'Times' Reporter (Jim Risen) To Challenge Subpoena In Leak Case

[kpete]

Source: NPR

'Times' Reporter To Challenge Subpoena In Leak Case
by CARRIE JOHNSON
Jim Risen, a reporter for The New York Times, will ask a court Tuesday to throw out a Justice Department subpoena. Risen says he doesn't want to testify against a CIA agent accused of leaking classified information.

Risen has a history of digging for government secrets and finding pay dirt. He helped expose the government's warrantless wiretapping program. And he ventured into the shadows again to write a history of the CIA during President George W. Bush's years.

That book has landed him in the Justice Department's cross hairs. Prosecutors say it includes material from former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, who is getting ready to go to trial for disclosing classified information.

"He's not going to identify his confidential sources, period," says Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.


Read more: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137311742/-times-reporter-to-challenge-subpoena-in-leak-case

[Bandit]

1. If he and his "source" outed a Covert CIA Agent then send them to the Pokey.

Otherwise we should get behind the whistle blower laws before they disappear completely..

[JDPriestly]

3. We have a free press. The reporters are free to report what they know.

It will be interesting to find out whether the First Amendment guarantee of a free press prevails over a law outlawing the outing of a CIA agent.

With any normal Court, I would bet on the First Amendment. But with the Roberts Court, who knows? This is not a Court that values the Constitution all that much.

[cstanleytech]

9. Oh they value the constitution

..................as toilet paper.

[gratuitous]

2. Government constitutional violations are secret

Revealing those crimes is actionable. Isn't that an interesting set of priorities for the Justice Department? Thank the good Lord above for all that change. And hope.

[JDPriestly]

4. On the other hand, the First Amendment guarantees a free press.

The Constitution is a higher law than any other so it would normally trump something passed by Congress to protect CIA agents.

In other words, the agent who talked to much could be punished if the First Amendment prevails but not the author of the book, but if the Court decides to disregard the First Amendment in the interest of national security, we shall see. In this latter case, the Court could decide against Risen.

Interestingly, by my recollection, the Constitution does not mention national security, yet our courts invoke it constantly when approving governmental violations of the Constitution.

They just throw the Constitution out the window in the name of national security. That is how you gradually move toward a fascist state in which the Constitution is just a piece of paper. And, of course, that is precisely where we are headed.

[gratuitous]

5. It's a useful tactic either way

If the administration fails to muzzle the press, the very act of proceeding against a reporter is enough to intimidate other reporters and publishers. Those media outlets will get the message loud and clear that exposing high crimes and misdemeanors is a very expensive, dicey proposition, and wouldn't it make better economic sense to cover the flower show this weekend than to send some snoopy reporter to dig through a bunch of dreary archives and talk to a bunch of shadowy operatives?

[JDPriestly]

8. A lot of stories about the involvement of peripheral CIA-related

people in crime around the world have been killed in this way. I'm thinking of stories about narcotrafficking involving the CIA. I have difficulty believe that the stories are, with a few exceptions perhaps, true. But I haven't really seen any stories or research showing they are false. So, what should I think about that?

[backtomn]

6. The constitution is not a suicide pact.....

and freedom of the press is not absolute. What is a reporter hacked into the Pentagon and reported on an imminent attack?? There are plenty of laws on releasing of SECRET information. There are limits to all our freedoms (see yelling Fire in a movie house)....this is why these things end up in court and in front of the Supreme Court. There are boundries and, even if tested, they will ultimately be decided in court. Reporters know that they are playing with fire, but do it anyway. In many cases they have been vindicated, but that doesn't mean ALWAYS. We will see.

[JDPriestly]

7. Reporters don't "hack into" things. They obtain information from sources

and go places and see things. Freedom is either free or it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as sort of free or qualified freedom. Freedom is unfettered, without restrictions.

Some of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are limited to certain situations. The freedom of religion for example is qualified in that the government is not permitted to establish a specific religion.

The Second Amendment is also limited.

The right to free speech and assembly are subject to reasonable regulation -- but only by Supreme Court decision. That is not stated in the Constitution.

The free press is the foundation of a free society and of representative government. This cannot be compromised. If a CIA agent was angry and disappointed enough to expose what he believed were wrongs in his agency, then he pays the price. The news reporter to whom he revealed the secrets is free to do what he wants with them.

It is the job of our government to earn the respect of its employees and citizens. It is the job of the press to expose secrets, corruption and wrongdoing as well as to praise the good.

The questionable conduct and policy of our government causes frequent whistleblowing. The government needs to review its policies and explain them better to its employees.

We cannot be a democracy without an absolutely free press.