people don't believe that someone is under attack when they say so based on a story, a single story, despite thousands of solid pieces.

Oh well, I tried. Sorry if this made people uncomfortable, but I did not think it mattered who wrote the piece given that TO is still a valuable and important news outlet. Mistakes happen, things change. We simply do not know what happened with that story, but given lack of other information, we all have our own views of what may have happened with that story. The reality is, that regardless of what any of us think about that story, the real issue here is freedom of the press. And I don't doubt for a moment that TO is under attack and I would hope if I were under attack or any publication that I work for, others would stand with me. That is the point of a community, we support our own.

Anyway, I am tired and sleepy. So there is no point in going in circles on this. People can take it as they wish and act accordingly. I thought I would point it out.

G'night, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:D

[G Hawes]

13. Just saying

that people are known by the company they keep and it's hard to buy into anything that is posted on the "truthout" site given its history.

I'm tired and sleepy too, and not remotely interested in going in circles on this. I'm just saying that maybe you shouldn't be surprised that people are not up in arms about this given the source. If you feel strongly that they've been wrongly maligned, by all means, continue to say so and continue to tout their praises. Just don't be surprised when others don't buy into it without more than their say so, which is all that has been offered so far.

I feel for you, and I understand your angst, but I'm not as willing as you seem to be to take their word for anything. You know, that whole fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, thing. As a result, I am not willing to buy into anything reported by truthout without corroboration by multiple other sources, sorry. They toyed with me long enough back when I believed in them, and I am no longer willing to take what they say at face value.

Edit to fix a typo and to add a few words at the end sine i was already in edit mode.

[nashville_brook]

30. you are confused -- this is not a "source" of undocumented info

so... all this venom you have toward Truthout, can just be saved for another day.

[symbolman]

107. Do you mind pointing out the VENOM ?

Because all I see is someone making the same statement that many have said, that they no longer believe Truthout, and damn sure don't believe Leopold's 'reporting' since their ridiculous statements during the Rove "Indictments" that NEVER OCCURRED.

There WAS NO Target Letter, NO Indictment, and instead of recanting or simply retracting it in a responsible manner they just made more crap up.

Remember about 400 blogs "took him at his WORD" back then and passed along patently false information, then got CAUGHT themselves.

So it's only natural to distrust after that, sorry if you haven't heard of the story of the "Boy who Cried Wolf" but this is a Prime example of it right here.

There is NO VENOM being spewed here. And this kind of talk has been seen before during the "Indictment, 24 business hours, media converging on the law offices", none of which was reported by ANYONE else.

I suggest that you might be spewing negative attacks on those who disagree with you, and why not just accept these are the facts?

[jasonleopold]

121. your bitterness is so terribly sad. I hope you find peace one day

[symbolman]

158. Excuse me?

What bitterness? I'm a very happy person, all many have tried to do is point out the hubris of both you and Truthout's decision to back your delusions.

You being deluded and writing articles that have no basis in fact do not make me bitter, or anyone else that disagrees with the ridiculous statements you call journalism.

You simply cannot defend what you write with facts, using insults, distortions, and innuendo instead.

If you told the truth, that you were WRONG, and printed a retraction, you just might find people that would forgive you and back you up, but since you continue down this SPIN path, and destroying other people by outing them to bosses and legal institutions, you will find many bitter people surrounding you.

I consider it a total waste, to spend that much time investigating, then to blow it by adding either nonfactual material, or plagerizing as you have done, documented by a valid news source.

Just admit it, suck it up and move on to greater things, you'll be happy you did.

And Marc Ash needs to do the same thing, because Bizarre does not make a news org on eithe side.

[jasonleopold]

161. see post #121

[symbolman]

167. Ah circular, how droll

nope, it's pity. To see someone who obviously had so much potential piss it all away, and still doing it.

If anything, you've screwed yourself. Over 400 blogs who believed nonsense and don't anymore.

Gotta write my own book now, about MY failings, only in this one, I LEARN NOT to do the same shit over and over.

Feel free to try and create drama where there is none, whether through baseless false emotional framing of other's opinions, or fake facts, but if you don't find me bothering to answer it's because I'm ignoring you.

Buh bye now.

[jasonleopold]

177. Good luck with that Symbolman.

[G Hawes]

109. No, I'm not confused, but you seem to be.

[leftchick]

23. This is HUGE LaLa! And here is another report

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35857

POLITICS-US:
Reporter Summoned to Testify Against War Resister
Aaron Glantz

SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec 14 (IPS) - The U.S. military subpoenaed an independent journalist Thursday, demanding she testify as a witness for the prosecution of First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to be court-marshaled for refusing to serve in Iraq.

"This morning at 8:45 someone came to my house and delivered a subpoena," Sarah Olson, an Oakland, California-based journalist, told IPS. "It's absolutely outrageous. It's a journalist's job to report the news. It is not a journalist's job to testify against their own sources."

Olson interviewed Watada in late May 2006, a few weeks before he formally refused to deploy to Iraq. In the interview, the first lieutenant explained his decision.

"I started asking, why are we dying?" he said. "Why are we losing limbs? For what? I listened to the president and his deputies say we were fighting for democracy; we were fighting for a better Iraq. I just started to think about those things. Are those things the real reasons why we are there, the real reasons we were dying? But I felt there was nothing to be done, and this administration was just continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to stop them."

As a result of his public comments, Watada was charged not only for refusing to deploy, but also for "contempt toward officials" and "conduct unbecoming of an officer".

[robertpaulsen]

48. NO, no that has to be wrong!

That corroborates most of what Leopold says in his article for that completely discredited librul lie rag Truthout, so it must be wrong. Unless, of course, Leopold is just lying about Marc Ash. Yeah, that's the ticket! :eyes:

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

All sarcasm aside, this is serious shit folks, and I'm glad to see this thread getting the recommendations it has. The truth of this story and the 1st amendment ramifications of it need to be spread far and wide. I'm sure MSM will sleep on this, but we need to try. I hope that at least Olbermann will report this.

[FogerRox]

12. YO....... G... smart move BRO

not. IMHO.

[G Hawes]

14. I have no idea what you're talking about

maybe you can try English next time?

[nashville_brook]

29. just wondering if you read the New York Times, still...

yeah, i thought so...

[G Hawes]

178. I don't read the NYT, no.

Your point?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

17. exactly lala! anything else people post here is smoke and mirrors...

I enjoy decent misdirection but most individuals that try it at DU are dumber than the Chimperor.
I'm with you to the wire on what you write here: "Freedom of the press and my reason for screaming bloody hell."
We'll scream in duet!

[lala_rawraw]

24. duet activated

[bobthedrummer]

115. I'll keep rhythm for everyone joining the chorus

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

19. And Karl Rove was indicted in May. n/t

'Evening everyone! Has Truthout been 100% vindicated yet?

:rofl:

[Left Coast Lynn]

25. That's why Jason Leopold must go

The story is important. If Truthout is getting this kind of treatment, it has to be known.

