Journalists not allowed to promise confidentiality?

[Ally_Kat]

Prosecutor jail for journalists in leak case

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two journalists should be jailed for refusing to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name to the news media, a federal prosecutor said on Tuesday.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald urged Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan to reject requests from New York Times correspondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper for home detention instead of jail.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise confidentiality -- no one in America is," Fitzgerald, a U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, wrote in one of the court filings.

He said he would defer to the judge on whether the two journalists should be confined in the Washington, D.C., jail or in some other nearby federal detention facility.

The judge has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday to consider the punishment for Miller and Cooper for refusing to disclose their sources and comply with a subpoena requiring them to turn over documents and testify before the grand jury.

They have been found in contempt by Hogan and each could be jailed for up to 120 days, the remainder of the grand jury's term. The investigation seeks to determine who in the Bush administration leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003.

Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a diplomat in the Clinton administration, has accused the White House of being responsible for the leak. He said officials did so because Wilson had publicly disputed a prewar claim by President Bush about Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear weapons parts.

Although Time magazine has handed over subpoenaed records, Fitzgerald said after reviewing the documents that Cooper's testimony was still necessary for his investigation.

Fitzgerald said "special treatment" for the journalists would "enable, rather than deter, defiance of the court's authority."

"Although confinement in a federal detention facility would separate Cooper from his family, special counsel reiterates that all Cooper need do to avoid this result is to follow the law as all American citizens are required to," he said.

Fitzgerald made a similar argument in the Miller case and said she would be jailed only for as long as she refuses to comply. "Miller could avoid even a minute of separation from her husband if she would do no more than just follow the law."

Fitzgerald said the judge should reject an alternative request by the journalists that they be sent to a specified federal prison camp instead of to a local jail.

Cooper's attorneys said in court documents that his refusal to testify was a matter of personal and professional ethics involving his desire to keep his obligation to protect the identity of his confidential sources.

Miller's attorneys made similar arguments.

They said she must have confidential access to high-level government sources to do her job. "Nothing less will do in a free society with an independent press."

[Ally_Kat]

"Journalists are not entitled to promise confidentiality -- no one in America is," Fitzgerald, a U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, wrote in one of the court filings.

doctor-patient

lawyer-client

priest-confessor

I think that's all of them. I don't see why Journalists can't be the same way.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
doctor-patient

lawyer-client

priest-confessor

I think that's all of them. I don't see why Journalists can't be the same way.

Secrets between a doctor and patient or a priest and a confessor are usually personal matters, and the lawyer-client rule is designed for the building of a proper defense and a fair trial.

Ordinarily, a journalist should be allowed to protect their sources, but in this case the source (KKKarl Rove) committed a felony and compromised national security in the process.

Woodward & Bernstein were able to keep the identity of their main informant "Deep Throat" a secret for 30 years because the guy himself (Mark Felt) wasn't a major player in the criminal activities of the Nixon administration. KKKarl Rove doesn't have the luxury of anonymity, having promoted himself as Junior's brain and the "architect" of the 4th Reich.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
doctor-patient

lawyer-client

priest-confessor

I think that's all of them. I don't see why Journalists can't be the same way.
Your youth always shows through. That's okay, you'll get old and mature fast enough. Enjoy your youth.

FACT:

You can't tell your doctor you want to, or have, committed a crime.

Your doctor MUST report crimes he is aware of.

The leak of U.S. spys names is a crime that these reporters know about and it's a grand jury that wants to know who committed this crime.

It's a little more complicated than what you have grasped.

But good luck in your efforts to seek the truth.


:spank:

[The Scatologist]

Oh shit! Is my doctor gonna tell the feds about that time I confessed to him about getting the clamp from masturbating in public against a dead raccoon that was imported from the Rocky Mountains while wearing a pink tu tu and singing Cat Scratch Fever?!




:eek:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by The Scatologist
Oh shit! Is my doctor gonna tell the feds about that time I confessed to him about getting the clamp from masturbating in public against a dead raccoon that was imported from the Rocky Mountains while wearing a pink tu tu and singing Cat Scratch Fever?!:eek:
I'll bet he f4orgot about tit.:D


:spank:

[blueturk]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporters.contempt/

New York Times reporter jailed
Time magazine reporter agrees to testify about sourcing


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed for contempt of court Wednesday for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name. She was taken into custody immediately.

Miller faces up to four months in jail, the length of time before the term of the federal grand jury in the case expires.

"We have to follow the law," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said.

"If she were given a pass today, then the next person could say as a matter of principle, 'I will not obey the law because of the abortion issue,' or the election of a president or whatever. They could claim the moral high ground, and then we could descend into anarchy."

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who also faced jail time, was spared confinement after agreeing to testify.

Outside the courthouse, he defended his decision, saying the source had released him from confidentiality that day.

"That source gave me a personal, unambiguous, uncoerced waiver to speak to the grand jury," Cooper told reporters.

