Ehren Watada right-wing at your door
wonder how you manage to stand once more.
Who finds the time for coverage?
Did you know so many would run?
Thursday sneaks in without a word
Friday morn arrives with little news
Hacks stand beneath their street lights
For many your bravery is unheard.
See how they'll run.
Ehren Watada standing up strong
wonder if the silent ever feel wrong?
See how they'll run.
Ehren Watada staking your ground
even when no one is around.
Will you become the future Woodstock,
Milli'ns claiming they were there?
What's it take to wake the nation?
See how they'll run.
Ehren Watada right-wing at your door
Wonder how you manage to stand once more
From our prophets Jess and C.I. Along with Kat, they're fond of creating new lyrics to already existing songs. We first shared the above lyrics (reworking of the Beatles "Lady Madonna") on
July 9, 2006. They're only more appropriate today, one day before Ehren Watada's court-martial begins.
On June 5th, Ehren Watada made public his refusal to deploy to Iraq because it's an illegal and immoral war. Prior to that, he had attempted to handle the manner privately. For months and months. (January 1st was when he told his mother Carolyn Ho of his decision.) The military didn't want to address the issue.
Now he faces a court-martial tomorrow. In August, he had an Article 32 hearing at which Ann Wright, Denis Halliday and Frances Boyle were witnesses for the defense. Tomorrow?
The "judge" has refused to allow Ehren Watada to argue his defense. The "judge" by the way is John Head. We think it's fitting that his first and last name are both slang for toilets. We think the "judge" has taken justice into the crapper and flushed it down.
The "judge" has refused to allow Ehren Watada to argue his defense. The "judge" by the way is John Head. We think it's fitting that his first and last name are both slang for toilets. We think the "judge" has taken justice into the crapper and flushed it down.
Where's the list of publications that have covered Watada?
Years from now, when the period is examined, some lefties will be saying, for instance, "Well The Nation was all over that story." It's reasonable for them to conclude that, based upon what the magazine is supposed to represent.
But the reality is that Watada wasn't good enough for their print magazine. Three online exclusives mentioned him (two were about him) in 2006. It wasn't until January 2007, six months after he went public, that they finally got around to mentioning him in print. The first mention he gets in the print magazine is when he's called a coward. Turn the page and you come across a sidebar on him.
Ehren Watada: My Life As A Sidebar. He could call his autobiography that and no one could dispute that a sidebar is exactly how he was treated by much of independent media. Where was established independent media in all of this? Where were the editorials in support of him, where were the calls that he be allowed to present a defense? Now that is a free speech issue, whether or not you're gagged in a court (military or civilian).
But there weren't many who were even interested in that. Not last week, but the week prior, The Nation offered two more "online exclusives" that mentioned Watada. They weren't about him. They were about "free speech." Supposedly.
John Nichols and The Pooper rushed to defend a 'journalist' who was being asked to affirm in court that her reporting was accurate. She wasn't being asked to reveal anything not in her reports. Just: "Is your report an accurate account?"
Well the heavens spoke and called a name: "Sarah Olson." Suddenly it was the cause celebre. We know The Pooper weighed in, we know John Nichols weighed in, we know Phil Donahue weighed in, it was a 'creative trust' all coming to aid one of their own.
It was also incredibly laughable. As community member Keesha pointed out, John Stauber weighed in with: "The court martial of Ehren Watada begins near Tacoma, Washington on February 5, and we have just days to use our power of persuasion to back the military court away from its dangerous imposition of subpoenas to journalists, trying to make them part of the prosecution." Only days until Watada's court martial and "we have just days to use our power" to . . . stop the persecution of . . . Sarah Olson.
Matthew Rothschild, who has not written of Watada, quoted the laughable John Stauber (he really should pursue stand up): "Olson's victory is 'a testament to what one determined and courageous reporter can accomplish in the face of government intimidation,' said John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy."
That John Stauber, funny guy. "What one determined and courageous reporter can accomplish" with Norman Solomon calling in favors would still be untrue but it would be closer to the truth.
Sarah Olson was pathetic. From the start of being asked to testify, she was flat out pathetic.
She couldn't talk about what she planned to do (except in some cases where maybe she was) and fell back on "legal strategy." "I can't discuss my legal strategy" are words that should never be spoken by anyone claiming to be a journalist on whether or not they will testify.
Sarah Olson, and her Dream Team of Lefty Pundits, wanted attention and got it. It's branded her as "junk news" and one of the many missing blondes Matt Lauer might cover. It hasn't made her a journalistic name. There's a reason for that.
If a journalist feels that testifying is breaking some journalistic code, they don't testify. If they want support for their position, they state their position. Sarah Olson didn't want to discuss what she would do (her "legal strategy") -- except when she did want to -- but she wanted the whole world to come to the defense of her hypothetical.
It was not the court-martial of Sarah Olson. It was and is the court-martial of Ehren Watada. Had Olson not testified, she would have faced the maximum sentence of six months in jail and/or a $500 fine. We're sure that if her dream team had tossed around money the way they did words, they could have paid the fine several times over.
But if you want people to come to your defense for a stand you've taken, you have to take a stand. That would require stating, "I will not testify." Instead of being plain spoken, Olson wanted to offer that she was being placed in a terrible position and please defend her for the position she's being placed in even though she's not going to tell you what she will do.
Now let's say you're The San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board. Let's say you've been lobbied to "defend" Sarah Olson. Might your first question be: "Is she going to refuse to testify?" And, if you were told that the answer to that was "legal strategy," might you consider taking a pass on the whole thing?
At least four papers did for just that reason. Would you want to write a fiery defense of how wrong this was, of how no journalist should be asked to do this, if there was a good chance that when asked, Olson would testify?
"They're insane," laughed one who was lobbied hard and repeatedly.
