2 reporters face jail for not disclosing sources

[Douglas Carpenter]

Reporters' appeal declined in CIA leak case
2 face jail for not disclosing sources
By Pete Yost, Associated Press | June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court yesterday increased the likelihood of jail time for two reporters, refusing to take up a case that pits the news media's promise to protect confidential sources against a grand jury's demand for information.

Officials in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly undercut President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq

Here is the link to the rest of the article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/28/reporters_appeal_declined_in_cia_leak_case/

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Protecting the identity of somebody who did a federal crime isn't

Hoyle. Even if they are part of the wh staff.

[Straight Shooter]

2. We don't know how many people died because of the Plame leak

I'm counting on Judas Judith to sing like a little yellow canary.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. That's what I'm thinking, too. Both of them will spill their guts now.

[IndianaGreen]

11. But we know how many have died thanks to Judith Miller's reporting

about WMD in Iraq in which her sole source was Ahmed Chalabi. She is a scum!

[salin]

14. which continued ... remember when she was embedded in the wmd hunt

and after tons of wasted resources - the leaders of the effort wanted to call off the hunt (as in - there is nothing to find) - and Judith threw a fit - threatened to call the pentagon (implied ... rummy) knew they would find them - knew they had to keep going... and they caved due to her, a reporters, pressure. And so that particular fraud continued a while longer. Never read whether any soldiers were lost in that prolonged effort.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Thanks for reminding me of that incident!

Karma demands that Judith Miller suffer for the evil she has so willingly participated in. I now recall her role in the WMD-hunt incident!

Don't shed any tears for her. Miller is not making a principled stand over the First Amendment, or as she said tonight on ABC News, on the "right of the people to know." That's pure poppycock! Miller is protecting a criminal act by a high official in the Bush regime, perhaps none other than Cheney, either directly or through his Chief of Staff Scooter Libby.

Confess Judy! Tell us the name of the Bush regime official that outed Valerie Plame.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sasquatch]

4. Hmm...I have a dilema

I'm for free speech, but I'm against fascism and pro free speech. On the otherhand I want to see Judith Miller not go to jail on these grounds yet on the otherhand I want to see her "shivved" and dominated by the a woman that's bigger than me(I'm 6'6" tall and weigh 300+ lbs).

[KansDem]

22. Just keep in mind that Miller and the rest...

were part of the crime. Their "reporting" wasn't of the "Deep Throat" variety (receiving and reporting on a crime that already happened), but rather, if it wasn't for them, the crime would not have occurred. They were contacted by individuals in the White House to "out" Plame, and they did so through their positions in the media.

They committed treason by outing a CIA agent.

[oasis]

5. Throw away the key.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. I want to see the White House leaker's arrested too...but,

There are civil libertarian precedents to be concerned about:

A Great article By Farhad Manjoo of Salon.com

A bitter defeat for the press

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Cooper-Miller case will do more than hurt two reporters -- it will erode the press's ability to cover sensitive stories.

June 28, 2005 | The tale is like something out of Kafka: In 2003, George W. Bush accused Saddam Hussein of trying to buy uranium in Africa. A former U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wilson, revealed that the claim was false. In an obvious attempt to punish Wilson, one of Bush's aides then disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA operative named Valerie Plame, to the conservative columnist Robert Novak, who printed the name. The Justice Department then launched an investigation to find out the identity of the leaker, but two years later, neither Bush, Novak nor anyone in the White House, the CIA or the Pentagon has been punished over the matter. Now, after a Supreme Court decision handed down Monday morning, it appears that the only people who'll be going to jail in connection with the uranium imbroglio are two reporters who had almost nothing to do with it. One of them has never even published an article on the case.

the whole article is at this link:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/28/reporters/index.html

[sendero]

16. Well if Salon is taking that "side" of the argument..

.... then I know I'm on the right side.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting sources", it has to do with an information leak that was a treasonous crime in itself not being protected as though it were some kind of whistleblower.

[genieroze]

8. Very conflicted about this.

I don't believe reporters should ever have to disclose their sources but being a federal crime was committed I think they should be the ones held liable if they don't want to reveal their source. We all know who their source is anyway. Bend over and let ROVEr take over.

[warrens]

20. As a reporter

This is not protecting your source. A source is someone you called to ask questions about a story. If they feel they can't answer on the record, you negotiate how off the record their comments are. There's a range from a slight nod to anonymity (a senior White House official, which means Cheney or Rove or Condi usually) to not even quoting the source, but using his information to talk to someone else.

Generally, you try to avoid promising to protect their identity beyond not printing their name. I would reveal a source in any sort of criminal investigation unless I had specifically promised that I would not in THAT EVENT.

A call from someone at the White House spreading gossip does not qualify as a protected source. This is not a blow to journalism; Miller and Cooper owe nothing to these guys, and I imagine their actual motive is that if they cough up the name, the Bushies will freeze them out of future stories. And that is not sufficient reason to protect a felon.

To put it simply, if someone called me up and said, this is Dick Jones and I just robbed a bank, but you can't rat me out because a reporter protects his sources, I'd pick up the phone and call the cops.

[kostya]

21. Warrens, thanks for that clear explanation of the differences

between this and protecting 1st amendment rights of the press. You got it exactly right. Too many people are confused by this on the left and don't realize that the details are totally different in this kind of case. - K

[Nostradamus]

9. Somebody please deconstruct this for me...

To someone outside the US this makes no sense.

The Supreme Court appears to be a lickspittle arm of the WarParty yet here it is trying to expose someone in the White House who has revealed the identity of one of the nation's spies - supposedly a very big deal..

or is this the sound of a messenger being shot and a warning to anyone who dares to exposes the necessary illusions ?

what am i missing

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

12. What you are missing

are the shades of gray in the warparty

not everyone is happy with uuberfuher bunnypants, but enough people in high enough positions are, that to show yourself disloyal is tantamount to ex-communication from the national security circle-jerk teat fest, on which they all live, breathe and obcscess.

so, if you are not happy, the only thing you can do is chip away at the rough edges when they appear, and this was one of the roughest.

everyone knows rove told novak.

this is about who will be #2, #3... et cetera

[ngGale]

10. Robert Novak...

nuff said.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Judy, Judy, Judy.

[warrior1]

15. Because she's a mouth piece for

the GOP and the White House I do not see her as an legitimate reporter.

[XemaSab]

17. PROTECTING SOURCES: Reporters face jail after court declines to step in

1st Amendment issue remains unsettled in case where CIA agent's ID was divulged

Two reporters are a step closer to jail after the Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a case that could have decided whether journalists can be forced to reveal their confidential sources.

Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine each face up to 18 months in jail on contempt of court charges imposed last year by U.S. District Judge Frank Hogan in Washington, D.C.

Hogan ordered the reporters to jail after they refused to tell a grand jury who had given them information about the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. The grand jury is investigating who leaked the name of the undercover agent, which is a federal crime. Plame's name became public in a July 2003 syndicated column by Robert Novak.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/28/MNG1ADFUBK1.DTL

[bluestateguy]

18. The court has ruled. Now it's time for them to comply.

I'm sick of Judith Miller's bitching. Obey the law!

[underpants]

19. Man o man did W&Co. use and abuse Miller

I don't mean this as pity for her but she WAS their main mouthpiece leading up to the war (NYT later sorta apologized for their prewar coverage) and now they are using her (they actually turned this around on everyone) to suppress leaks and whistleblowers.