Obama doubles-down w/NYTs James Risen: rat on your sources or 'Go straight to jail. Do not pass go'

[99th_Monkey]

The Obama administration is trying to dissuade federal judges from giving the New York Times reporter James Risen one last chance to avoid having to disclose his source in a criminal trial over the alleged leaking of US state secrets.

The Department of Justice has filed a legal argument with the US appeals court for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, in which it strongly opposes any further consideration of Risen's petition. Risen's lawyers have asked the court to convene a full session of the 15-member court to decide whether the journalist should be granted First Amendment protection that would spare him from having to reveal the identity of his source to whom he promised confidentiality.

A three-member panel of the same court last month issued a 2-1 majority ruling in which they found that reporters had no privilege that would safeguard the confidentiality of their sources in a criminal trial. The judgement leaves Risen, a prominent investigative reporter specialising in national security issues, facing the prospect of having to break his promise to his source or go to jail.

The legal crunch emerged from Risen's 2006 book, State of War, in which the author reveals details of the CIA's attempts to foil Iran's nuclear programme. James Sterling, a former CIA employee, is being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for the criminal disclosure of the information – one of seven officials to face the severe charges under the Obama administration including Chelsea Manning who has been sentenced to 35 years in military jail as the WikiLeaks source.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-administration-james-risen-no-privilege

[Little Star]

1. What the heck is wrong with this admin continually going after reporters? I can't remember ever...

seeing any admin go after so many reporters. What's going on?

[Fuddnik]

2. We got bait and switched.

We voted in a bunch of Republicans that talked like and ran as Democrats.

[tblue]

13. My worst fear of a Pres. Rmoney

was that he'd start another war. Now look.

[99th_Monkey]

3. What Zappa said

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion.
At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take
down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs
out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

[Little Star]

4. The curtains are certainly being pulled back at an alarming rate.

[treestar]

5. Another story used to confuse people who don't understand the issues:

There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court “in no uncertain terms rejected the existence of such a privilege.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1146 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

[Progressive dog]

6. Settled law, reporters have no right to conceal crimes

in order to sell stories.

[SidDithers]

11. But that won't stop some DUers from misrepresenting the issue...

in order to keep stoking the outrage.

That fire needs to be constantly fed.

Sid

[Octafish]

47. That's not the issue.

Freedom of speech and a free Press are what's at stake, you know, what makes democracy possible.

[Civilization2]

21. I guess if it is "settled" we can't argue with that,. . LOL

If the corporate-military has deemed it so, it must be so. Who are we the people to disagree with the higher-ups?

[treestar]

24. settled law

by the courts. It is called the rule of law.

Reporters are not superior to other citizens. They witness a crime, they are witnesses to a court just like everyone else.

[Civilization2]

28. the question is what constitutes a crime,. leaking the doings of our gov. seems like public service!

Should the government be able to hide things?

We pay for those things, and they are done in our name, we have every right to see, hear, and know about all the actions taken by our government through the spending of taxes.

We should not need leakers to keep us informed of these issues,. sadly the corporate-military state grows more and more secretive.

[treestar]

31. It may seem like a public service, but it is a crime according to

Title 18 of the United States Code. That is a code of laws passed by Congresses and signed by Presidents. It would be a public service for journalists to obey the laws like the rest of us have to rather than setting themselves above We the People.

[Civilization2]

36. Like the banksters, or the corporate pillagers,. or the warmonger politicos that kill millions?

All these groups don't seem to need you to defend them, because the criminal justice system, you are so fond of, does not seem to notice their crimes,. why is that?

Why are you so interested in the legal system when someone squeals on the corrupted morals of those in power?

Are we surprised that the 1% uses "laws" they wrote to complete the corporate coup? Not at all.

[treestar]

40. You mean you don't find our criminal justice system adequate?

And that it's OK for journalists to break the laws?

The people you allege are getting away with it are too vague. Corporate pillagers can be sued or jailed for their illegal actions too.

Can we all break the laws?

And how do you know how many people get away with breaking laws? Even corporate pillagers have a right to be identified, charged, have a right to defend themselves in a court.

[sabrina 1]

44. Funny you should think it is settled law. The SC ruled, in the Ellsberg case that the NYT

had NOT committed a crime when it published the Pentagon Papers. Seems a precedent was set at that time.

But those different times. We are now living in an Empire and no one has rights anymore.