He would not disclose the source.

Time Inc. released a statement saying that "by personally and directly releasing Matt from his obligation to confidentiality, his source has made the decision for Matt to testify a simple one, as other journalists have already testified in this case after being released by their sources."

New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller called Miller's imprisonment "a chilling conclusion to an utterly confounding case."

Publisher and chairman of the New York Times Company, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said the company "will do all that we can to ensure Judy's safety and continue to fight for the principles that led her to make a most difficult and honorable choice."

He urged Congress to "move forward on federal shield legislation, so that other journalists will not have to face imprisonment for doing their jobs."(Full statement)

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for Miller and the newspaper, said the reporter "should be honored" for serving time to protect a source.

"What Judy has done is, as I've said, in the tradition of journalists throughout our history," he said. "And I'll say another part of that tradition has often been that journalists were punished for their position."

Reporter's privilege at issue
The showdown between special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the two journalists stems from the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald wrote that even though Time magazine surrendered Cooper's notes in the case, the journalist's testimony is still needed in the investigation.

"First, Cooper's own article noted that the conduct of the officials involved an attack on an administration critic, not whistle-blowing," Fitzgerald wrote.

"Second, at a time when journalists seek a reporter's privilege akin to the attorney-client privilege, they ought to recognize that an attorney can be compelled to testify if his client communicates to the attorney for the purpose of committing a crime or fraud. ... Third, journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is."

Fitzgerald also opposed Cooper's and Miller's request for home detention -- rather than a jail sentence -- for refusing to reveal their sources.

"Special treatment for journalistic contemnors may negate the coercive effect contemplated ... and enable, rather than deter, defiance of the court's authority," Fitzgerald wrote. (Full story)

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press expressed disappointment with the government's position.

"I had been hoping by Time turning over Mr. Cooper's notes that would keep Mr. Fitzgerald happy," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the organization, which advocates press freedoms. "We're disappointed and more than a little bit perplexed."

Leak as retribution?
Plame was first identified as a CIA operative in a column by Robert Novak, a CNN contributor and former "Crossfire" co-host, citing two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as sources.

The column was published shortly after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, had publicly challenged the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein's government tried to obtain uranium in Africa in an effort to develop a nuclear weapons program.

Wilson, who wrote a July 6, 2003, piece in The New York Times on the matter, has said his wife's name was leaked as retribution.

Cooper then wrote an article for Time naming Plame, but Miller only gathered information without writing about it.

Novak has declined to say whether he testified before the grand jury, but he has avoided contempt charges in the case.

On Sunday a lawyer for Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, acknowledged that Rove talked to Cooper before Plame's name became public, but that he did not disclose any confidential information.

Last week Time surrendered Cooper's notes and e-mail to Fitzgerald's office after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Hogan's ruling finding the reporters in contempt.

The prospect of two prominent journalists going to jail has led to a renewed push on Capitol Hill by free press advocates for a federal shield law that could provide legal protection to journalists seeking to keep sources' identities confidential.

CNN's Terry Frieden contributed to this report.

[Phil theStalker]

Wot aff yoo have a mob hitman whoo's admiTITed t2o da reporter he's mmurdered 12 peeps f4or da mob? huh

Do yoo blank out his face on 60 Minutes?

Wheer doo wee goo fromm heer?

Tit's later than yoo... tit's t2oo late.


:spank:

Salvatore ("Sammy") The Rabbit
Settled Da Score 12 Times F4or Da Mob

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
Secrets between a doctor and patient or a priest and a confessor are usually personal matters, and the lawyer-client rule is designed for the building of a proper defense and a fair trial.

Ordinarily, a journalist should be allowed to protect their sources, but in this case the source (KKKarl Rove) committed a felony and compromised national security in the process.

Woodward & Bernstein were able to keep the identity of their main informant "Deep Throat" a secret for 30 years because the guy himself (Mark Felt) wasn't a major player in the criminal activities of the Nixon administration. KKKarl Rove doesn't have the luxury of anonymity, having promoted himself as Junior's brain and the "architect" of the 4th Reich.

That's why there is not more outrage about this. It's simply not the case of a "whistle-blower" being protected against retaliation, it's more like retaliation against a whistle-blower via the media. But still, I don't agee with it. This will have far reach repercussions on all levels of journalism, not just on the national level, but on the local level as well. For instance, will News Channel 9 be able to guarantee that the butcher that passes them info on how his supermarket sells tainted meat be assured protection, I'm not sure anymore; it will depend on which state he lives in.

[superdave]

Phil--I have seen you write normal posts, but most of them are this 'talking with your mouth full' shit, which is it?

