'N.Y. Times' Attorney Expects No Decision This Week on Plame Appeal

[seemslikeadream]

By Joe Strupp

NEW YORK Contrary to common analysis, Wednesday's contempt-of-court appeal by two reporters refusing to disclose their sources in the Valerie Plame case is not expected to result in a decision for up to several weeks, according to one of the lead attorneys in the case.

George Freeman, in-house counsel for The New York Times, told E&P Monday morning that the hearing before a three-judge appeals court in Washington, D.C., will likely be a quick one, with each side having 25 minutes to argue its case. But, he did not foresee reporters being led away in handcuffs, as some have suggested.

"They won't make a quick decision," said Freeman, who is representing the Times' Judith Miller in the case. "It will likely be, as appeals courts do, over time. Maybe a matter of weeks."

Some observers, such as Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, have said that those involved in Wednesday's hearing could be led away to jail this week. Dalglish said on CNN Sunday that "It's likely we'll see some journalists behind bars within days."

MORE
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731988

Leak probe mired in battle with journalists

..

In the Plame case, Fitzgerald is trying to enforce an obscure and complex 1982 law intended to protect federal undercover agents. In seeking to force reporters to testify, Fitzgerald is relying on a 1972 Supreme Court decision that the First Amendment does not insulate reporters from federal grand jury subpoenas. He argues that reporters have the same obligation as any citizen to tell investigators what they know about a possible crime.

Lawyers for Cooper and Miller disagree, saying that 49 of 50 states offer reporters some protection against being forced to divulge sources. That should count for something when weighed against a 32-year-old federal court ruling, they argue.

In addition, Cooper and Miller say that because grand jury proceedings are secret, it's impossible to know whether the Justice Department has followed its own internal guidelines about when it's appropriate to try to pull reporters into court.

While the case has become a cause celebre among journalists worried about being squeezed by the government, other say Fitzgerald has acted appropriately. Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Fitzgerald had little choice but to question reporters.

Fitzgerald has to determine how many administration sources may have leaked and whether there was a pattern of such activity, Luskin said, and "the only way to do that is to talk to the reporters." He added, "I don't see how you can conduct a leak investigation in a sensitive way. You have to talk to everybody."

more
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/10361910.htm

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

1. And, yet...his Royal Douchebag remains free to do more treason.

Throw that scumbag Novak in jail and throw away the key. Better yet, let's strip him down, blindfolded, and set him loose is the Sunni Triangle.

TRAITOR!

JB

[Carl Brennan]

2. Can the lawyers not invoke the "threat to national security" mantra

as a way of forcing these reporters to answer investigators questions? We've got prisoners galor in Cuba being subjected to numerous violations of their civil and legal rights in the name of national security. Surely a reporter could be forced to testify in this case where national security was, and still is, definitely being compromised.