Are There Protections?
A very important case may be taken up by the United states Supreme Court soon. It revolves around two reporters—Matt Cooper of Time, and Judith Miller of the New York Times. Both of these people are involved in a long-running "who ratted whom out" concerning Valerie Plame. We all remember this woman. She was, according to Robert Novak, a CIA operative specializing in Weapons of Mass Destruction. Cooper and Miller have refused to cooperate with federal investigators regarding their sources that are connected to the Plame case, and for their troubles, they’re facing jail time.
And everyone in the MSM is up in arms. One would think that their world was coming to an end. (Sorry, it hasn’t yet, but they are in their death throes.)
Reporters at the New York Times and Time magazine may be jailed if they continue to refuse to answer questions before a grand jury about their confidential conversations with government sources regarding the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity, a federal appeals court ruled on February 15.
The decision upholds a trial court's finding last year that Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine are in contempt of court and should be compelled to testify as part of an investigation into whether Bush administration officials knowingly leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003.
Yes, yes, I know it’s "old news", but I’ve been watching this one closely as it builds. The newest news, which isn’t exactly "new" either is that Ted Olson is now overseeing the case involving these two journalists.
Attorney Ted Olson, who has taken over defense of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case, says he plans to rely more on case law and common law, instead of the First Amendment, as he prepares to argue his client's right to a reporter's privilege before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We felt it might be worthwhile to take a different approach," Olson, President Bush's first solicitor general, told E&P. "We might focus more on the common law privilege, whether there is a privilege that stems from the First Amendment or from various case decisions."
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why Olson isn’t going to try and make this a First Amendment case?
Sundays are always a laid back day for us. And while she likes posting song lyrics (yes, I beat her to posting today) I prefer to stick with something a bit more substantive. This case is right up my alley, and as our regular readers know, I’m not bad with the interpretation of the Constitution. So, on Sundays I’m going to either discuss a past case, a pending case, or—as is the case here—a potential case. And I say it’s a potential case because it has been appealed to the Supreme Court. It is in the purview of the Court to decide whether they’re going to take it.
Olson plans on relying on precedent, of which there isn’t a lot that’s been made regarding journalists and sources, and being compelled to sing like a canary or go to jail. Since 1961, twenty-five journalists have been jailed for refusing to give up confidential sources. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Branzburg v. Hayes that, yes, a journalist can be compelled to give up a source. They ruled that the First Amendment didn’t protect the journalist.
As it was true and correct then; it is equally true and correct now. Cooper and Miller can be compelled to give up their sources. Under the First Amendment "freedom of the press" applies specifically and narrowly to the ability of the press to criticize and speak out against the government. But if Olson goes upon precedent the prior stare decisis from 1972 still stands. They will be compelled. Cooper and Miller may be doing this to truly protect their sources, or they may be doing this for "grand-standing"; possibly hoping to be the next "martyrs" in the fall of the MSM.
Problem #1, they can’t be martyrs because they’re not big enough names.
Problem #2, a martyr is someone who goes down willingly for a cause. The MSM is going down swinging every time someone gets caught screwing up.
But for the merits within the law, that journalist and their sources have no Constitutional protections. None. The First Amendment doesn’t apply. Prior precedents by the Court will murder this case. And it’s just plain foolish to rely on "common law" to argue such a case. Olson would be better off rolling the dice on a crap shoot to convince the Court to change it’s prior stance. This isn’t abortion. It’s not gay rights, or gender rights. The chances of them deciding such a change are at least slim, and much better than Olson could put together using the other two strategies.
But these two are bucking a special prosecutor trying to solve a crime. It has been contended that the Bush Administration knowingly and willingly blew the cover of Plame in an attempt to get some sort of revenge on Joe Wilson, who is Plame’s husband. Robert Novak did a piece on it when she was officially acknowledged as an operative. But Novak contends that between the people he had spoken with at Langley, and with those in DC that were familiar with Plame, her identity was anything but a secret.
A government official who knowingly identifies a covert operative could be in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. After a public uproar over the leak, the Justice Department appointed Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate.
According to the appellate court's opinion, Fitzgerald knows the identity of the person with whom Miller spoke and wants to question her about her contact with that "specified government official" on or about July 6, 2003. Miller never wrote a story on the subject.
And over all this is a demand emanating from the media that we need "shield laws" to protect sources. Here’s the problem with that. If one is a source, you know you’re only as good as your information. If you’re handing over bogus information, is there really a necessity for the journalist to keep quiet? I don’t think so. Sources and journalists have been working together for years, and back when journalists used to be real journalists, a source could always count on them to keep their mouths shut.
But in the last few years the media’s been showing it’s weak side; it’s lazy, ugly side that we common-sense people call "bias". And they’ve been held accountable for a few of their clowns, with Newsweek being the most recent one to join them all in the car.
Shield laws aren’t needed. And the MSM is going to smoke-screen this one for everyone in America. If the Court takes this case, the MSM will be running polls daily about shield laws for sources and the media. It’ll be a new talking point that fools will pick up and carry as their cross. I’m sure John McCain and Ted Kennedy will be appointed to handle that piece of legislation, too.
But it shouldn’t take this case. There’s nothing to be gained out of it that the appeals court didn’t already address. Their ruling stands, and unless Cooper and Miller speak up, they’re going to keep being found in contempt, and will be sent to jail. As it should be. The First Amendment doesn’t protect shenanigans like this. It protects the press’ right to speak out against the government. That is the inherent right afforded under the First Amendment—our free political speech.
