so a journalist can report anything they want, with no proof, they can just say they are protecting thier sources, no wonder the news media is so unreliable
\she said 'you know' 23 times, obviously highly educated
Answer yes but what are the checks and balances to gossip reporting is a better question. Answer: responsible fact centered reporting would be my answer. My question to you is - how do we get people to go on the record to share vital information that may land them in jail because their speech is politically unpopular?
you can't go to jail for politically unpopular opinions, you can only go to jail for crimes, like if this reporter is lying and slandering someone and it is proven, she goes to jail
@johnmonk66 - slander is for the civil courts, awarding "damages" for loss of reputation, income, etc. It is not a crime to slander someone, you cannot do jail time. Criminal law is different from civil law. Read the law, understand it, then pop off.
@UBER069 slander is spoken, many cases in law have proven broadcasters who are guilty of slander are actually guilty of libel, libel is a crime, so you go pop yourself off for thinking you know something about law we who work in the courts don't know. Why do you think Oprah got sued for what she said, because broadcasting is the same as print in the eyes of the law
@johnmonk66 slander is spoken defamation, libel is printed defamation. It is not a crime, you're deluded. Speaking on a TV show is effectively print, therefore it is classified as libel. Oprah got sued, meaning a civil case, she did no jail time. i.e a criminal case, nor was she ever charged with criminal libel because it does not exist. I spent 20 years in a law enforcement role, I think I know a few things about the difference between civil law and criminal law.
@johnmonk66 - I am Canadian fucktard. You and your President can go fuck yourselves. Wait? whats that I dont hear? Secret Service dippity do's not coming up the stairs to get me? FUCK YOU OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST SOCIALIST PIECE OF SHIT AND SO ARE YOU BECAUSE YOU VOTED FOR HIM FUCK OFF AND DIE NOW thank you.
The 4th branch media blackout on Dennis Kucinich reading articles of impeachment this week continues. Seems to me that is collusion to suppress information and is a crime.
Back in the 1970's the big RIGHT WING boogie man was 'Creeping Socialism' the phrase was a pervasive undertone in the United States, 'the Red Scare', 'the Domino Effect' are terms that gave rise to the whole Creeping Socialism context, but since the Crashing of Berlin Wall, and the break up of the Soviet Union there was no longer an impetus to chase that boogie man.
The new Right Wing boogie man is NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY, especially the War authority. . .
She's trying to avoid forcing all these people to clam up because she reported something.
Does she have to do it, yes she does or she will go to jail. As will the person who did the interview. Right or Wrong according the the law, Right or Wrong morally she is bringing up a very big and important point.
Yes, she has a right withour going to jail it is the right not to participate in the process of self-incrimination. . The 5th Amendment to the Constitution, that is NOT EVEN a LAW, it is a fundemental right under the Constitution!
Interesting how we have no freedom of the press, and we have both sides represented in our press, yet all those other countries who are free to agree with the anti-Bush sentiment, aren't allowed to dissent.
Please, grow up and learn how to spell. Along the way, you might realize that the LT broke the rules, this chick has to follow the rules, and there's nothing anti-freedom about following the rules.
Liberal drivel. Its called a subpoena in a court martial. Same as in a domestic civil or criminal court. Period. Liberals lost in the sauce---if you are served, you are served, period. She has the same 5th ammendment right as anybody else.
I am an old hand at drivng military chumps crrraaazzzy. Their is so much fair game to find humorous. I loved it in the Corps. I always looked forward to their interrogations. I would be sooo excited to get the opportunity to turn one of their "courts" into a carnival. That's about all it is anyway. All that brass, and ribbon crap. Their chumpy pooses. Not all, but many of them think they are gods. LOLLLLL! I wonder why they even go to church.
your fucking goverment is just so fucked up.. you people must be really stupid electing those assfucks... naaah i shouldn blame you. you dont have a choise, do you when the president campaigns mainly is sponsored by private corperations
part 2: I really think she's just protesting this to try to use it to raise her own importance, which really isn't true. After the "yellow journalism" of the 1890s, all journalists should be prepared to swear they are only reporting the truth. And that really is all she is being asked to do.