But Leopold casts a doubt on anything he writes. So a very important story becomes suspect.

Jason, if you care about Truthout and other progressive causes, please resign.

[QuestionAll...]

37. That's how I feel as well.

If Jason and others at TO just fessed up and genuinely apologized or something, I'd have forgotten about the stupid May 12th thing a long time ago. But no, they still call us idiots and other names for not believing that cockamamie story.

[QuestionAll...]

36. lala, please see post 31 and address it.

I really can't take you too seriously with the way you talk to some people here. and you have a history of it.

[lala_rawraw]

44. i do not

intend to get into a flame war over something as obvious as what the OP was about. the response was inappropriate and shameful and if such a response was okay, while mine was seen as an attack, so be it. the issue at hand was and is freedom of the press, regardless of what anyone thinks of a particular writer. it is that simple. you need not take me seriously. i don't mind at all. but let's stick to the topic at hand, not a flame war over what writer you like or dislike, take seriously or not. this is not about me or any other single writer. this is an issue that cuts straight to freedom of the press. so dislike me, don't take me seriously, whatever. but please focus your energy on fighting on behalf of this very important cause. that is the point, not me.

[druidity33]

66. fer cryin out loud...

I understand why she gets frustrated. Her history is such that she's all too often called upon to defend herself. She doesn't take shit, and doesn't seem to care what you or anyone else thinks about her PERSONALITY, which should have NOTHING to do with her reporting. What... do you want her to apologize now? Are you offended somehow? Personally i admire her tough attitude... but then i'm from NY and it takes a lot to startle/offend me.

As for Leopold, i've got a big fat WHATEVER sittin' right over here for you. So, he got it wrong. Big whoop. Think it doesn't happen ALL THE TIME in major newspapers? Think they ever apologize? I just can't believe people here are still bent over this thing... makes me wonder how many on this board are actually adults.

[QuestionAll...]

67. that's why I don't believe major newspapers either.

I know that's so childish....

[Chico Man]

4. Hate to admit it

but I had the same thought when I saw the author.. I know it's terrible.

Free speech is not free of consequences...

Don flame suit...

[G Hawes]

5. Me, too.

Truth(left)out lost all credibility for me long ago. Whenever I see Jason Leopold's name on something, or the truthout name on something, I reflexively toss it into the mental "color me skeptical" bin. Sad, but true.

[treestar]

53. Isn't that overdoing it?

Nice and satisfyingly simple, but things are never that cut and dried.

The two events are different and have nothing to do with each other, either.

[lala_rawraw]

8. no flame on my part... i don't do that... but

This is not about bylines or a story that did not happen as reported. This is about freedom of the press, regardless of your interest our views of the writer. I would respond the same if the American Conservative was under attack. I think the bigger issue is key here... this is massive overreach. Regardless of Watada being GI, this is a freedom of the press issue.

Anyway, no flames. Just thoughts:)

[BlooInBloo]

20. No. Truthout SAYS this is about freedom of the press. Truthout saying it...

... is absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

26. just as you saying otherwise is no reason to believe it's not...

what I find puzzling is that none of these critics have offered one reason for ANYONE to doubt the truthout story aside from their personal opinions. No sources no proof = no truth. In America the burden of proof is on the ACCUSERS or rather it was before Bush.

[BlooInBloo]

27. I didn't say it was false though. Just that truthout saying is no reason to believe it's true.

[Sydnie]

6. Appears you need a new hobby.

Hobby - Knowing when to stop. <-- from your profile ... Practice makes perfect. ;)

[rman]

21. So?

nothing.

figures.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lala_rawraw]

46. i know that when a particular

writer's name is mentioned, things get heated. let's all calm down and focus on the issue at hand:D

[robertpaulsen]

49. Thanks, good advice.

I just emailed Keith Olbermann. Hopefully this will make the Countdown broadcast.

[Rex]

40. Must be nice in that black & white world.

I never knew so many people hated Truthout as when that story broke. They must be doing something right if it pisses off so many of you.

[Kelly Rupert]

172. The "so many of you" TO pissed off

were all liberals who felt burned. That isn't a good thing.

[jasonleopold]

179. wow!

do you realize how dramatic you're being? Please.

[Kelly Rupert]

181. Would you care to explain

what in that was dramatic? The people who were angry at TO were by and large liberal, and were angry because they were led to believe something that was not true. That is not dramatic, that is clearly and plainly true.

[jasonleopold]

183. you do not know it's not true. Patrick Fitzgerald has yet to say it's not true

all you have is the word of Karl Rove's attorney. Do you realize that is all you have? The word of Karl Rove's attorney?

Need I remind you that in October 2003 Scott McLellan said publicly that Rove, Libby and others were not involved and that it was "ridiculous" to suggest such a thing. It took two years before the truth about that lie came out.

So again, all you have is the word of Rove's attorney.

nothing else. no documents. Nothing. Just the word of his attorney.

Glad to know where your liberal priorities are

[Rex]

186. Even if I don't believe the Rove story, I would say you guys have a lot better

batting average verses Foxnews etc. Yeah, I felt burned by the story too - oh and does that compare to getting betrayed by Bev over BBV? Or how about Harris and the way she betrayed her oath of office. 6 years of bullshit and I'm supposed to get mad at TO? A site I've read since it started? No.

Does Bartcop get it wrong sometimes? Duh, yeah he does. Should I just shun his site and never venture there again?

No.

What a stupid notion, the score so far is;

TruthOut - 99% Right 1%* Wrong. *Still in dispute.

RW news outlets - 1%* Right 99% Wrong. *The 1% rule.

[jasonleopold]

187. Thank you and just as a point of reference

All of us take our jobs very, very seriously. We strive for accuracy as any journalist I imagine does. We work really hard to report the truth. We are passionate about it and we will continue to do that, especially now that the Democrats are in both houses. Hopefully, we will get the truth to many of the questions that have gone unanswered over the years.

[Rex]

189. Of course you all do, this is very serious stuff. Some people are

going to jail when all is said and done and I appreciate all the hard work you guys do to let the public know. I know how you feel, the Democratic Party now in power is like a door opening to all the rotten politics of the last six years. Maybe Waxman and Leahy will now get their chances to get down to the truth about a lot of topics.

Maybe you know this, I've been wondering for awhile now - anyone know what happen to the Horse? Did he ever make a comeback, I miss that site.

Keep up the good work! You guys have good intentions, I wish people could see that as opposed to our opponents.

The BFEE always have bad intentions. Why we can't all focus on them is a mystery to me after 6 years.

[demobabe]

190. "you should believe me and not them because I'm on your side" is not a factual argument

Sure, Rove and his lawyer are scum.

But at this point, there is more evidence to suggest what they are saying is more likely to be true than what you're saying. Both Kos and TalkLeft have said your story appears to be false, and these are not right wing folks.

We don't only have the word of Rove's attorney.

We have Karl Rove himself, who is a free man, still working in the White House. He doesn't look very indicted to me.

