Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 11:40 PM Aug 2013

Obama Administration Remains Committed to FORCING REPORTER TO TESTIFY Against His Source [View all]






In a filing to a federal appeals court, the Justice Department argues that a reporter for the New York Times has no constitutional right to a reporter’s privilege in a case involving a leak allegedly committed by a former CIA officer. The case involves a former CIA officer, Jeffrey Sterling, who face charges of violating the Espionage Act for disclosing information to the press on a classified program “intended to impede Iran’s efforts to acquire or develop nuclear weapons,” which was published in Times reporter James Risen’s book, State of War. Since January 2008, the Justice Department has been trying to force Risen to testify against Sterling. Risen, backed by other media and press freedom organizations, has been fighting government efforts that have continued under the administration of President Barack Obama. The latest court filing from the Justice Department is in response to a petition from Risen to have the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rehear arguments that he should be protected from testifying by a reporter’s privilege. (Last month, the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court order that had held he was protected by a reporter’s privilege.)



The Justice Department argues that none of the decisions Risen cites, when arguing that he has a reporter’s privilege, hold “that a reporter who witnesses a crime and promises not to identify the perpetrator…has a privilege not to testify in a criminal proceeding. Indeed, every court of appeals to confront that situation has agreed with the panel.” Also, even if he did have a “reporter’s privilege,” the Justice Department suggests he may have waived his claim of privilege at some point and, “even if he did not, the qualified privilege he asserts would be overcome in light of the specific evidence at issue in this case.” The decision by the Justice Department to continue to fight in the courts for Risen to testify suggests a complete disregard for the concerns expressed by forty-six media organizations in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. The letter sent on August 21 by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) demanded the subpoena against Risen be withdrawn



According to the letter,

“New Department policy authorizes a subpoena to a member of the news media only ‘as a last resort, after all reasonable alternative investigative steps have been taken, and when the information sought is essential to a successful investigation or prosecution.’” This is what was adopted after the uproar over the Justice Department’s seizure of phone records from the Associated Press. Yet, the Justice Department does not appear to be following the guideline. The letter notes that US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema rejected the argument by the government that Risen is “the only source” of information needed to prosecute the case. Brinkema noted in her July 29, 2011, opinion “the abundant circumstantial and documentary evidence that supported the proposition that the government sought to prove, ‘including numerous telephone records, email messages, computer files, and testimony [from two other witnesses] that strongly indicates that Sterling was Risen’s source.’”




After the 2011 ruling, according to POLITICO‘s Josh Gerstein, where Brinkema ruled Risen would not be forced to testify, Justice Department Criminal Division Senior Litigation Counsel William Welch indicated the case would continue to go forward. The case moved onward until Brinkema ruled that “two important witnesses would be barred from testifying as a result” of a delayed disclosure of information to the defense. The government decided to file an appeal when this happened and decided to resume efforts to force Risen to testify. Times executive editor Jill Abramson has said the effort against Risen is detrimental to “the ongoing important work that journalists do in holding powerful institutions and the government accountable to the people.” She has also expressed concern that the “process of news gathering is being criminalized” and that the Obama administration’s actions are frightening potential sources.


cont'



http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/08/27/obama-administration-remains-committed-to-forcing-reporter-to-testify-against-his-source/
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oh fuck that freedom of the press stuff. progressoid Aug 2013 #1
I thought secrets were bad? Recursion Aug 2013 #2
Protecting Whistleblowers Aren't the Secrets I'm Worried About HumansAndResources Aug 2013 #7
Remember how DU lined up to support Judy Miller geek tragedy Aug 2013 #3
Actually, I didn't support that either Hydra Aug 2013 #5
Well, you are more consistent than most then. nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #6
DU was opposed to Judith Miller for reasons that everything to do with lying. Bonobo Aug 2013 #8
Right...kindly point to the DU thread that denounced Patrick Fitzgerald msanthrope Aug 2013 #12
No, YOU point me to the thread where Bush was defended for forcing a reporter Bonobo Aug 2013 #14
You are the one making the fantastical claim that Judith Miller was forced to give over Scooter msanthrope Aug 2013 #16
Huh? I never said anything of the sort. Bonobo Aug 2013 #18
Wait a second--that's priceless. Because Judith Miller was 'disliked' she should be subject to laws msanthrope Aug 2013 #21
No, dude, you still don't get it. Bonobo Aug 2013 #22
As my username clearly indicates, I am no dude. And I do get it--you don't have a cogent legal msanthrope Aug 2013 #23
"The process of news gathering is being criminalized." woo me with science Aug 2013 #4
^ Wilms Aug 2013 #9
Reporters have to testify when they witness a crime treestar Aug 2013 #10
Good luck enforcing that law davidn3600 Aug 2013 #11
Actions have consequences. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #13
That's always a possibility treestar Aug 2013 #20
Branzburg v. Hayes 408 US 665 (1972) struggle4progress Aug 2013 #15
Not a single poster on DU has ever been able to make a convincing argument why reporters should have msanthrope Aug 2013 #17
Me too. nt kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Administration Rema...