Part 1: Well, if all she's being asked to do is say that what she has reported is the truth, what is the problem? The army has her article, all they are asking for is protection from Watada's lawyer stating that he was misquoted or something. She wasn't asked to name confidential witnesses or anything, and what she has reported is already public record.
T'is like this. Shan't talk of the trooth. T'is lewked at as an attacqk on the good King yaw knoww. So they invite goood people like her into their parlours. Their tribunals, and that theyy perfected the arrt of twisting simple testimonial trooths. Awr' dey are the reeeall sheeit of the daevil, awnd too tink' dey sit in the pewws of the piouaws. Feckin' dawgs moost of dem. Sabres and stripes. Pewk well on it alll.
There is no such thing as "testifying against" someone. When you testify, you are charged with answering questions truthfully. If this witness is professionally unbiased (definition of a journalist), telling the truth should be no problem. That she anticipates a problem reveals her bias and her lies.
"journalists" should stand behind their reports under oath. i have no problem with requiring someone who claims to have spoken to the accused to testify. this could be a great precedent to catch reportes who just repeat propaganda. my only objection is that military tribunals are not fair trials and do not dispense acceptable justice, nor always leave public transcripts.
IF a civilian trial, the reporter need not do more than verify what they said (i.e. take the 5th on anything else, including identifying source if they were not named in the report). They have a chance to fill in details and correct errors that invariably occur during editing - anyone who has ever been interviewed (the sources) knows this happens and should agree with this limited testimony. No one should be immune from subpoena - the problem is really that certain government officers are.
1. You're very optimistic re the uses that this gov't [usually victorious in Ct. (as you yourself note in another context)] -- uses that this gov't will find for the chilling, daunting, hideous ordeal that appearance in Ct has become...
2. Are you under the misapprehension that pleading 5th Amendment is a simple matter?
Or do you recognize that if you answer ONE question wrongly, you've blown the right?
no i have not read the law. ah... i meant the freedom of press clause or amendment, whichever that is. you are identifying a number of more fundamental problems in your legal system that must be fixed before "rule of law" can be said to apply anymore in your country. until then, i agree with advocating noncooperation with all government activity that puts anyone at risk.
also call for UN troops to come and disarm your rogue government (j/k ... for now).
If you published a story and cant stand behinde the story being accurate maybe you should quit wrighting the bull shit, sounds like you can't stand behinde your story.
IF YOUR SCARED SAY YOUR SCARED
News Jurnalest would rather print a story about the hate of the US and the war then print a story about any good thing coming from the troops in Iraq.
In all fairness though, she is a journalist. Her expertise lies in writing, editing and then re-writing. Speaking live in front of a camera without the benefit of re-takes and editing before broadcast, you're bound to end up with a few uh's and uhm's.
If her interview is publicly available - which is more than enough for their case - then the true reason for the subpoena must be to delibrately damage the free press, as "scare tactics" to scare off journalists from conducting interviews and scare off their sources from being willing to talk.
It is a blatant attempt to try to scare silence into the media coverage of those who have views opposite to the government. It's both shameful and highly dangerous conduct undermining democracy itself.
KlaxonCow: yes thank you very scary, some of the comments to this video, showing no conception of just how HANDS OFF the government MUST BE if there's to be a free press. Some of what it takes: *ppl can't be afraid to speak w/ journalists; *the press can't be forced to cooperate w/ the gov't; *publishers can't be coerced; *the populace must WANT & protect their free press. Many commenters here show just WHY America's press ranks low amongst world, in freedom.
the (civilian) courts are not the same as the government - testifying does not make you a tool of one side because testimony can be used by both. as for free press, look to the money for the biggest problem facing them...