To many in the mainstream, the whole thing was a joke: Olson's refusal to say what she would do and this idea that saying, "Yes, my reporting is accurate" under oath was something a journalist would never do.
The jokes just continued to pile on after last Monday. Olson doesn't have to testify, no journalist has to. Funny man John Stauber can rewrite history however he wants (though he may be concerned about future book buyers judgement of his critical abilities as a result of the revisionist tactics) but the reality was the laughable petition didn't intimidate the military. Phil Donahue rushing out a piece (where he seemed to confuse Watada with other war resisters who had self-checked out) didn't provide anything but chuckles.
What stopped the reporters from having to testify was Watada. It was not a testament to what "one" journalist could do or to what one "journalist" backed by just about everyone in independent media could do. It was Watada, having to put aside what he was facing, roll up his sleeves and come to aid of journalists.
John Stauber hasn't seen fit to write about Watada. John Nichols hasn't seen fit. (In fact, in a recent "online exclusive" at The Nation, Nichols went out of his way to avoid mentioning Bob Watada's speech in DC.) Storming Norman Solomon hasn't covered Watada. The Pooper wrote the sidebar as well as the article which was about a petition but The Pooper felt a quote calling Watada a coward was a must-include detail.
Sarah Olson was never the main story. Or, as she might say, "I was never the, you know, main story, like, me, I wasn't." The main story was and remains that Watada refused to deploy to Iraq. The main story was his reasons for that.
While it's shocking that "Judge" Toilet won't allow Watada to present his defense, many in independent media have also done the same. Which is rather amazing when you grasp what led Watada to his decision.
He was told he would be going to Iraq. He was told that it was his duty to study up on the war so he would know what was in store and so he would able to answer the questions of those serving under him. So he rolled up his sleeves and went to work.
He found out that the war was built on lies. He found out that the intelligence wasn't "wrong," it was fixed. Now who provided that, who created the space for those truths? Independent media. Independent media created it.
Independent media helped birth Watada's stand. But like a nation of dead-beat dads, they refused to take responsibility for it. They went out of their way to avoid paying child support, they went out of their way to avoid weekend visitation. He is the child they disowned.
What does that tell you about independent media because the message we're reading isn't a pretty one. What it tells us is that you can jaw bone about war in the abstract but when it comes to the people putting your jaw boning into action, you play dumb.
In his brilliant War Made Easy (that's not sarcasm, we praised the book in real time and we still praise it today), Norman Solomon traced how big media sold war to the people. If he's interested in a sequel, we'd suggest he title it Resistance Made Hard and examine how much of independent media refused to cover Ehren Watada.
Last week, Ava exploded in an e-mail reply to an asshole in independent media who patronizingly offered a pat on the head for our efforts at while condescendingly listing the areas that concerned him. It bears noting that he doesn't write about the things on his long laundry lists of concerns. It bears noting that he has no interest in the war, let alone war resisters. It bears noting that he thinks people are powerless and that only elected officials can bring about change. It bears noting that he was, of course, a "he."
He's not interested in Ehren Watada and he's hardly the only one to share that opinion in an e-mail. C.I.'s policy applies to The Common Ills. And that applies to e-mails to C.I. about C.I.'s writing. It sure would be interesting if we were to gather all those e-mails together (people whining to C.I. about what was said about them at another community website) and publish them in a small book. Maybe we could call it Who Will Tell The People? (That wasn't a clue, William Greider wasn't one of the ones e-mailing.) Maybe reading e-mail after e-mail from indy voices about how Ehren Watada doesn't matter would wake up a lot of people to the sorry state of independent media today?
But the thing is, people are waking up. Subscriptions are in decline, donations aren't what they used to be. The reason for that is you can only take so much bullshit before the odor overwhelmes. The stink rising off the refusal to cover Ehren Watada could choke a small country.
You know the ones who've stood and you know the ones who've been silent. Unlike a number of people in independent media, we don't think you're stupid. We don't think we can subvert or twist reality to motivate you to VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! We don't think we can take a peace rally and turn it into a tale of the powers of Congress.
But that's apparently the only card some in independent media have to play. [Note: The print version of this article contained a lengthy portion that we'll be sharing in the gina & krista round-robin this Friday. Community members will understand why. We're building on the points Pru made in her column about the juvenile nature of the media in this country.]
For four years they've railed against the illegal war -- sometimes in a toothless manner, sometimes in a hard hitting manner -- but they refuse to support Ehren Watada. The Nation offered no editorial or column in support of him. Ditto The Progressive. Independent media has failed him and they've failed the peace movement. There are exceptions and we've noted them before. But when you grasp how the 'biggies' have avoided giving any support to Watada (contrast what little has been done for him with all that was done for Olson), you start to get how lonely his stand really is.
He's standing up. He's still standing up. He has the support of a lot of people, he has the support of his family. Mainstream media has shown more interest in his case than the "biggies" of independent media.
Sarah Olson was never the A-story. She refused to take a public stand (except when she did -- she was a John Kerry howler come to life). But note all the jaw boning that took place over her and look in vain for similar commentaries coming to Watada's defense. You won't find it. The B-story overtook the A-story. Though Project Censored may refrain from including the Olson angle in their "junk news" section of the next edition, that's all it was: Blonde in distress, somebody's put on the flashers.
Watada's stand matters and the fact that he didn't get support was noted. It was very noted in Canada by two war resisters. It has an impact, it has a long term impact.
Showing your support for Ehren Watada Monday has an impact as well. The same way that your support has mattered all along, whether it was noticed by independent media 'biggies' or not. Don't make yourself useless and don't allow yourself to be made useless.
[Watada photo by Jeff Paterson of Not In Our Name and available for public use at this page of the ThankYouLt. site.]