Maybe it's possible there is some kind of complex conspiracy against you and Truthout, but to venture down that path gets into some really screwy territory.

I'd rather not go there and stick to facts. At this point, the score is Luskin 1, Leopold 0.

Like you said before, we'll see what happens at Libby's trial. Maybe all of this will be cleared up then and you'll be completely vindicated. But until then...

[jasonleopold]

191. never said that so stop putting words in my mouth.

Why can't you just accept the fact that I am not wavering from my story nor is truthout. If that rubs you the wrong way then so be it. We're not budging.

[jasonleopold]

192. Oh and Kos and Talkleft would know this because....

they are reporters with sources? No. They're pontificating. They have no sources. They don't do actual gumshoe reporting. They opine. That's it. Like you

[demobabe]

193. Man, Jason - I didn't want to go there, but since you insist

Jeralyn of TalkLeft is a lawyer and says this:

But Jason's article was specific about an Indictment of Karl Rove, not someone else, a meeting lasting into the wee hours at Patton Boggs, the Indictment being shown to Rove and Rove being given an ultimatum for a deal. If there never has been a Rove indictment, sealed case 128 is irrelevant to Jason's article. Jason's sources were wrong and should be outed.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/06/13/128/87994

And Markos is a journalist that has written for the Guardian and other publications and runs the highest trafficked blog which is the #1 political blog (and #2 overall blog) according to Technorati.

He says:

Luskin doesn't say Rove was cleared of all wrongdoing. Just that there won't be any charges filed. Interesting wording.

Aside from that, I hope this serves a lesson to all of you who link to crap internet sources like Jason Leopold merely because they write what you want to hear. In fact, the Armando fiasco stemmed from one asshole angry that Armando trashed his diary using Wayne Madsen as a source.

This is the reality based community, not the "make up your own reality" community. Conservatives already own the trademark to that name.

Be properly skeptical of everything you read. Even on this site. And if I use blind sources, which I'm apt to do every once in a while, be particularly skeptical. I won't be offended.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/13/124559/961

Whether they opine or report really doesn't make any kind of difference. People trust you based on your facts or cited sources, which is where you messed up. You passed off an unverifiable story as a NEWS story, which it wasn't and still isn't. Until we have actual facts, it's a rumor, plain and simple.

You can't show facts or documents, and you don't have any sources that you'll reveal, so we can't confirm the story with them (assuming they exist), so it ISN'T A NEWS STORY!

There is a reason no other reputable media source published the story: it didn't pass the most fundamental test in journalism.

[jasonleopold]

194. yeah, so?

What's your point?

[jasonleopold]

195. Having a story published in a newspaper does not make one a journalist

He hasn't cultivated sources. Neither has Jeralyn

When are you going to realize that nothing you say is going to get us to change our stance. It's a dead issue.

[jasonleopold]

196. You really have no idea what you are talking about

Seriously, move on to another topic. Maybe one that you know something about.

[jasonleopold]

197. You have been at it for two days

Time to move on.

[jasonleopold]

199. do you have a day job?

[maddezmom]

202. would you care to comment on the subject of the post?

:shrug:

[dailykoff]

201. So kos and his anonymously funded "blog" are fanning the flames?

Why does he always turn out to be on the side of the swiftboaters?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

16. Kicked and Recommended!

[populistdriven]

18. Sent donation tonight!

Tribute to Marc Ash

[DemReadingDU]

22. morning kick

[go west young man]

28. For those who may have trouble understanding this thread and

the Jason Leopold controversy look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Leopold Personally I think Leopold was probably a bit too quick out of the box with the scoop on Rove however the way things go in our country these days I wouldn't be surprised if Rove came up with something on Fitzgerald and managed to slime his way out of the charges. To throw Leopold under the bus for his mistake seems foolish to me considering how many articles he has written supporting many left wing antiwar causes. We are on the same side I believe and Truthout has done a great job of exposing Republican hypocrisy when it comes to who is really willing to fight and what they are fighting for. So why are people flaming each other on this thread? Over Jason Leopold it's silly? The real issue is the state insisting a reporter testify in order to indict a military person who is speaking out against the war and the U.S. military establishment from within.

[nashville_brook]

31. goes to show where the anti-TO people really stand

they don't give a shit about ethics or freedom of the press -- they want to stamp their furry little feet in the hopes of SHUTTING DOWN INDIE MEDIA. period.

[Raskolnik]

117. Nonsense.

I certainly can't speak for 100% of the "anti-TO" people, but I can tell you that it is *because* I give a shit about ethics that I have lost all respect for TO.

They messed up very badly by trusting Jason Leopold, they compounded their mistake by sticking with him despite the overwhelming evidence of his bullshit, and they continue their mistake by allowing a hack like Leopold to take up space on their page. If indie media in general (and TO in particular) want to be successful, their margin of error is small enough without idiots like Leopold dragging them down. Period.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

130. "much more clearer"?

I maintain the following:

1) You printed a story about Karl Rove's indictment that, for whatever reason, turned out to be untrue.
2) You maintained the truth of this story long past the point of good faith.
3) Truthout made a very big mistake by not retracting your story.
4) Truthout's credibility is damaged by your continued employment given your past history of at best gross inaccuracy, and at worst dishonesty.
5) Any story bearing your name is instantly suspect.

Perhaps you could point out which of these points demonstrates my ignorance?

*Edited to be less snarky.

[jasonleopold]

131. sorry

but that's not the topic here. The author of this journal made it abundantly clear that she did not want her journal hijacked. I suggest you learn to live with the fact that truthout, the organization's editors, and a staff of nearly 30, stand by this story, and will continue to do so.
There you have it. End of story.

[Raskolnik]

134. Bullshit. You don't get to claim "ignorance" and then hide.

I was responding to a post that claimed anyone who questioned TO must being doing so for nefarious reasons. I pointed out that one may, in my opinion, very legitimately question TO's methods, given their (your) history. You claimed this demonstrated ignorance. I asked you to back that up. You can't.

I suggest you learn to live with the fact that Truthout, the organization's editors, and a staff of nearly 30, stand by this story, and will continue to do so.

And this is *exactly* why anything appearing on their page is suspect. They printed an obviously false story and blamed everyone but you for their mistake. Neither you nor TO can substantiate your story, and your obstinate disregard for reality taints your subsequent work.

[jasonleopold]

136. I'm not hiding

But it's pretty clear you would like to pick a fight. I am not going there.

Have you asked yourself why you are so angry? Why are you so, so angry at me? What did I do to you that has you all fired up? Why don't you channel your anger and frustration where it belongs.

[jasonleopold]

141. Enjoy the rest of your day

I realized that engaging you won't change a thing. You are perfectly entitled to believe and think what you want. You have your own mind. I must respect that.

[Raskolnik]

144. You know what would change my mind?

Evidence that what you are saying is true. You simply haven't done that.

[jasonleopold]

146. do you....

say the same thing to Sy Hersh of the NYer when he reports stories that are discredited by the White House--many of which have yet to pan out?

