Confusing the Agenda

The Army has subpoenaed two journalists in connection with their writings about an officer facing courts martial who publicly denounced the war in Iraq and further, refused deployment with his unit. As Instapundit noted, they aren't happy about it:

The Army's subpoenas, which the journalists said they received last week, put them in the uncomfortable position of being ordered to help the Army build its case against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who faces up to six years in prison if convicted.

"It's not a reporter's job to participate in the prosecution of her own sources,'' said Sarah Olson, an Oakland freelance journalist and radio producer. "When you force a journalist to participate, you run the risk of turning the journalist into an investigative tool of the state.''

But Olson, who received her subpoena Thursday, acknowledged she has no legal grounds to refuse to testify, since she is being asked only to confirm the accuracy of what she wrote about Watada and not to disclose confidential sources or unpublished material.

Normally, she said, "no one, myself included, has any problem verifying the veracity of their reporting.'' The ethical problem in this case, she said, is that she would be aiding the prosecution of one of the dissidents and war critics who regularly trust her to tell their stories to the public.

What it seems that Olson doesn't recognize, is that she has other responsibilities here. Under the UCMJ, Watada has committed a crime. If Ms. Olson published details of a crime in Oakland, would it be unreasonable to think her cooperation would be sought by civil authorities?

There are more important things in this world than confidentiality. Glenn's summarizes it well:

That's not ethics. That's politics. But many "journalists" seem to confuse the two.