Publius II
A very important case may be taken up by the United states Supreme Court soon. It revolves around two reporters—Matt Cooper of Time, and Judith Miller of the New York Times. Both of these people are involved in a long-running "who ratted whom out" concerning Valerie Plame. We all remember this woman. She was, according to Robert Novak, a CIA operative specializing in Weapons of Mass Destruction. Cooper and Miller have refused to cooperate with federal investigators regarding their sources that are connected to the Plame case, and for their troubles, they’re facing jail time.
And everyone in the MSM is up in arms. One would think that their world was coming to an end. (Sorry, it hasn’t yet, but they are in their death throes.)
Reporters at the New York Times and Time magazine may be jailed if they continue to refuse to answer questions before a grand jury about their confidential conversations with government sources regarding the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity, a federal appeals court ruled on February 15.
The decision upholds a trial court's finding last year that Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine are in contempt of court and should be compelled to testify as part of an investigation into whether Bush administration officials knowingly leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003.
Yes, yes, I know it’s "old news", but I’ve been watching this one closely as it builds. The newest news, which isn’t exactly "new" either is that Ted Olson is now overseeing the case involving these two journalists.
Attorney Ted Olson, who has taken over defense of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case, says he plans to rely more on case law and common law, instead of the First Amendment, as he prepares to argue his client's right to a reporter's privilege before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We felt it might be worthwhile to take a different approach," Olson, President Bush's first solicitor general, told E&P. "We might focus more on the common law privilege, whether there is a privilege that stems from the First Amendment or from various case decisions."
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why Olson isn’t going to try and make this a First Amendment case?
Sundays are always a laid back day for us. And while she likes posting song lyrics (yes, I beat her to posting today) I prefer to stick with something a bit more substantive. This case is right up my alley, and as our regular readers know, I’m not bad with the interpretation of the Constitution. So, on Sundays I’m going to either discuss a past case, a pending case, or—as is the case here—a potential case. And I say it’s a potential case because it has been appealed to the Supreme Court. It is in the purview of the Court to decide whether they’re going to take it.
Olson plans on relying on precedent, of which there isn’t a lot that’s been made regarding journalists and sources, and being compelled to sing like a canary or go to jail. Since 1961, twenty-five journalists have been jailed for refusing to give up confidential sources. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Branzburg v. Hayes that, yes, a journalist can be compelled to give up a source. They ruled that the First Amendment didn’t protect the journalist.
As it was true and correct then; it is equally true and correct now. Cooper and Miller can be compelled to give up their sources. Under the First Amendment "freedom of the press" applies specifically and narrowly to the ability of the press to criticize and speak out against the government. But if Olson goes upon precedent the prior stare decisis from 1972 still stands. They will be compelled. Cooper and Miller may be doing this to truly protect their sources, or they may be doing this for "grand-standing"; possibly hoping to be the next "martyrs" in the fall of the MSM.
Problem #1, they can’t be martyrs because they’re not big enough names.
Problem #2, a martyr is someone who goes down willingly for a cause. The MSM is going down swinging every time someone gets caught screwing up.
But for the merits within the law, that journalist and their sources have no Constitutional protections. None. The First Amendment doesn’t apply. Prior precedents by the Court will murder this case. And it’s just plain foolish to rely on "common law" to argue such a case. Olson would be better off rolling the dice on a crap shoot to convince the Court to change it’s prior stance. This isn’t abortion. It’s not gay rights, or gender rights. The chances of them deciding such a change are at least slim, and much better than Olson could put together using the other two strategies.
But these two are bucking a special prosecutor trying to solve a crime. It has been contended that the Bush Administration knowingly and willingly blew the cover of Plame in an attempt to get some sort of revenge on Joe Wilson, who is Plame’s husband. Robert Novak did a piece on it when she was officially acknowledged as an operative. But Novak contends that between the people he had spoken with at Langley, and with those in DC that were familiar with Plame, her identity was anything but a secret.
A government official who knowingly identifies a covert operative could be in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. After a public uproar over the leak, the Justice Department appointed Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate.
According to the appellate court's opinion, Fitzgerald knows the identity of the person with whom Miller spoke and wants to question her about her contact with that "specified government official" on or about July 6, 2003. Miller never wrote a story on the subject.
And over all this is a demand emanating from the media that we need "shield laws" to protect sources. Here’s the problem with that. If one is a source, you know you’re only as good as your information. If you’re handing over bogus information, is there really a necessity for the journalist to keep quiet? I don’t think so. Sources and journalists have been working together for years, and back when journalists used to be real journalists, a source could always count on them to keep their mouths shut.
But in the last few years the media’s been showing it’s weak side; it’s lazy, ugly side that we common-sense people call "bias". And they’ve been held accountable for a few of their clowns, with Newsweek being the most recent one to join them all in the car.
Shield laws aren’t needed. And the MSM is going to smoke-screen this one for everyone in America. If the Court takes this case, the MSM will be running polls daily about shield laws for sources and the media. It’ll be a new talking point that fools will pick up and carry as their cross. I’m sure John McCain and Ted Kennedy will be appointed to handle that piece of legislation, too.
But it shouldn’t take this case. There’s nothing to be gained out of it that the appeals court didn’t already address. Their ruling stands, and unless Cooper and Miller speak up, they’re going to keep being found in contempt, and will be sent to jail. As it should be. The First Amendment doesn’t protect shenanigans like this. It protects the press’ right to speak out against the government. That is the inherent right afforded under the First Amendment—our free political speech.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home