Listen, let's just end this tirade. I'm not going to make you feel differently nor do I think you want to feel differently. If this is what makes you feel strong and powerful and omnipotent then so be it. You win.

[Raskolnik]

148. Wow. Comparing yourself to Sy Hersh!

Your story was not discredited by the Whitehouse. It was discredited by your complete and utter lack of supporting evidence.

[jasonleopold]

162. You

crack me up. You are such a funny individual. In a sad, pitiful way

[Raskolnik]

170. I'm sorry Mr. Leopold, but neither my sadness nor your pity changes your utter lack of evidence

You made claims for which you have no substantiation. None. That's bad.

Instead of owning up to your mistake, you made it much, much worse by defending the indefensible, attacking anyone who questions your super-secret evidence, and significantly damaging TO's credibility. That's worse

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jasonleopold]

132. moreover

what evidence do YOU have that suggests the story is untrue. What in God's name could you possibly have to state definitively that my story is "untrue."

Why would we retract a story when there is zero evidence to prove it wrong?

Truthout's credibility is not damaged. Quite the contrary.

Any story bearing my name being suspect is your "opinion." Thankfully, my audience has kept an open mind about the issue. You are not my audience.

My "past history" of gross inaccuracy that you claim is wildly exaggerated on your part. I suggest you do your own research or use Lexis Nexis to search the volume of stories I have written over the course of 15 years as a journalist. There is nothing in those stories you will find evidence of gross inaccuracies or my employers being forced to print corrections.

[Raskolnik]

135. Zero evidence!?

How about the fact that no indictment of Karl Rove has ever been produced by anyone, anywhere. That's pretty good evidence if you care about things like "facts" or "accuracy".

[jasonleopold]

137. how do you know there is no indictment?

just because it wasn't produced does not mean it does not exist. Fitzgerald is not obliged to produce anything, particularly if a cooperationg or plea deal was hammered out. Brush up on your legal knowledge.

[Raskolnik]

142. I'll give you 24 business hours to provide *any* evidence. n/t

[jasonleopold]

147. you really are a sad individual

Did saying that make you feel better? I hope so.

[Raskolnik]

150. I like the reality based community. What can I say?

If you think being held accountable for your work is somehow unfair, I suggest a different line of work.

[QuestionAll...]

149. has there ever been a circumstance like this before?

indicted is not publicly known for months?
just asking in my stupid way.

on edit:
but there's been some way bad stupidity happening lately with the rule of law and all that silly stuff.

[jasonleopold]

164. Any federal prosecutor

will tell you that it can happen and the fact that there is a sealed indictment tucked away at US Court in DC for seven months is unheard of. Any federal prosecutor or legal expert will tell you that.

[jasonleopold]

139. facts? accuracy?

you have one attorney stating that he has a letter, a letter he refuses to make public, exonerating his client. Our word against his word. You have no idea what went on behind the scenes. You have zero knowledge of federal law. Own up to the fact that you just despise me so much and that's what this is about. If you truly were upset with Rove you would direct your anger toward the larger media for not even attempting to find out what happened behind the scenes.

[foo_bar]

155. "employers being forced to print corrections"

Re: "There is nothing in those stories(,) you will find evidence of gross inaccuracies or (and?) my employers being forced to print corrections."

...Dow Jones Newswires, where he was fired for inaccuracies in a Wall Street Journal story about Enron which forced them to print a five-paragraph retraction the following day.

Later, another of Leopold's articles, about President Bush's Army Secretary Tom White, was pulled from Salon.com after seven paragraphs were found to be directly plagiarized from London's Financial Times.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=39885&category=22148

We reviewed the complaint, discovered that it was legitimate, and posted a correction notice as soon as we were able to confirm the details. As we reported in that notice, "Leopold ... told Salon that he accidentally copied the passages while writing his own story, and never noticed the error during the editing of the story, or after it was published."

Whatever its basis, this sort of plagiarism is a serious breach of journalistic trust, and caused us to go back over every detail and aspect of the original article. Our review led us to take this latest step.

http://archive.salon.com/letters/editor/2002/10/01/note/index.html

[TroglodyteScholar]

157. Odd that Leopold's got like 30 posts in this thread...

...but has somehow neglected to address this one that directly debunks claims he made here.

On edit: Jason, you so love asking "why are you so angry" etc, of people who question your credibility. I do not believe you are truly that dim, but allow me to answer for them -- you reported something we all wanted to be true. We got excited and we supported you. But when your story fell on its ass, you only faced that fact with contempt for your readership. Why are YOU so angry? It is not US who deceived YOU...

[jasonleopold]

165. I am not angry at all

I am perfectly content with my life. I am unhappy that this administration has been able to get away with murder, so to speak. So I direct my energies toward that and changing thing.

[jasonleopold]

133. Lastly

I need not justify my existence or my work to you. But if you would like to pick it apart you better have some damn good docuemntary proof to prove it wrong.

[Raskolnik]

138. I need not justify my existence or my work to you.

Your existence? No.

Your work? You bet your ass an organization that portrays itself as a "full-service news agency dedicated to establishing a powerful, stable voice for independent journalism" while asking for people's money to support their work needs to justify its work.

[jasonleopold]

140. Guess what?

there are tens of thousands of people who support us. Believe in what we are doing. We have published comprehensive follow up stories on this issue, many of which have been published by Truthout's editor. Read those. Do not act as if we have not justified our reporting.

[Raskolnik]

143. Justified your reporting?

Simply repeating unsubstantiated speculation is not "justifying".

[jasonleopold]

145. not speculation. Never was.

now you're just picking a fight. Stop it. Why are you so angry? Why are you so incined to fight?

[Raskolnik]

151. Asking you to substaniate your claims is picking a fight, huh?

And by the way, "speculation" is being charitable:

Speculation: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

[jasonleopold]

200. any particular reason you chose to make this a personal attack on me?

[Roland99]

32. I understand the need to maintain order and discipline, but just like Capt. Blighe, this is too much

[pberq]

33. What this is about:

IMHO, the Army is using the Watada case to accomplish a couple of goals (at least).

First, give him the strongest possible punishment as an example to other soldiers who may have second thoughts once they realize they are fighting for lies.

Second, go after Truthout as an example to the independent press in case they get any ideas in the future to publish a similar interview.

Also, thanks Lala for posting this.

(edited for spelling)

[bleever]

34. I support Truthout. K&R

Thanks for the post, lala.

[amb123]

35. K & R

Defend Freedom of the Press, America! Support Truthout!

[robertpaulsen]

38. K & R! Keep this story at the top!

:kick:

[happydreams]

41. Calling H20 Man. Didn't you work with Leopold?

Thought maybe you could shed some light on his demise.
Did you do research for him?

[QuestionAll...]

42. Will Pitt worked for Jason and TO

maybe still does, have no idea.

