home

Reporters Lose in Leaks Case

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 07:22:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Scotus Blog:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside pleas by two reporters and a magazine urging the Justices to create, for the first time, a right not to be forced to reveal to the government their confidential news sources. The action means that, at least for the time being, the Constitution and federal common law do not recognize a “reporter’s privilege” of confidentiality. (The Court denied review in Miller v. U.S., 04-1507, Cooper and Time Magazine v. U.S., 04-1508.)

News coverage here.

**************
Original Post: Sunday 7:51 pm

Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine will learn their fate Monday when the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether it will accept their cases. Both have been ordered held in contempt for refusing to name their sources in the grand jury investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak.

If the court declines to review the case of the two journalists — held in contempt by a lower court for declining to identify their confidential sources — they could land in jail within days and be forced to stay there for as many as 18 months. The high court's acceptance of the case would mean a reprieve, at least until a final ruling, likely to come next year.

Both were represented by Floyd Abrams through the trial and appeals court process, but Matthew Cooper switched to former Solicitor General Ted Olson for his Supreme Court petition.

Update: My prediction: Like Kevin Drum, the court will decline. The only hesitancy I have is that Matthew Cooper is raising different issues and has a different factual history. I could almost see them granting cert for Cooper and denying it for Miller. That's a longshot though, the better odds are both will be declined.

My prediction if they both lose: Judith Miller will do the time standing on her head; Matthew Cooper is more likely to give up the info, because of his need to put the welfare of his wife and child first.

Update: Looks like my prediction might be correct. The New York Times reports:

Ms. Miller has said she will go to jail rather than testify. "Journalists simply cannot do their jobs without being able to commit to sources that they won't be identified," she said in a statement yesterday. "Such protection is critical to the free flow of information in a democracy."

Representatives for Mr. Cooper were less categorical, saying they would file a motion to reargue the case and make no final decision until Judge Hogan ruled on it.

< Administration Abuses Material Witness Law | Grokster Loses >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reporters Lose in Leaks Case | 10 comments (10 topical)
    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside pleas by two reporters and a magazine urging the Justices to create, for the first time, a right not to be forced to reveal to the government their confidential news sources. The action means that, at least for the time being, the Constitution and federal common law do not recognize a “reporter’s privilege” of confidentiality. (The Court denied review in Miller v. U.S., 04-1507, Cooper and Time Magazine v. U.S., 04-1508.)
    I admit to knowing very little about the issues behind this case. I hope that some of the legal minds on this blog can shed some light on this decision for the rest of us, i.e., what does this mean for the Valerie Plame case politically? (Specifically, can we nail Bob Novak with this ruling somehow?)

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    Does this mean we may get to see Novak frog-marched?

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    I should warn RoveR and Navak to get ready for all the shoes to start dropping!

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    The reporters made promises with their mouth that their bodies can't keep (legally). Now let Congresss hold hearings and determine what privilege, if any, reporters should have.

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    I'm quite sure that with this latest loss for the press they will obviously place the blame for this where it squarely belongs... On Joe Wilson.

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Sounds like a good decision. Had extra protection been afforded reporters, it would have made second class citizens of bloggers, unless they too claimed to be journalists. And if that had happened, the courts would have also had to dfine the difference, and you would have taken very big step closer to the licensing of journalism. So, as I say, good decision.

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    J Miller deserves prison time for helping her CEO and WH operatives to out a US agent specializing in controlling the flow of nuclear material, especially in the ME. The reason why the Cheney/Bush admin. did this was TREASON, and part of that treason involved protecting their OWN movement of nuclear material (and probably illegal weapons as well). It was a mafioso move -- one of many now in evidence. But the reporters who cooperated, who sold themselves down the river, ought to be imprisoned for that act, but not for refusing to expose their source -- when that source is clearly in the Shadow President's office. There should be an independent investigation, but that would be a Constitutional government, which this is not. Neither is the SCOTUS a Constitutional gov't, because IF it is ever admitted/exposed/reverted-to-justice, the SCOTUS that put co-conspirators into power in the first Junta in US history, installing oligarchs who would like to be tyrants, cannot be considered to have ruled fairly in ANYTHING since. When the Constitutional went, so did the authority of these five justices to rule. It is misrule, in those two branches of gov't; and if the Congress doesn't order an independent investigation in this outing of one of our most important spies (and also Rice's leaking of the name of the UK-turned mole in Al Qaeda, also to the treasonous NYT), then it too has lost its empowerment to rule. Might makes wrong. No tears for Judy Miller -- a real traitor, along with Karl Rove's dear friend in Cheney's employ.

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "It is also possible that I purchased a winning Lotto ticket yesterday. The odds, of course, say that I did not." You are talking out of your arse, Jim. The cover blown wasn't just Plame's. The FRONT COMPANY she 'worked for' was blown as well, and it had 'offices' all over the world. The exposure, to the enemy, of possibly THOUSANDS of agents and informants, is treason in every case. But the point is that the CIA ordered a full review to determine the actual damage done -- and that review sank from sight when Porter Goss was given the assignment to cover it up. You lie like you like it.

    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#11)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    PIL - Sorry old chap, but even if you are correct, that isn't treason. Actually, Plame and all her contacts, etc., if she had any, as it is has never been established that she actually was a covert operator, were surely blown by previous Soviet spies. Actually, she identified herself as a
    as an energy analyst...
    Link Now, do I approve of what was done? No. But for heavens sake, could you start using words accurately? Here's the law:
    Under certain circumstances, the exposure of a covert government agent would violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. The act applies itself to a person who "learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." [2]
    Re: Reporters Lose in Leaks Case (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    Actually, she identified herself as a as an energy analyst...
    and you expected her to identify herself as a CIA operative?

    Reporters Lose in Leaks Case | 10 comments (10 topical)