Journalist sent to jail!

[CharleyH]

I would agree were it not for one thing - the journalist jailed did not publish the story. She has integrity, both in what she will print and in keeping her word. The bastard that published it appears to be walking away scot free. Rumor has it that he cut a deal and turned in his source and that is why he is not sitting there with his feet to the fire like the others. Which, if true, makes one wonder why they needed this woman to testify and why the fuck she's sitting in jail.

GRR I am holding back

 

[Boxlicker101]

My understanding is that a high ranking government official gave some reporters some highly classified info relating to the identity of a CIA operator. I have read speculation that the leaker was a member of the Bush administration and that the info related to the wife of a person who had contradicted a lie the administration was trying to get away with telling, and that the leak was in retaliation. The information was printed, destroying the usefulness of the op. and placing her in extreme danger.

The grand jury questioned the reporters about the source of the info and they refused to divulge the name, citing a non-existent shield law. I say "non-existent" because there is no federal law although most states have shield laws. Personally, I believe no shield law would ever apply to a case like this. Such laws are meant to protect whistle-blowers from retribution. If government employees disclose waste or corruption in government (well, duh) their identity is kept secret to protect them. If an employee of a government contractor blows the whistle on fraud or other law-breaking, his or her identiry is kept secret for the same reason. I am strongly in favor of such laws because I consider them to be necessary, as do the legislatures that passed them.

This was nothing of the kind, though. This was a government official, probably high ranking, disclosing classified information, thereby committing a felony. He wasn't blowing a whistle; he was committing treason, and covering up for him is aiding him in that act of treason.

This brings up a question that I have wondered about since I first read about this. If disclosing the information to a reporter is a crime, isn't it a much greater crime to publish it for all the world to see?

By the way, she was not sentenced to any time at all. She was ordered to stay in prison until she agrees to give up the name of the source or until the grand jury is no longer in session. She could get out of jail tonight if she would just tell the name of the criminal who ratted out the CIA op.

 

[minsue]

But min, it dosen't matter if she published or not. It matters that she has information that he judge has deemed relevant to the case. If the man who did publish it turned over the information he had, there is no reason for the grand jury to hold him in contempt. There is still pleanty of reason he could be censured and plenty for the rest of us to hold him in contempt over, but, as far as the case before the inquiry, he isn't important anymore.

You just can't decide you aren't going to co-operate with a grand jury because you don't feel like it. The system counts on people coming forward when called upon and the system gives the judge coercive measures for those who refuse. How many prosecutions would fail if people were able to just say, fuck you, I don't want to tell you?

Her integrity is not impeached if she complies with a court order. That is an exceptional circumstance and in that circumstance, the needs of the justice system must be put before her devotion to confidentiality.

I'm not saying she is more or less guilty by publishing or not. I am saying she can't refuse to cooperate with a grand jury inquiry and expect not to pay the price for that refusal.

I think it's the way "extraordinary circumstances" have been bandied about so much of late as to render it a completely meaningless and useless concept that gets me. It's not as though they need her testimony to make their case. The grand jury already has the information about who leaked the name. It shouldn't, IMnsHO, supercede journalistic shield laws.

 

[minsue]

GRR I am holding back

That's no fun! Let loose damnit! (whichever side you're holding, I'm sure you've got plenty to say. )

 

[minsue]

My understanding is that a high ranking government official gave some reporters some highly classified info relating to the identity of a CIA operator. I have read speculation that the leaker was a member of the Bush administration and that the info related to the wife of a person who had contradicted a lie the administration was trying to get away with telling, and that the leak was in retaliation. The information was printed, destroying the usefulness of the op. and placing her in extreme danger.

The grand jury questioned the reporters about the source of the info and they refused to divulge the name, citing a non-existent shield law. I say "non-existent" because there is no federal law although most states have shield laws. Personally, I believe no shield law would ever apply to a case like this. Such laws are meant to protect whistle-blowers from retribution. If government employees disclose waste or corruption in government (well, duh) their identity is kept secret to protect them. If an employee of a government contractor blows the whistle on fraud or other law-breaking, his or her identiry is kept secret for the same reason. I am strongly in favor of such laws because I consider them to be necessary, as do the legislatures that passed them.

This was nothing of the kind, though. This was a government official, probably high ranking, disclosing classified information, thereby committing a felony. He wasn't blowing a whistle; he was committing treason, and covering up for him is aiding him in that act of treason.

This brings up a question that I have wondered about since I first read about this. If disclosing the information to a reporter is a crime, isn't it a much greater crime to publish it for all the world to see?

By the way, she was not sentenced to any time at all. She was ordered to stay in prison until she agrees to give up the name of the source or until the grand jury is no longer in session. She could get out of jail tonight if she would just tell the name of the criminal who ratted out the CIA op.

Whether or not there is a federal law, it isn't only whistleblowers that are the reason the various shield laws. They are integral to a free press.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think it's the way "extraordinary circumstances" have been bandied about so much of late as to render it a completely meaningless and useless concept that gets me. It's not as though they need her testimony to make their case. The grand jury already has the information about who leaked the name. It shouldn't, IMnsHO, supercede journalistic shield laws.

There is no federal journalistic shield law. At least none I am aware of.

And if my confidentiality with my doctor can be superseeded by a court order, I don't really see where her assocciation with a government informer should recieve greater protection.

Neither you nor I know what information is before the jury and neither of us could make a decision hers is no longer relevant without making wild leaps of conjecture.

I think the extraordinary circumstance applies pretty well when you are talking about treasonable acts.

Edited:

Min, i don't think I explained myself very well there.

If, her source is the same source as the other two, it provides powerful coboboration for the grand jury to recommend further action. In a case wehre documentary evidence is likely to be scant or non existant all witnesses will become crucial to a prosecution. If, on th eother hand, her source is different then the others, then you must take into consideration that a conspiracy might exist. And again, her testimony woul dbe crucial to pressing that prosecution forward. Her silence serves in this case only to weaken any case the prosecution could bring. It's like an eywitness to a murder refusing to testify.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Whether or not there is a federal law, it isn't only whistleblowers that are the reason the various shield laws. They are integral to a free press.

This is true; there are other persons deserving of protection besides whistle blowers. However, that group would not include government employees committing treason. The women in question has knowledge of a felony that was committed and she has no right to refuse to divulge that information. In this case, it was not somebody telling her of criminal activity; the telling was itself the criminal activity. Journalists are accorded certain priveleges but they are not above the law. I don't see this as having anything to do with the first amendment.

 

[elsol]

a) No federal shield law.
b) Someone broke a law that is tatamount to treason.

This is a possession charge.

If I have drugs (which are illegal for me to possess), the DA can squeeze me to get the name of my seller due to the fact that selling is a bigger crime than possession.

These reporters have information (that they shouldn't have) and knowledge of the individual who gave it to them.

Without a shield law, what's the problem?

Call your Congressman and Senator to push for a shield law, considering this might be someone out of the Bush Administration, therefore a Republican, you might a lot of support.

-- I say that because I've noticed that all of a sudden Republicans are very respectful of 'judicial authority'... I get the feeling they know they're about to seat SCOTUS how they want so FAR BE IT for them to challenge the court.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[CharleyH]

Whether or not there is a federal law, it isn't only whistleblowers that are the reason the various shield laws. They are integral to a free press.

Na, it is lost now. I bet you have vegas stories?