[lala_rawraw]

45. i am asking nicely

again, this is not about the writer, this is about freedom of the press. please don't make this about anything else. there is no reason for it whatsoever. and if this thread is going to be hijacked by people who hate a particular writer, then I am going to ask the mods to close it. i am sorry if that sounds harsh, but really, why can no one understand that we are talking about a larger issue here than any one writer? good lord... i remember when my cousin was carted off to detention and someone posted the story here... the first thing that happened was not support, but attackers demanding to know things that at the time no one had answers to and because of that calling the whole thing a lie. yet when the story ran with the specifics, they never showed up to apologize. i really would appreciate that we refrain from eating the few alternative outlets we have just because we don't happen to like one writer at that publication. this does us very little good.

[happydreams]

63. I'm Sorry. That was the last thing I wanted to do. nt

[demobabe]

43. Weighing in on all this

Putting aside the fact that Jason Leopold wrote this and that Truthout's web traffic has been plummeting, I'm looking at what is and isn't.

Essentially, we're concerned that Truthout is being forced to give up sources, and compromise their rights as the press? Please correct me if I'm not understanding this properly.

If this is the nut, then we're trying to save Truthout from having to face the same kind of stuff that went on with Judith Miller and Matt Cooper, no?

Here's the rub: the problem is that no source is actually being protected here. Watada came forward to both Truthout and the Honolulu newspaper to voice dissent over the war. There was no secret about how he felt or who it was that was speaking up. It's not like Truthout published an anonymous military voice and now they're being pressed to release the identity.

It's been covered in other posts what "GI" stands for and how soldiers have fewer rights (by contract) than the rest of us.

So now, the military has every right to subpeona Truthout staff, and they should go willingly. No, it isn't cool or maybe even fair, but it is their obligation under our law.

This being said, I support Watada, and hope he will somehow get out of this whole mess. But having spoken up on the issue, he's made himself a target because the military certainly doesn't want others to follow his lead. They're going to come down on him with full force.

It isn't the military's style to just come out and say, "oh yeah, that Watada guy. He's got a point and so nobody has to go back to war..."

There is no point in Truthout fighting the subpeona thing unless they want to hold out to try to drum up traffic for their site since they lost half of their traffic over the last six months (you can go and look at the graph; they took a serious dump after Leopold's Rove fiasco, and have been going steadily downward since).

For Watada's sake, I hope there is much press about him, although I doubt the outcome will be changed at all. He's made himself a focus of attention, and that's a bad place to be unless you like getting beat up.

[lala_rawraw]

47. they are using reporters

as witnesses to testify against a subject of a story in order to prove that the person said something inappropriate, and in the process anything regarding sourcing. this is not a Judy Miller issue. i have never argued for defending government agents pretending to be honest/good faith sources. i have never defended Judy Miller because I have never seen her as a journalist. She was and is a government mouthpiece, which makes her a propaganda tool.

Miller went to jail because she would have had to explain some pretty strange goings on in her "reporting" world if she agreed to talk. Cooper was a different story on this and it is a bit more complex to describe. With regard to the TO situation, the difference here is that the reporters are not protecting government agents of influence as sources.

They are being dragged in to testify against a subject of a story. That puts the reporter in a position to violate a good faith relationship, incriminate themselves, and chill anyone ever from speaking to them again. Reporters are not GI, Watada is, but they are not. To drag a reporter into court like this is to make the reporter the opponent of the subject. Let's also keep in mind that Watada is being prosecuted for speaking out against his President... which, actually is not as cut and dry as that. He refused to follow an illegal order and he said an illegal order was given. That is not speaking out against the President, but against the policy. I may be wrong here as I have not covered this case at all. But that is my understanding. In any case, that is hardly a situation where our national security was put into danger because a CIA officer was outed to settle a political score. IMHO, they are making an example out of Watada and out of any press that gives coverage to soldiers unwilling to follow an illegal order. It is a sham and an abuse of power. It is the military reaching in and playing police domestically and prosecution domestically. That is what this is about, not a writer or even a single publication.

[demobabe]

50. This is the way courts work

They get to subpeona anybody they would like. On the flip side, Watada's counsel can ask any questions of the subpeonead Truthout folks to make his case.

So they're not "testifying" against Watada, they're just testifying under oath about the events that happened. Both sides get equal chance to ask questions. This is neither "for" or "against" anybody. If it incriminates Watada and he did something illegal, then he will be charged.

Suppose Watada himself wanted to subpeona reporters that could prove his innocence 100 percent? By your own argument, he should not be able to do this.

[jasonleopold]

51. Demobabe

has no idea what she or he is speaking about in terms of the legal issues involved. No idea whatsoever. Completely out of your league. Your analysis is incredibly flawed

[demobabe]

52. Would you like to give specifics?

Or just one line character attacks?

[jasonleopold]

54. read the article. read Olson's quotes. read the article from wednesday

[demobabe]

55. Oh, I did

And it didn't say anything about me or my legal views in there. :)

And there were certainly no personal attacks in there against me, unlike your post...

[jasonleopold]

57. please point out

the personal attacks against you, you personally, in my post.

[QuestionAll...]

58. hey jason, good journalism is sometimes having to say you're sorry.

just some advice.

[jasonleopold]

59. good journalism is also

standing up for what you believe is the truth and what your editors believe is the truth even if others disagree with your stance.

[QuestionAll...]

60. so that tells me you Still Believe Rove was indicted May12th?

thanks for putting that on record.

[jasonleopold]

61. that's not really breaking news now is it

[QuestionAll...]

64. It never has been.

[QuestionAll...]

56. thanks for that info, demo.

interesting....

[lala_rawraw]

62. mods, please close this sucker up

i thought for a moment there were adults interested in defending freedom of speech. it appears i was wrong and the whole thing has now fallen into a flame war over personal issues. sadly, it appears we deserve the press we get.

[demobabe]

65. Yeah, better close it up

Before people start seeing the holes in the whole argument and seeing bizarre behavior from the Truthout author. This isn't a flame war here, too bizarre for that.

[jasonleopold]

68. point out the holes.

as well as pointing out your claims of personal attacks.

And point out the wholes in the legal case.

that's the issue. You made it personal because you chose to.

But where are the holes?

let's talk about that

[jasonleopold]

69. the issue

here is that the reporter, Sarah Olson, would be forced to testify as to the veracity of her story thereby acting as an arm of the government. her testimony even if its just to confirm her reporting would end up sending Watada to jail

[demobabe]

72. what if

Watada wanted to use a reporter to back up his end of the story?

Then that shouldn't be permitted by your logic.

People get subpeonaed - they have to testify. Both sides get to ask questions. That's the way it works...

[jasonleopold]

75. that is

that's absolutely correct. But the issue here is that she is being forced to testify for the government so they can send a soldier to jail for something she wrote about him

On the flip side, there was a reporter a few years back who was subpoenaed by a defense attorney representing a soldier being court-martialed in a rape case. the defense wanted the reporter's unpublished notes. Granted that is totally different. But the issue is that even testifying on behalf of Watada would be as a no no if it involves divulging information that could hurt a journalist's ability to do their job or if the journalist is seen as acting as an arm of the government

[demobabe]

78. the subpeona process is never fun

For anybody.