In 1945,a young girl named katu lata kulu came over to America in a grey boat from Africa. A mysterious man killed her by cutting the word "LATUALATUKA" into her back. now that you have read this measge she will come to your house on a full moon and steal your soul unless you follow these directions:
1. Retype this message as a comment for three other videos
so a journalist can report anything they want, with no proof, they can just say they are protecting thier sources, no wonder the news media is so unreliable
\she said 'you know' 23 times, obviously highly educated
johnmonk66 2 years ago
Answer yes but what are the checks and balances to gossip reporting is a better question. Answer: responsible fact centered reporting would be my answer. My question to you is - how do we get people to go on the record to share vital information that may land them in jail because their speech is politically unpopular?
newproducer 2 years ago
@newproducer
you can't go to jail for politically unpopular opinions, you can only go to jail for crimes, like if this reporter is lying and slandering someone and it is proven, she goes to jail
johnmonk66 2 years ago
Slander is not criminal.
newproducer 2 years ago
@johnmonk66 - slander is for the civil courts, awarding "damages" for loss of reputation, income, etc. It is not a crime to slander someone, you cannot do jail time. Criminal law is different from civil law. Read the law, understand it, then pop off.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 slander is spoken, many cases in law have proven broadcasters who are guilty of slander are actually guilty of libel, libel is a crime, so you go pop yourself off for thinking you know something about law we who work in the courts don't know. Why do you think Oprah got sued for what she said, because broadcasting is the same as print in the eyes of the law
johnmonk66 1 year ago
@johnmonk66 slander is spoken defamation, libel is printed defamation. It is not a crime, you're deluded. Speaking on a TV show is effectively print, therefore it is classified as libel. Oprah got sued, meaning a civil case, she did no jail time. i.e a criminal case, nor was she ever charged with criminal libel because it does not exist. I spent 20 years in a law enforcement role, I think I know a few things about the difference between civil law and criminal law.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 no such thing as criminal libel, make a youtube page and call Obama a communist and see what happens to you
johnmonk66 1 year ago
@johnmonk66 - I am Canadian fucktard. You and your President can go fuck yourselves. Wait? whats that I dont hear? Secret Service dippity do's not coming up the stairs to get me? FUCK YOU OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST SOCIALIST PIECE OF SHIT AND SO ARE YOU BECAUSE YOU VOTED FOR HIM FUCK OFF AND DIE NOW thank you.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 thank you for proving you are a dick who knows nothing about our laws, you live in a communist country
johnmonk66 1 year ago
i was naked while I watched this video! g
annegouw 3 years ago
The 4th branch media blackout on Dennis Kucinich reading articles of impeachment this week continues. Seems to me that is collusion to suppress information and is a crime.
Slavesrevolt 3 years ago
The army should do their own investigation and not involve a report due to reporter/client confidence.
criminaljustice1977 4 years ago
Back in the 1970's the big RIGHT WING boogie man was 'Creeping Socialism' the phrase was a pervasive undertone in the United States, 'the Red Scare', 'the Domino Effect' are terms that gave rise to the whole Creeping Socialism context, but since the Crashing of Berlin Wall, and the break up of the Soviet Union there was no longer an impetus to chase that boogie man.
The new Right Wing boogie man is NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY, especially the War authority. . .
bootspur 3 years ago
The world is a stage - and the first rule of Show Biz: Leave them wanting more. It sounds like the only strategy. Leave them wanting more.
yogione 4 years ago
She's trying to avoid forcing all these people to clam up because she reported something.
Does she have to do it, yes she does or she will go to jail. As will the person who did the interview. Right or Wrong according the the law, Right or Wrong morally she is bringing up a very big and important point.
bloodlinedestroyed 4 years ago 2
Yes, she has a right withour going to jail it is the right not to participate in the process of self-incrimination. . The 5th Amendment to the Constitution, that is NOT EVEN a LAW, it is a fundemental right under the Constitution!
bootspur 3 years ago
Interesting how we have no freedom of the press, and we have both sides represented in our press, yet all those other countries who are free to agree with the anti-Bush sentiment, aren't allowed to dissent.
