Regret the Error

In the article “Is Briana Waters a terrorist?,” published Mar. 27, the subhead stated that “U.S. attorneys exploited post-9/11 counterterrorism laws to pursue and prosecute an environmental activist.” In fact, while tougher post-9/11 policies on eco-terror played a role in the Waters case, no new laws were used in her prosecution.
Upon review, we found that the article omitted relevant details of the prosecution’s case against Waters. It should have noted that a prosecution witness testified that Waters had borrowed the car that was allegedly used to drive to the scene, and that the incendiary device was built in a garage on the property where Waters was staying at the time. Waters denies those accusations. These facts, and Waters’ denial, have been added to the story, requiring minor editing.
There were also a number of errors that have been corrected. The article stated that prosecutors had been “dispatched…from Arizona to Massachusetts;” it should have read “Arizona to New York.” The name of Waters’ former boyfriend Justin Solondz was misspelled Solonz. The article stated that the prosecution argued Waters met with the arsonists at 8 p.m.; in fact, witnesses testified it was early evening and probably around 9 or 8. It also presented an unclear timeline about when FBI agents said Waters had been identified as a participant; that timeline has been clarified in the story. A statement that a witness failed to identify Waters “the next four or five times she spoke with the authorities” should have been sourced to Waters’ defense attorneys. The article noted that “Waters’ lawyers accused the prosecution of misconduct,” but should have also acknowledged that the judge dismissed the claim. Finally, an assertion by the Civil Liberties Defense Center that “Never before has the terrorism enhancement been applied where there were no deaths” was incorrect, and has been deleted.
Salon regrets the errors. Link