But it is what it is, and if Watada spoke to a journalist against a direct legal order not to talk about certain things, then he knew what he was doing when he talked to her. Journalists can be called to testify about anything, just like anybody else. This does not compromise a journalist's ability to do their job.

Anybody talking to a journalist knows their words could end up being published, and to be careful what they say. Watada had to have known that speaking to the press could have a big no-no, and so if a reporter shows up to testify, that's an event he had to have seen coming.

[jasonleopold]

80. What the journalist is saying...

is that it impedes her ability to do her job, particularly on covering antiwar issues, and speaking to soldiers if the soldiers know she is on the army's radar and it would make it harder for them to speak freely to her if they feared she would be hauled into court as a result of what she writes.

She has a point on that.

[demobabe]

85. non-issue

Soldiers are under direct orders not to speak out against the President, the war, etc. - especially to the press. This is an order. Ask any soldier. They know they could be court martialed for doing so, and they know the reporter could be subpeonaed and drug into court.

The only thing this highlights is the unprofessional nature of members of the independent media that do not know this. I'm surprised you don't know this, Jason, you've worked at enough pro newspapers. Your editors at those pro newspapers certainly know this.

[jasonleopold]

86. again, absolutely untrue statement.

OFFICERS are prohibited from criticizing the president. OFFICERS, not soldiers. See the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

[demobabe]

89. he's a first lieutenant

...that is an officer.

[jasonleopold]

91. right.

I thought you were referring to all military personnel. sorry.

[jasonleopold]

88. of course we know it!

but the last thing you want to do is NOT write a story because of the fear you will be dragged into court. I am not saying the subpoena is a surprise, but keep in mind that this is the first time, THE FIRST TIME, in 41 years that an officer is being charged with, in addition to missing deployment, with speaking ill of his superiors, namely Bush. So that makes this case, at least that part of it, unique. But again, in order for the Army to pursue those charges they need the reporter to back up everything he said.

But on the larger issue why is an indy or mainstream outlet irresponsible? We know anything is possible with this administration but that still doesn't mean the actions of the Army are outrageous.

[demobabe]

92. well, these are dangerous times

A lot of things are happening now that haven't happened in years here lately, and related to this administration. This is a dangerus time in history to be speaking up in general - just like what Ari Fleischer said "watch what you do, watch what you say" - it's the mantra of this administration.

Hoping things get better in January when Democrats regain control...

I think the Army is acting very aggressively on this one because if they don't, it opens the floodgates for others to follow in his footsteps. He's made a big PR issue out of it and made himself a target. Now the Army will fight back hard to preserve order.

Ever hear the phrase "don't corner a rat?" The Army's in the corner right now...

[jasonleopold]

93. so true

that's the weird thing. These things have been happening yet each time there is a new instance it still feels strange like it shouldn't be happening. So on the one hand, you're right, we shouldn't be surprised. But it's still hard to be apathetic.

[demobabe]

94. Yeah, that's right

And they keep you spinning in constant crisis mode so you can't ever catch up with them. One crisis after another. These are just the smoke and mirrors so they can do what they do best behind the scenes - rob us blind.

So it's always the question: which battles are worth fighting?

[jasonleopold]

95. Yes

It definitely is a matter of picking and choosing the right battles. It seems like it's a crapshoot nowadays. Even now, for example, I am reading the department of defense briefing and talk about spin! The general is describing how well everything is going in Iraq and how the media has been distorting the news about Iraqi security forces not being up to the challenge. that seems like spin

[demobabe]

96. Same thing they did with Vietnam

300 Vietnamese killed, 1 US guy slightly injured... you look at that and say "come on..."

You could have a field day with spin alone, really.

[jasonleopold]

97. this is a pretty interesting story

on where things may be headed, speaking of Vietnam

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070101/cooperweb

About Face: Soldiers Call for Iraq Withdrawal

by MARC COOPER
The Nation

For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of
active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a
war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition
Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete
version of this report will appear next week in the print and online
editions of The Nation.)

After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for
Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has
already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and
airmen, including dozens of officers--most of whom are on active
duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel
signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in
Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military
dissent.

Interviews with two dozen signers of the Appeal reveal a mix of
motives for opposing the war: ideological, practical, strategic and
moral. But all those interviewed agree that it is time to start
withdrawing the troops. Coming from an all-volunteer military, the
Appeal was called "unprecedented" by Eugene Fidell, president of the
National Institute of Military Justice.

[jberryhill]

99. That's correct, but

...I think quite a few people have lost touch with the dynamics of civil disobedience and how it works.

If every soldier that doesn't support this war speaks out against it then, yes, they will ALL go to jail.

Chew on that last sentence for a while.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lala_rawraw]

77. Can you two adults stop making this

about your views of one another? this is not about you, either of you or what you think or want. it is about the freedom of the press, which you either support or you do not. if you do not, start a new thread and bash each other. please stop making my thread kindergarten school yard fights. you are both wrong and you are both grounded

[jasonleopold]

79. understood.

[demobabe]

81. This isn't about the freedom of the press

It's about a legal process.

The Truthout writer isn't giving up any information that isn't already known. It would be quite different if Watada spoke to her on the condition of anonymity and then the Army was trying to force her to give up the name of the person who spoke up so they could be court martialed. But Watada is very much on the record. There is no mystery.

The subpeona process is a bitch in general. Suppose you had a roommate who was a single dad who say decided to stop paying child support. You're not related to this guy at all, but the next thing you know, a subpeona arrives at your door, attached to a policeman, asking for all of your financial records for the last two years including your bank accounts, credit card statements, and assets.

You don't know this guy from Adam except he answered your ad to be a roommate, had the money and good references and moved in. Now you have to give up all your information and appear in court?

Yep. That's exactly how it works. And yes, you'd have to appear in court, or give up your documents, or both.

Courts/lawyers can pretty much ask for anything they want, and it can really suck.

In this case, they're just asking the Truthout reporter to come in and give answers to questions they already know the answers to.

Did Watada talk to her?

Did he say these following quotes to her?

Did she write this article?

etc.

I'm sure they have a case even without her testifying, but she's just one more piece of evidence for a sad outcome none of us want to see.

Watada chose to speak up against direct legal orders, and however much I don't want to see him be jailed, it appears he did indeed disobey an order by speaking to the press. If he'd just stuck to refusing to go back, he could have had a shot because he does not have to obey an illegal order, which it can be argued that Iraq is an illegal war.

[jasonleopold]

82. but that's the point!

they NEED her testimony to corroborate her story and the statements he made. They DON'T have a case on that specific charge without her testimony. So if she testifies and says "yes...he said that" then they use her testimony as a means to convict. It is absolutely untrue to say they have a case without her. Why else do you think the Army subpoenaed her. Verification in this case will send a person to jail. And regardless of whether Watada knew what he was doing the US government should not be hauling reporters into court to help them make a case.

[jberryhill]

101. Then what's the point?

they NEED her testimony to corroborate her story and the statements he made.