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's why there is not more outrage about this. It's simply not the case of a "whistle-blower" being protected against retaliation, it's more like retaliation against a whistle-blower via the media. But still, I don't agee with it. This will have far reach repercussions on all levels of journalism, not just on the national level, but on the local level as well. For instance, will News Channel 9 be able to guarantee that the butcher that passes them info on how his supermarket sells tainted meat be assured protection, I'm not sure anymore; it will depend on which state he lives in.

Well as long as this shit is going down anyway, I at least hope it's Rove's ass on the line. That would be the definition of bittersweet.

[Big Train]

Look libs, I don't give a fuck who did. If it was Rove, hang him high, ok? String the reporter and the editor while you are at it. Putting people's lives, as well as their families, on the line so you can have your fucking stupid little story, is a crime. This is not about confidentiality or accusations. It's about people's live. I don't care who, which party, man or woman, there is a price to be paid for it.

Can I still keep my neocon title even though I had (continue to I should say) my own independent thoughts? Please, oh please?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's why there is not more outrage about this. It's simply not the case of a "whistle-blower" being protected against retaliation, it's more like retaliation against a whistle-blower via the media. But still, I don't agee with it. This will have far reach repercussions on all levels of journalism, not just on the national level, but on the local level as well. For instance, will News Channel 9 be able to guarantee that the butcher that passes them info on how his supermarket sells tainted meat be assured protection, I'm not sure anymore; it will depend on which state he lives in.

Exactly.

Phil can go and insult my age all he wants but I know what i'm talking about here. You go and make one exception for the journalistic confidentiality and soon enough there will be no journalistic confidentiality.

I could write a novel for him on the topic, but quite frankly I don't have the time right now. Plus, the only thing my youth showed thru with is that I didn't type out the reporting crimes for doctors. Lawyers don't say after a case is done and can't be tried anymore if the client admited to it in consultation or not. They don't write tell all books after the fact with celebrities about the truth and what the clients told them. Priests don't go running to the cops if someone confesses to a murder to them. They suggest that the confessor turn him/herself in, but to their oath they cannot.

There have been random incidents in the past of a branch of gov't trying to force journalists to give up their sources. This one is a sticky situation, I won't argue there, but when it comes down to it is do journalists have a right to that confidentiality and yes, they do. To start taking it away piece by piece would result in a confined media -- worse than what you guys think Foxnews is.

[Big Train]

Do you really think it is about confidentiality? I think the case really should be about responsibility. The source could name people fine. He's CIA, she is CIA. To put that out in a mass media form though is wholly irresponsible and should be severly punished.

I don't think it will have much effect in the long run.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Do you really think it is about confidentiality? I think the case really should be about responsibility. The source could name people fine. He's CIA, she is CIA. To put that out in a mass media form though is wholly irresponsible and should be severly punished.

I don't think it will have much effect in the long run.

I agree whoever did it should be hung, but this is much a broad, combined arms government attack on the media as much as it is a righteous effort to find who leaked shit from the BUSH Administration. They could say the same about "DEEP THROAT," in fact I think they did! Okay, I don't think I ever actually thought of you as NEO CON, but right now you and FORD are on the same side line!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by superdave
Phil--I have seen you write normal posts, but most of them are this 'talking with your mouth full' shit, which is it?
I dunno.

I'm steel trying t2o figure tit out.

uh uh uh uh uh u h uuh uh uh uh

Tit's like a "mouth full" aff joy.:D


:spank:

FAKE MOUTH CHAPPED LIPS

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by superdave
Phil--I have seen you write normal posts, but most of them are this 'talking with your mouth full' shit, which is it? Actually, tit's quite an amazing thing dis language.

Tit started wit flappo all around da werld and then hitch and Riddler added things t2o tit and then I addedd t2o tit.

Tit's kinda like Linux.:)


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Exactly.

Phil can go and insult my age all he wants but I know what i'm talking about here. You go and make one exception for the journalistic confidentiality and soon enough there will be no journalistic confidentiality.

I could write a novel for him...
Well, i didn't mean t2o insult anyboody, butt i guess i have..

tit all depends on da defintion aff da werd cuntfidential..:)


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's why there is not more outrage about this. It's simply not the case of a "whistle-blower" being protected against retaliation, it's more like retaliation against a whistle-blower via the media. But still, I don't agee with it. This will have far reach repercussions on all levels of journalism, not just on the national level, but on the local level as well. For instance, will News Channel 9 be able to guarantee that the butcher that passes them info on how his supermarket sells tainted meat be assured protection, I'm not sure anymore; it will depend on which state he lives in.
Kill yer own meat.


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by superdave
Phil--I have seen you write normal posts, but most of them are this 'talking with your mouth full' shit, which is it?
Come t2o think aff tit, I resent dat.

I have never-NEVER-never ever bean accused aff being normal.

uh uh uh uh u hu hu h uh u hu hu hu h uh u hu hu h uh u hu h

Watch tit.


:spank:

STALKING ATTIRE COAT AND HAT
Phil the Stalker ApparelTM
DIS AIN'T NO POPGEAR