Obama Administration Asks Court To Force New York Times Reporter To Reveal Source - GuardinUK/RawSto

[WillyT]

Obama administration asks court to force New York Times reporter to reveal source
By Ed Pilkington, The Guardian/RawStory
8/27/13

<snip>

The Obama administration is trying to dissuade federal judges from giving the New York Times reporter James Risen one last chance to avoid having to disclose his source in a criminal trial over the alleged leaking of US state secrets.

The Department of Justice has filed a legal argument with the US appeals court for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, in which it strongly opposes any further consideration of Risen’s petition. Risen’s lawyers have asked the court to convene a full session of the 15-member court to decide whether the journalist should be granted First Amendment protection that would spare him from having to reveal the identity of his source to whom he promised confidentiality.

A three-member panel of the same court last month issued a 2-1 majority ruling in which they found that reporters had no privilege that would safeguard the confidentiality of their sources in a criminal trial. The judgement leaves Risen, a prominent investigative reporter specialising in national security issues, facing the prospect of having to break his promise to his source or go to jail.

The legal crunch emerged from Risen’s 2006 book, State of War, in which the author reveals details of the CIA’s attempts to foil Iran’s nuclear programme. James Sterling, a former CIA employee, is being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for the criminal disclosure of the information – one of seven officials to face the severe charges under the Obama administration including Chelsea Manning who has been sentenced to 35 years in military jail as the WikiLeaks source.

In a 26-page filing, the US prosecutor Neil Macbride and his team argue that Risen has no grounds to be offered a full hearing of the appeals court because there is no such thing as a reporters’ privilege in a criminal trial. They insist that the New York Times journalist was the only eyewitness to the leaking crimes of which Sterling has been charged and under previous case law has no right to claim First Amendment protection.

“Risen’s eyewitness testimony is essential proof of the disputed identity of the perpetrator that cannot be duplicated or replaced by other evidence in the case,” MacBride writes.

The DoJ’s robust attempt to block any further legal discussion about Risen’s plight will add to the impression that the Obama administration is determined to stamp on official leaking regardless of its implications for press freedom...

<snip>

More: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/27/obama-administration-asks-court-to-force-new-york-times-reporter-to-reveal-source/

[Hydra]

1. I'm guessing this is the side benefit of charging leakers with espionage

Any journalist who refuses to rat on his source becomes part of it...and maybe it won't even be required to rat on the person? Glenn Greenwald jailed as a spy for simply talking to Snowden? That would have been highly convenient for the powers that be.

[WillyT]

2. EXACTLY !!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. I just noticed something …

Actually, I noticed it a while ago, but will now point it out.

Lately, an OP will be posted … that post will be refuted/demonstrated inaccurate … supporters of the OP’s position will argue now they wished law SHOULD read and how wonderful it WOULD be if the law read the way they wished … that same OP will appear tomorrow, as brand new and unchallenged.

In this case, the same OP was posted, yesterday. It was pointed out by many that journalist enjoy no special (legal) privilege against having to disclose the identity persons (if know) that have been accused of committing a crime (leaking classified information is a crime). Today, the very same article appears, as brand new.

Isn’t that what we accused the right of doing … promoting a narrative (telling a lie), over and over again; ignoring any evidence to the contrary?

[G_j]

4. was it posted by the same person?

DU has thousands of members.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. In this case ...

No; but I am pretty certain that the previous posters saw the previous posts.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. Are you attempting to argue that confidentiality of sources has no precedent?

Have you lived under a rock for the last 50 years?

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Well ...

Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes ... a person, including a journalist, does not enjoy the privilege to keep the identity of a source, that has been accused of a crime, confidential.

To your second question:

No, iI haven't been living under a rock for the last 50 years ... but the rock that I have been living under (law school more than less of the last 21 years working in the law) tells me that the Supreme Court ruled that a journalist had no right to refuse testimony where he or she had witnessed criminal activity. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). And, ...

The SCOTUS also has held that a journalist who fails to comply with a subpoena can be held in contempt of court and fined or even sent to jail. (The Miller Case ... remember that case? Democrats cheered when Judith Miller went to jail.)

So ... I guess the rock I have been living under is the rock called "Facts" ... A place that liberals used to live.

[KoKo]

7. They got "Brass"....in case we didn't notice... Sadly...n/t