Please, grow up and learn how to spell. Along the way, you might realize that the LT broke the rules, this chick has to follow the rules, and there's nothing anti-freedom about following the rules.
cecilbdml 4 years ago
look at youtube my military videos and something ...
write on search 1991enes1991 and you see my videos ...
=)
1991enes1991 4 years ago
Liberal drivel. Its called a subpoena in a court martial. Same as in a domestic civil or criminal court. Period. Liberals lost in the sauce---if you are served, you are served, period. She has the same 5th ammendment right as anybody else.
asknotaxe 4 years ago
"Bringing Families Home Together"
Remerica 4 years ago
I am an old hand at drivng military chumps crrraaazzzy. Their is so much fair game to find humorous. I loved it in the Corps. I always looked forward to their interrogations. I would be sooo excited to get the opportunity to turn one of their "courts" into a carnival. That's about all it is anyway. All that brass, and ribbon crap. Their chumpy pooses. Not all, but many of them think they are gods. LOLLLLL! I wonder why they even go to church.
distressed7 4 years ago
haha
rat509 4 years ago
your fucking goverment is just so fucked up.. you people must be really stupid electing those assfucks... naaah i shouldn blame you. you dont have a choise, do you when the president campaigns mainly is sponsored by private corperations
ahlblom 5 years ago
part 2: I really think she's just protesting this to try to use it to raise her own importance, which really isn't true. After the "yellow journalism" of the 1890s, all journalists should be prepared to swear they are only reporting the truth. And that really is all she is being asked to do.
psoraine 5 years ago
Part 1: Well, if all she's being asked to do is say that what she has reported is the truth, what is the problem? The army has her article, all they are asking for is protection from Watada's lawyer stating that he was misquoted or something. She wasn't asked to name confidential witnesses or anything, and what she has reported is already public record.
psoraine 5 years ago
T'is like this. Shan't talk of the trooth. T'is lewked at as an attacqk on the good King yaw knoww. So they invite goood people like her into their parlours. Their tribunals, and that theyy perfected the arrt of twisting simple testimonial trooths. Awr' dey are the reeeall sheeit of the daevil, awnd too tink' dey sit in the pewws of the piouaws. Feckin' dawgs moost of dem. Sabres and stripes. Pewk well on it alll.
distressed7 4 years ago 2
bullcrap, Testatoasta.
I've got two words in response to that. Google them
when you get a chance.
Josh Wolf.
Keep attacking the first and fourth ammendment you
nazi puke!
This nation is in grave danger and it's not because of
people like Olsen....
lonelygirlI5 5 years ago
There is no such thing as "testifying against" someone. When you testify, you are charged with answering questions truthfully. If this witness is professionally unbiased (definition of a journalist), telling the truth should be no problem. That she anticipates a problem reveals her bias and her lies.
Testasterosa 5 years ago
are you a foreigner? the "problem" you say she anticipates is not about her, its about precedence. duh.
saleens 4 years ago 2
This is a WORLD HISTORICAL event, WAKE UP AMERICA.
Ryguy1450 5 years ago
"journalists" should stand behind their reports under oath. i have no problem with requiring someone who claims to have spoken to the accused to testify. this could be a great precedent to catch reportes who just repeat propaganda. my only objection is that military tribunals are not fair trials and do not dispense acceptable justice, nor always leave public transcripts.
tr0llio 5 years ago
trOillio:
I see that you've thought about this.
I hope you'll think again.
Re yr pt about military trials: even absent other TERRIBLY IMPORTANT considerations, the unfairness of military cts is dispositive.
As to reprtrs being made to testify, pls listen again to Olson; see Bartman, buddamind & me, above.
Thanks for posting!
barb99999 5 years ago
IF a civilian trial, the reporter need not do more than verify what they said (i.e. take the 5th on anything else, including identifying source if they were not named in the report). They have a chance to fill in details and correct errors that invariably occur during editing - anyone who has ever been interviewed (the sources) knows this happens and should agree with this limited testimony. No one should be immune from subpoena - the problem is really that certain government officers are.
tr0llio 5 years ago
trOllio:
1. You're very optimistic re the uses that this gov't [usually victorious in Ct. (as you yourself note in another context)] -- uses that this gov't will find for the chilling, daunting, hideous ordeal that appearance in Ct has become...
2. Are you under the misapprehension that pleading 5th Amendment is a simple matter?
Or do you recognize that if you answer ONE question wrongly, you've blown the right?
&
are then subject to contempt citations?
*HAVE YOU READ THE LAW?
barb99999 5 years ago
no i have not read the law. ah... i meant the freedom of press clause or amendment, whichever that is. you are identifying a number of more fundamental problems in your legal system that must be fixed before "rule of law" can be said to apply anymore in your country. until then, i agree with advocating noncooperation with all government activity that puts anyone at risk.
also call for UN troops to come and disarm your rogue government (j/k ... for now).
tr0llio 5 years ago
If you published a story and cant stand behinde the story being accurate maybe you should quit wrighting the bull shit, sounds like you can't stand behinde your story.
IF YOUR SCARED SAY YOUR SCARED
News Jurnalest would rather print a story about the hate of the US and the war then print a story about any good thing coming from the troops in Iraq.
Bartman67 5 years ago
Another successfully washed brain.
buddhamind 5 years ago
Bartman67:
She stands behind her story.
You don't LIKE journalists who report on dissent.
So it's OK with you for them to be chilled by being made tools of the gov't they're reporting on.
So their sources will dry up.
So ppl won't hear that things are not rosy.
JUST SAY SO!
O, & YOU can go out & report any good thing you like about Iraq. Why isn't THAT enough for you?
barb99999 5 years ago
Uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh
blind51de 5 years ago
I see your point.
In all fairness though, she is a journalist. Her expertise lies in writing, editing and then re-writing. Speaking live in front of a camera without the benefit of re-takes and editing before broadcast, you're bound to end up with a few uh's and uhm's.
buddhamind 5 years ago
blind51de:
Did you hear anything ELSEE that she said?
barb99999 5 years ago
I don't think so.
blind51de 5 years ago
If her interview is publicly available - which is more than enough for their case - then the true reason for the subpoena must be to delibrately damage the free press, as "scare tactics" to scare off journalists from conducting interviews and scare off their sources from being willing to talk.
It is a blatant attempt to try to scare silence into the media coverage of those who have views opposite to the government. It's both shameful and highly dangerous conduct undermining democracy itself.
KlaxonCow 5 years ago
And for those who openly criticize the government from within the government itself:
"Fall in line or go to jail!"
freesouljah 5 years ago
barb99999 5 years ago
the (civilian) courts are not the same as the government - testifying does not make you a tool of one side because testimony can be used by both. as for free press, look to the money for the biggest problem facing them...
tr0llio 5 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
please don't read this!
In 1945,a young girl named katu lata kulu came over to America in a grey boat from Africa. A mysterious man killed her by cutting the word "LATUALATUKA" into her back. now that you have read this measge she will come to your house on a full moon and steal your soul unless you follow these directions:
1. Retype this message as a comment for three other videos
aawawa 5 years ago
is she single ? i want to date her once the hearing is over !
kascnef82 5 years ago
journalists actually doing there jobs getting punished - bullshit
nickprogresss 5 years ago
this is important
SteveA 5 years ago
I'm appalled that the military (and the us gov't of course) would attempt to go down this path. I am not
surprised. I think the words outrage and anger come to mind too.
lonelygirlI5 5 years ago
What did the officer say anyway?
DomingoHMaCoolstein 5 years ago