So? Why is having a reporter testify that her story quotes what he said an infringement of freedom of the press or freedom of speech?

I mean, there is something odd about a reporter being asked, "Is what you wrote true?" and the reporter resisting that question.

[jasonleopold]

102. I believe her feeling

is that her testimony in this case, even saying "yes. I wrote that," will end up sending Watada to jail for an additional three years.

[jberryhill]

116. Telling the Truth

is not always easy. The truth has consequences.

I don't think we ever refer to liars as "brave".

[jasonleopold]

119. why don't you just admit

your biases.

[jberryhill]

152. My biases?

Umm... okay. I'm a lifelong registered democrat. I am a self-employed intellectual property attorney. I post to DU in my spare time, and nobody pays me for my opinions on this or any other public forum in which I participate as an individual. I never voted for Bush and have not supported his policies.

Does that make me biased?

I am aware that the publication in question raises hackles with people, but I never really followed what that was all about and don't care.

What biases do you want me to admit here?

The situation here seems pretty simple to me. Under the law applying to Watada, it would be illegal for him to say certain things. This situation arose from Watada's own entirely volitional decisions in life. He willingly accepted these restrictions on his speech. A reporter quoted him directly as saying certain things. Watada is on trial for, among other things, saying those things. The reporter is a witness to him having said it or not.

Now, Watada's defense is that he was subject to an unlawful order. That's a perfectly fine defense. It is up to a court to determine whether that defense is valid, because "unlawful" is not defined as the relevant individual's subjective judgment.

You either accept the legal system or you don't. But you can't have it both ways. You can't have someone relying on "illegality" of one thing as a defense to a charge of illegally doing something else, if you aren't going to play by the rules of the legal system on which you were initially relying.

This is not about a reporter's right to report things. It is not about a publisher's right to publish things. It is not about protection of confidential sources. It is about an individual being called to testify about things that individual witnessed and wrote about in an out-of-court document.

My sympathies here lie entirely with Mr. Watada.

Please tell me about my "biases"?

[jasonleopold]

163. Jberryhill

My apologies. My biases comment was not intended for you. Apologies

[jasonleopold]

83. also

it's unclear whether the Army will ask for MORE info, like notes, or videotapes or information that wasn't published. Given the ACLU lawsuit and the way this administration supresses information it's very likely that is what they will do.

[demobabe]

87. they've issued the first subpeona, right?

Sounds like she's just being asked for verbal testimony. We'll see if they ask for anything else - that would be another subpeona for documents. But any documentation she has wouldn't have existed if he did not go to speak to her, against his orders.

The fact that an article was published is proof enough. Any other documents aren't necessary. I'm guessing they didn't send a subpeona for documents because they already have the document - the published article - and they just need the person who wrote it there to verify that she did indeed write it.

It's all very simple, sadly. :(

Like I say, I don't like it either. I'm not just trying to be contrary.

[jasonleopold]

90. yes.

they issued the first subpoena and asked her to appear feb 5 through 9th. the dates of his court martial proceeding.

[happydreams]

153. Are you a GI lawyer? You and the waterboy

sound so much alike.

Do you work together?

[happydreams]

156. You love it, quit pretending.

:eyes:

[annabanana]

84. It's exhausting, isn't it.?

Truthout does a lot of very good work. There's a whole lotta baby in that bath water and well, all I can say to those who turn up their noses so ostentatiously. . your loss.

You are right lala.. This isn't the time or place to play "got you last". The Army is getting set to interfere in a very real way with what is the publics right to know and I am with you.

[G_j]

74. k & r

worth paying attention

[jberryhill]

98. It's Not About Protecting Sources Or The First Amendment

The reporters are being asked to authenticate a news report that quoted Watada.

First, someone enlisted in the armed forces does not have the right to speak about anything or anyone at any time. Every citizen has that right. It is a volunteer military, and certain forms of spoken insubordination are against the law. Don't like it? Don't join.

Second, Watada was not an anonymous source. The point here is that Watada is quoted as saying things which he is not allowed to say.

The only question to be asked of the reporter is whether what they wrote was what he said. That is NOT testifying against a source or revealing a confidential source.

Any reporter should be able to refer to a sourced quote in an article and say "Yes, that's what he said." If a reporter *can't* do that, then one wonders.

[jasonleopold]

100. true

but it still stinks that they are prosecuting the soldier, at least one of the charges is based on what he said.

As far as the reporter, it's her "testimony" and it is testimony, literally, because she will be under oath, so that constitutes testimony, that will send the soldier to jail. And it IS testifying against Watada because she is appearing on behalf of the prosecution

[jberryhill]

103. It Stinks, but so what?

As far as the reporter, it's her "testimony" and it is testimony, literally, because she will be under oath, so that constitutes testimony, that will send the soldier to jail.

Again, I have to ask "So?"

If I see my brother rob a bank, I can be subpoenaed to testify about seeing him rob a bank. Holy cow - they can get me to give testimony that will send my own brother to jail.

I mean, yes, that's how things go with witnesses. Investigative reporters have put a lot of their sources in jail. Of course that's what they've intended to do, but the general "rule" that reporters don't, won't, can't, or shouldn't testify against "sources" is nonsense. I mean, heckfire, we've got Stone Phillips on Dateline meeting and chatting with his sources when they drop by to meet underage persons for sex, and as they get arrested for it. Heckfire, reporters can be, and are, part of the process for arresting their own sources in certain circumstances, and we call it "good journalism".

So, please, don't sell me any nonsense about "reporters can't testify against sources".

I'd like to see more soldiers go to jail for this sort of thing. You know what? I like to see the entire force in Iraq go to jail - tomorrow - for speaking out against this president and this war.

Every single one of them.

Watada is demonstrating how the soldiers themselves can coordinate a withdrawal from Iraq.

[jasonleopold]

104. OK.

I'm just saying. We have different views.

[jberryhill]

105. That's fine

I understand your sentiment here, don't get me wrong about that, but legally this is the wrong battle.

[jasonleopold]

106. Thanks

lively debate, which is healthy, so thanks for that. Appreciate other viewpoints.

[trashcanistanista]

160. Brilliant

THIS is the most important post on this thread and a wonderful idea! Thank you jberryhill. :patriot:

[symbolman]

108. So what's in the next spin cycle?

"Truthout Reporter Sends Military Officer to JAIL. (Inadvertantly?)" ?

According to your convoluted statement here that's just as valid a headline as the other spin being hawked.

Just so you know, I was drafted in 1971, joined the US Air Force and during Technical Training (after they taught me to kill), I was trained as a Purchasing Agent, during that period I had to learn the Uniform Military Code of Justice, and between that and ALL the MILITARY LAW regarding Purchasing the books covered a wall. I graduated second in my class only because the guy I studied with was first, I figure I was a better study partner than he was :)

So I can tell you with certainty that once again, you don't know what you are talking about. The very fact that you posted that "Only Officers are prohibited from criticizing the President", and HAD TO BE TOLD by a Civilian, Demobabe, that HE IS AN OFFICER makes the entire article SUSPECT.

