June 27, 2005 | The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two
journalists (New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time Magazine
reporter Matt Cooper) who have refused to testify before a grand jury about
the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. The cases asked the court
to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago - whether
reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.
(Photo: Susan Walsh / AP)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062705J.shtml
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Journalists in Plame CIA Leak Case
The Associated Press
Monday 27 June 2005
Washington - The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.
The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.
"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.
Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Plame's name was first made public in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, who cited unidentified senior Bush administration officials for the information. The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.
Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime and a government investigation is in its second year. No charges have been brought.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special counsel handling the probe, told justices that the only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller.
Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story.
A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources in the federal criminal proceeding.
Every state but Wyoming recognizes reporters' rights to protect their confidential sources of information, justices were told in a brief filed on behalf of 34 states, and without those privileges "reporters in those states would find their newsgathering abilities compromised, and citizens would find themselves far less able to make informed political, social and economic choices."
But Fitzgerald said in his own filing that the federal government is different. "Local jurisdictions do not have responsibility for investigating crimes implicating national security, and reason and experience strongly counsel against adoption of an absolute reporter's privilege in the federal courts," he said.
In the last journalist source case at the Supreme, the 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes, a divided court ruled against Louisville, Ky., reporter who had written a story about drug trafficking and was called to testify about it. Justices said that requiring journalists to reveal information to grand juries served a "compelling" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment.
That decision has been interpreted differently and clarification is needed because dozens of reporters around the country have been subpoenaed over the past two years, said Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, representing Time magazine.
The cases are Miller v. United States, 04-1507, and Cooper v. United States, 04-1508.
-------
LEAK-GATE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LEAK-GATE/join
This White House Scandal Finally Tips the Scale!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/leakgate.htm
Post message: LEAK-GATE@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: LEAK-GATE-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: LEAK-GATE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: LEAK-GATE-owner@yahoogroups.com
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be...
The People cannot be safe without information." -- Thomas Jefferson
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/149495.html
U.S. top court refuses to hear appeals from reporters facing jail for defying subpoenas (AP) - WASHINGTON-The U.S Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who face jail for refusing to testify about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/06-27-2005/a473000af8d4bb93.html
Supreme Court won't hear CIA leak case
Pioneer Press, MN - 26 minutes ago
... The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources in a leak probe involving CIA officer Valerie ...
GOOGLE: Results 1 - 10 of about 829 for CIA LEAK
(Photo: Susan Walsh / AP)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062705J.shtml
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Journalists in Plame CIA Leak Case
The Associated Press
Monday 27 June 2005
Washington - The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.
The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.
"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.
Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Plame's name was first made public in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, who cited unidentified senior Bush administration officials for the information. The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.
Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime and a government investigation is in its second year. No charges have been brought.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special counsel handling the probe, told justices that the only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller.
Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story.
A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources in the federal criminal proceeding.
Every state but Wyoming recognizes reporters' rights to protect their confidential sources of information, justices were told in a brief filed on behalf of 34 states, and without those privileges "reporters in those states would find their newsgathering abilities compromised, and citizens would find themselves far less able to make informed political, social and economic choices."
But Fitzgerald said in his own filing that the federal government is different. "Local jurisdictions do not have responsibility for investigating crimes implicating national security, and reason and experience strongly counsel against adoption of an absolute reporter's privilege in the federal courts," he said.
In the last journalist source case at the Supreme, the 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes, a divided court ruled against Louisville, Ky., reporter who had written a story about drug trafficking and was called to testify about it. Justices said that requiring journalists to reveal information to grand juries served a "compelling" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment.
That decision has been interpreted differently and clarification is needed because dozens of reporters around the country have been subpoenaed over the past two years, said Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, representing Time magazine.
The cases are Miller v. United States, 04-1507, and Cooper v. United States, 04-1508.
-------
LEAK-GATE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LEAK-GATE/join
This White House Scandal Finally Tips the Scale!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/leakgate.htm
Post message: LEAK-GATE@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: LEAK-GATE-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: LEAK-GATE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: LEAK-GATE-owner@yahoogroups.com
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be...
The People cannot be safe without information." -- Thomas Jefferson
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/149495.html
U.S. top court refuses to hear appeals from reporters facing jail for defying subpoenas (AP) - WASHINGTON-The U.S Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who face jail for refusing to testify about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/06-27-2005/a473000af8d4bb93.html
Supreme Court won't hear CIA leak case
Pioneer Press, MN - 26 minutes ago
... The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources in a leak probe involving CIA officer Valerie ...
GOOGLE: Results 1 - 10 of about 829 for CIA LEAK
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
