Media Subpoenas in U.S. Terror Case Raise Concerns

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has subpoenaed four journalists from major media to testify in the trial of a lawyer facing terrorism charges in a case which has raised fears for the freedom of the press.



The subpoenas are in the trial of Lynne Stewart, who is charged with helping her client Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted of encouraging bombings in the United States, communicate from prison with what prosecutors say are his terrorist followers.


The New York Times, Reuters and Newsday are seeking to quash the unusual subpoenas of their reporters. Their success or failure may set legal precedents in a case pitting the media's concerns about protecting sources and impartiality against government efforts to win the battle against terror.


"We seem to be moving to a potential conflict between First Amendment interests and those of national security," said prominent press freedom attorney Floyd Abrams.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040604/us_nm/security_usa_press_dc_1

So, Justice and ASSCRACK wants the media to testify in terrya case, but not in the leaking of Plame....hmmm

[The Stranger]

1. ""We seem to be moving to a potential conflict between . . .

". . . First Amendment interests and those of national security," said prominent press freedom attorney Floyd Abrams.

What a fucking genius.

[Voltaire99]

4. Yes, he is a genius.

Abrams is a legend, easily the best First Amendment attorney in the nation.

[The Stranger]

7. I'm glad he's way out in front of everyone else on this issue.

And with scintillating commentary.

[struggle4progress]

2. Some links for the case

http://www.lynnestewart.org/

The Lynne Stewart Case
When Representing an Accused Terrorist Can Mean the Lawyer Risks Jail, Too (12 October 2002)
http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel1012.html

WW3 REPORT EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
Lynne Stewart: Veteran Radical Attorney and War on Terrorism Defendant speaks about her case, Islamic fundamentalism and the struggle for Constitutional rights after 9-11
http://www.worldwar3report.com/stewart.html

[KoKo]

3. Well...let's make sure we totally gag the media.as if they aren't silent

enough. It's hard not to see where this is going. McCarthyism unending. And the scary part is that the Corporate owned media will clamp down unlike the "privately owned" meadia during McCarthy. Not that the Media was untainted by those days, either. But, this time it's worse because we see what they've done starting with Clinton years.

Unless the Media gets some really powerful lawyers who realize how our "civil rights" are being done away with, I think they will pay the price.

Floyd Abrams used to be a great defender of Civil Rights...but I've heard he went to the dark side. Sad..

[Voltaire99]

5. I see this backfiring.

I agree that the subpoenas are meant to silence, especially now that the press has begun to kick a little.

But this type of bullying is a tactical mistake by BushCo. You want to antagonize the idealistic reporters, fire up the in-house legal talent, and turn press owners and the courts against you? Then just issue these subpoenas.

[KoKo]

6. What worries me is that this sends a message to reporters to "beware"

if you report something that can in any way be conceived as hindering Homeland Security or the War on Terrorism, you will have to be prepared
for court battles and to get the media you work for to defend you.

Who wants to get into that? Wouldn't most of us seeing this and the Plame Case, back off getting involved with reporting "certain information" because of fear of being dragged through litigation for years?

Whether or not a Reporter WINS a case these days...the WARNING is what will silence all but the most zealous well protected in the media. And, that means the Repugs will have unlimited access to the Issikoff's and Russerts and they will have no fear, because they will RULE..

I hate to be so cynical..but this is like going after "whistleblowers" which we have seen time and time again always ends up with the "whistleblower" losing their job, or access or status even if what they reported was verified and caused huge change for the good.

This case is very important, and I'm glad it was posted here. But, how many Americans out there really get the significance of it? Just us here, as ususal...:-( and maybe a few law clerks or 60's folks who haven't been corrupted and still remember what "civil liberties" are.