It's called a UNIFORM code of Military Justice because it covers Both ENLISTED and OFFICERS.

My opinion is that once again you are pushing spin, and don't have a complete grasp of what you are saying, and when others transmit that ignorance then THEY SUFFER for what YOU do not know, or have not investigated.

And if you think that someone pointing out your errors is ATTACKING you, then you might want to get into another line of work.

Maybe think about printing RETRACTIONS when you are wrong, people RESPECT that, maybe Truthout would get some of it's traffic back, as anyone who looks at the ALEXIS graphs can plainly see that the Rove fiasco you created and nurtured, basically KILLED a decent website's traffic, and that is a shame.

Doesn't matter who subpoena's her, whether she is a HOSTILE WITNESS or not, BOTH Sides get a shot at either CLEARING the man's name with HER testimony, or using it against him, with a judge as the final arbitor.

[jasonleopold]

110. not going to entertain anything you say. Just going to ignore you

[QuestionAll...]

112. what is your response to this absolutely pertinent observation, JL?

symbolman:
""The very fact that you posted that "Only Officers are prohibited from criticizing the President", and HAD TO BE TOLD by a Civilian, Demobabe, that HE IS AN OFFICER makes the entire article SUSPECT.""

that one made my eyebrows lift a bit as well so I am glad symbolman brought it out in the open.

and what is your response? you call him an angry man which you will ignore.

phffffttt! what b.s.

[jasonleopold]

113. so bitter! do push-ups. use your energy for other things

what is my response to what?

Did you even read the story I wrote?

Did either of you?

My story says Watada is a Lt., an officer.

wake up.

[QuestionAll...]

114. your post #86.

jasonleopold (47 posts) Fri Dec-15-06 07:01 PM

Response to Reply #85

86. 
again, absolutely untrue statement.
OFFICERS are prohibited from criticizing the president.

OFFICERS, not soldiers. See the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

===
want more slap'em?

[jasonleopold]

118. whatever makes you happy

[QuestionAll...]

122. now how did that response serve you in any way?

no, it doesn't make me 'happy'. I am fuggin' saddened, actually - you are the supposed wordsmith by trade and I can make better sentences and sense than you.

[jasonleopold]

123. well

i guess you win. you're better than me. Congratulations.

I have engaged in civil dialogue here and what you want to engage in is discourse and attacks. Well go for it. If you have a legitimate question than ask. If what you want to do is stand on a soap box and spew your subtle bits of venom you will be talking to yourself.

[QuestionAll...]

124. talking to oneself isn't so bad...

try it.

but anyways. I'm about done with this back and forth and want to tell you that there is nothing personal against you - just how you do your professional thing. Infact, I like people I disagree with more than ones that agree with me all the time (what's to learn?!) and would love to have a coffee or jack daniels with you and laugh at each other, honestly.

[jasonleopold]

125. I'll take you up on the coffee. Gave up the Jack.

[jasonleopold]

126. thanks

nothing personal against you either.

[jasonleopold]

127. coffee is on me!

[QuestionAll...]

128. it will have to be cyber then, cuz no way

I'm updating my passport to meet you personally in GorgeLand on my tight budget.
:rofl:

anyway, peace and out.

[jasonleopold]

129. to you as well. Cheers

[symbolman]

159. Because you cannot

dispute facts, nor can you supply them.

That is in essence why many do not trust you.

[jasonleopold]

166. symbolman

you speak for yourself, you don't speak for everyone. You don't trust me. Well then I hope I can earn your trust one day. But don't brand yourself the spokesman for every individual. You're not.

Also, you might as well tell everyone here that you have had a beef with truthout long before I arrived on the scene

[Kelly Rupert]

169. He never said he was the spokesman for every individual

He said "many" do not trust you. That is demonstrably true, sir.

[jasonleopold]

173. great

many don't trust a lot of journalists. That's fine. Comes with the territory

[demobabe]

171. Symbolman/Take Back The Media never had a problem with Truthout

TBTM actively promoted one of TO's writers, Will Pitt, and even put him in a film. Symbolman became critical of TO when the Rove Target Letter story you wrote was clearly impossible, and then Will Pitt began screaming "Vendetta! Vendetta!" here on the DU (which was kind of WTF? at the time).

Both Symbolman and I tried to encourage Will Pitt to be careful hitching his wagon to you because of your prior history and the problems with your Rove target letter story, and it was clear to see where all this was heading (and it did).

What really amazes me is the amount of collateral damage you've done to the liberal press you claim to be part of. Armando is no more, the DU has regular flame wars over you, and you've even gone to the extent of threatening to out other folks, AND have come after both me and Symbolman.

How and why is it you think Symbolman should give you his trust? I'm all for live and let live and really wish you no ill will, but in order for there to be trust, there has to be a basis for it. You can't say you want to earn Symbolman's trust and then stab with a statement like "tell everyone here that you have had a beef with truthout long before I arrived on the scene."

You have a good thing going with your books. You're a good writer. I purposefully didn't mention any of the other crap in my responses on this thread and tried to keep on topic and just called your CURRENT story as I saw it (and I wasn't critical of you, but of the idea presented that this was a freedom of press issue). I believe in redemption, but once again, there has to be a basis for it, and I have yet to see that.

[jasonleopold]

174. Pitt and everyone else

are grown ups and they are perfectly capable of making decisions on their own. I am not responsible for his statements. he is a smart individual and knows what he is doing and I have no influence or control over him or anyone else. You should know that things are much more complex than they appear to be. But like I said, it appears there is nothing I can do at this point to change your opinion and that is something I have to accept and respect.

I am truly sorry that you're both unhappy with the way things turned out. I am too. Hopefully, the truth will come out at Libby's trial.

[jasonleopold]

111. such an angry man. so, so sad.

[Kelly Rupert]

168. Your constant attempts to find sorrow in others

is most telling.

[jasonleopold]

175. Oh yeah?

what's that?

[Kelly Rupert]

182. You'd know better than us,

and that's rather sad.

[jasonleopold]

180. Listen folks

I'm here to stay. I am obviously going to continue reporting, like it or not. Can't we just try and get along and learn to live with each other? Let's not make this personal. I don't know any of you. So please let's just try and get along and come to some sort of truce. I am waving the white flag

[dailykoff]

185. That's the spirit Jason!

Keep on doing exactly what you're doing and don't let the RW trolls get you down, and there are a lot of them. Anybody who couldn't see immediately that TO got hit with a classic Rovian dirtball has been watching too damn much TV.

[jasonleopold]

188. Now that's the nicest thing I have read all day!

I owe you one. Thank you.

[dogday]

198. Bingo and DIng Ding Ding

I have reading this thread for three days and finally a post which makes sense... Thanks for the truthful and logical reasoning of the situation.....:hi:

[happydreams]

154. CALLING H20 MAN!! How about weighing in on the legal

issues here.

Much thanks

[DisgustedTX]

184. 5/12/2007 - you will all SEE!

:rofl: