Another Reporter Ordered To Jail In CIA Leak Case

[Kadie]

Another Reporter Ordered To Jail In CIA Leak Case
Journalists Expected To File Joint Appeal

POSTED: 5:53 pm EDT October 13, 2004
UPDATED: 6:12 pm EDT October 13, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has ordered Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper to jail for 18 months for refusing to reveal sources to a grand jury that is probing the leak of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency officer's identity.

Judge Thomas Hogan then suspended the jail time for contempt of court pending an appeal.

Hogan's actions are nearly identical to those he took last week against New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

The journalists are expected to file a joint appeal on First Amendment grounds.

more...
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/3819788/detail.html

[Kimber Scott]

1. So what about Novak?

nt

[UpInArms]

5. I've never considered No-Facts a "journalist"

and there would be no way for him to be charged as such.

I believe there's some law out there about suing someone for falsehoods and it being impossible when all they do is write such.

[Princess Turandot]

6. But why would he not be charged with contempt of court..

if he went before a grand jury and did not divulge his source, why would that be any different than these other 2 reporters? I thought he was deposed before a GJ. Is it solely because he was the guy who actually revealed what might be high-security info, so he is protected by the First Amendment? That's pretty ironic.

[Downtown Hound]

2. And what about the key player, Novak?

Not that he's an actual reporter (or Miller for that matter) but when are they going to lock up the heavyweight in this case? For treason, not contempt of court.

[Rose Siding]

7. He's either already been turned or he's a subject of the investigation

:shrug:

[toddzilla]

3. what is the law here?

If you are privy to information that could save lives and don't divulge it because of "sources" are you guilty of something? Wouldn't the opposite be true.

[0rganism]

16. If witnesses don't answer direct questions in a grand jury investigation

they get nailed with contempt of court charges. The exception is a 5th ammendment plea, but prosecutors often circumvent that by offering some form of immunity for the witness at which point "self incrimination" no longer applies.

[sasquatch]

4. I like the fact that Judith Miller is going to jail

She should be in there for inducing panic and acceserie to murder not contempt of court FYI

[starroute]

8. Judith Miller going to jail isn't necessarily a good thing

See this Xymphora entry for some convincing counter-arguments. http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/10/free-judith-miller.html

I detect a set-up here. As Miller is so thoroughly disliked, no one is going to run to her defense. Those who might be inclined to defend her are also interested in the partisan political matter of obtaining the name of the leaker. On the other hand, the Powers That Be will not hesitate to throw even their most cravenly loyal retainers to the wolves if it should serve some purpose (just ask Dan Rather). This is thus the perfect test case to make some bad law. The Bush Administration is notoriously interested in secrecy, and a precedent that would mean a journalist could be jailed for not revealing a source is just the kind of stifling of whistleblowing that they would be love to see. What whistleblower would even dare contact a journalist if he or she knew that the journalist could be compelled under penalty of jail to reveal the whistleblower's name? American democracy is hanging by a slim thread, and that thread is the First Amendment. Despite all the mangling of the Constitution performed by the Bush Administration, the First Amendment has held up remarkably well, which is why we know so much about what they have been up to (although we'd all still like to hear from some whistleblowers at NORAD and the FAA about just what was happening on September 11). Almost all leaking is probably in breach of some law or other (in these post-Patriot Act days practically everything is in breach of some law or other). If Miller goes to jail, the precedent will be set to finish off the possibility of whistleblowing, unless the whistleblower is prepared to lose his or her career and go to jail. Under such circumstances, would Seymour Hersh have heard about Abu Gharaib? My Lai? Would the Pentagon Papers have been published? Actually, they probably would have been, but only because Daniel Ellsberg was prepared to risk the consequences, something most whistleblowers are naturally not prepared to do. This is dangerous territory to be setting such a precedent. The United States now needs the full force of the First Amendment more than ever.

[H2O Man]

10. Two important errors in that article/essay:

(1) Judith Miller is not protecting a "whistle blower." Not even close. She's protecting criminals. Whistle blowers expose crime in government; the White House officials she is covering for exposed a CIA operative. We're talking about the difference between sugar and shit here. Don't confuse the two.

(2) Totally wrong to call this a "precedent." It's not. There are 30 years of federal case law that deals with this issue. The court rulings follow that well established law.


In sum, it is twisting the facts to say that this case has ANYTHING to do with protecting whistle blowers, or that it sets any precedent.

[teryang]

13. Well said

You know what you're talking about.

[Mandate My Ass]

14. Not a whistle blower nor a protected source

these people initiated contact with the journalists for the sole reason of revealing the identity of an undrecover operative which is treason. However, had the journalists been pursuing a story and asked who Valerie Plame is or what her relationship to Amb. Wilson was, that would be another story.

These people were solicited by administration officials and endangered by said contact from the WH to commit a felony, if not treason. There is no professional code of conduct calling for them to protect the leakers. They well know that, their corporate sponsors know that, we should too.

[arikara]

17. Right on

I think no different than if she was witness to a murder and she refused to identify the murderer.

[Ilsa]

9. The legal explanation I heard was that they have to exhaust

all the trails leading up to Novak before they can attack him and throw him in jail for divulging the leak. But (seriously) what do I know? Let's hope this gets them a little closer to hauling Novak's broken ass to prison.

[lovuian]

11. If Judith Miller is protecting criminals then she should GO TO JAIL

Do Not pass Go Do not Collect 200 dollars

[IndianaGreen]

12. She should go to jail for selling the Iraq war

and pushing Chalabi as a credible source, plus her role as an embedded reporter in which she pushed her unit to go on a wild goose chase for WMDs.

The NY Times should have canned her sorry ass!

[Rose Siding]

15. WP tells what they want from Cooper-

snip>
Cooper told reporters yesterday he had tried to accommodate special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in agreeing to be deposed about his conversations with Libby, but that Fitzgerald "came back a few days later and asked for everything in my notebook." He and Abrams said Fitzgerald is seeking to question him about other conversations he had in preparing the July 17 article.

During the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Fleissner told Hogan that prosecutors decided they needed a second subpoena for information because of a new topic that emerged during the first deposition. Prosecutors, he said, have been "deferential" to the media, agreeing to limit questioning to narrow areas.

"It doesn't exactly represent deference to the media to seek to put journalists in jail," Abrams said.

Hogan said the prosecutor has shown him grand jury material that has convinced him of the need to question Cooper further. Hogan has previously cited a 1972 Supreme Court case, Branzberg v. Hayes, in ruling that reporters have no First Amendment protection against appearing before grand juries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30601-2004Oct13.html