Getting close to a story often means that you have privileged access. You see and hear things that no one else does. This also means that you might have information that interested parties will want.

This was the case in the Benderman story. On one occasion the Army contacted us and requested un-edited interviews and notes. We refused, citing journalistic ethics and professional standards.

In another instance, I was subpoenaed to testify at Sergeant Benderman's court martial. Technically, I was subpoenaed by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, because that's the way the military judicial system works.

I received the subpoena just as I was preparing to leave for Georgia to cover Sergeant Benderman's court martial in May. The week I received my subpoena I was working on a segment for Weekend America on the constitutionality of journalists protecting their sources and refusing to testify when subpoenaed.

There had been another turn in the Judith Miller/Matthew Cooper story. So we decided to take a look at the precedent-setting Supreme Court decision that laid the groundwork for subsequent decisions on whether journalists could refuse to testify when subpoenaed. It was the 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes case. I spoke with Paul Branzburg's attorney and the Kentucky prosecutor who argued against Branzburg. I also spoke with Earl Caldwell, one of the three plaintiffs in Branzburg. Caldwell was a black reporter for The New York Times who had gained access to the Black Panther Party. The federal government subpoenaed Caldwell to gain intelligence on the Black Panthers. He refused to testify, as did Branzburg who had written an expose' on a drug ring in Louisville.

Journalistic ethics forbid me from disclosing exactly what I had that the government wanted. Suffice it to say that since I had spoken with the Bendermans on a regular basis for nine months I was allowed access to a variety of communications and exchanges that would be of interest to those who were either trying to prosecute the sergeant or defend him. I was bound by journalistic ethics to not give documents, information, or recordings that I had gathered for my reporting. American Public Media fully stood behind this decision and we filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

We tried to settle the matter before I got to Fort Stewart, but as the mileage signs counted down to single digits I still didn't know what the status was. If the matter was resolved I could continue with my reporting. If it wasn't then I might be driving into the lion's den. My cell phone rang. It was our attorney. He told me that the subpoena was rescinded. I could relax and cover the story as I had hoped. But three hours later, while doing an interview with Monica Benderman, the subpoena was re-instated. More phone calls.

I talked with the Bendermans. Their attorney wanted me to testify because he thought it would be beneficial to their case. But the Bendermans understood that I couldn't testify; journalistic ethics forbade it. They knew that I was the type of person who would side with integrity. They said that's why they've allowed me so much access in the first place. Later that evening the matter was resolved. When I walked into the courtroom the next morning I knew I was on the right side of stand, in front of it, not behind.