One day those who are supporting the persecution of journalists, the war mongering, the spying, the disregard for the rule of law will regret it. People who willingly give up their rights always do if they live long enough to see the results.

We may get a Republican administration sooner than anyone thinks, a Cheney maybe, and these abuses of our rights supported by Democrats, will be in the hands of the 'enemy'.

I guess we'll go back to screaming about them, as we did under Bush. But it will be too late.

[treestar]

45. Settled law is law that has been decided

and followed as precedent several times.

[Octafish]

49. Like Affirmative Action?

Or the Voting Rights Act?

Or money and elections?

[treestar]

50. Yes, those were laws, and they've been followed

The court may overturn some, but that's the operation of the constitution.

The elections take place under the laws. I don't know what you mean by money. If it takes a lot of money to win now, how is that anyone's fault other than that TV is expensive and traveling is? Or that we fall for slick ads when we could reach issue position papers. But the Constitution doesn't say whether there should be a limit on money spent or whether none should be spent at all. It's a problem, but doesn't prove the elections aren't held pursuant to the law.

What I see here is people having a fit that the law does not work the way they think it is supposed to, that is, do and enforce all they think should be done and enforced, in their opinion, without consideration of anyone else's.

[Octafish]

51. So, ''settled law'' is settled when you say it is?

Or when the courts say it is?

Either way, it seems like it always depends on the case and how much more to the Right things can go.

BTW: When money equates freedom of speech, those with money, like millionaires and corporations, are able to back whomever they want with as much as they want.

That, also, is un-Democratic.

[treestar]

52. It's settled when the courts have followed it

Not when I say anything. One person does not get to decide. The whole country does, everyone who ever lived in the country who votes or ever has a legal case or just lives here.

Someone above was questioning the concept. It's a simple legal doctrine. A court will cite precedent and say something is settled when it is.

Questions that are not settled are litigated.

[Progressive dog]

62. Our elected government deemed it so,

so all you have to do is elect a government that feels the way you do and shield laws can be passed. That is the way our democracy works.

[mick063]

34. Crimes on Wall Street have been concealed for decades.

And the Dept. of Justice won't lift a finger in that direction.

When it comes to the subject of justice, this administration has zero credibility.

Settled law my ass.

[Progressive dog]

61. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Settled law is settled law.

[mick063]

64. The DOJ is one big fail

Selective prosecution is a travesty.

How about no wrongs?

[99th_Monkey]

7. That prosecutors even NEED Risen's testimony at all, is highly questionable.

Feds were willing to prosecute leak without Risen
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/08/feds-were-willing-to-prosecute-leak-without-risen-171193.html

NYTimes "concerned that the process of news gathering is being criminalized"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/james-risen-jill-abramson-new-york-times_n_3670348.html

[msanthrope]

14. Witnesses don't get to determine the importance of their own testimony.

Further the evidence needed to obtain an indictment is not the evidence needed to obtain a verdict. Mr risin has the same rights as a witness as any other ordinary American citizen.

[questionseverything]

29. can the doj get anything right?

from the article

Plans for the trial began to fall apart soon thereafter. On Thursday, one day after the hearing, prosecutors belatedly gave the the defense negative information about planned prosecution witnesses. On Friday, Brinkema ruled that two important prosecution witnesses would be barred from testifying as a result of the delayed disclosure.

[questionseverything]

30. not exactly the same rights

Last month, after a flap over leak investigations that pried into the work of the Associated Press and Fox News, the Justice Department revised its internal guidelines for such probes. A report announcing the changes declared that DOJ's policy is to seek evidence from reporters "only as a last resort, after all reasonable altemative investigative steps have been taken, and when the information sought is essential to a successful investigation or prosecution."

///////////////////////

so the doj screws up their own case because they do not disclose or was it on purpose so they could continue with the hunt for journalists?

[Cha]

8. the important thing is to get

the juices going to hate on Obama. They have their priorities.

[woo me with science]

18. The administration has no credibility left,

and neither does its talking point brigade.

[treestar]

25. So the court opinion is talking points?

Interpretations of the law so that one set of people cannot claim to be above it due to their profession is just manufacture of talking points?

[Whisp]

23. People conveniently forget this part.

yeh, never before has an admin gone after so many journalists..


what pure stenching bullshit.
what easy led, gullible idiots.

[Recursion]

9. I thought secrets were bad and info wanted to be free?

[99th_Monkey]

10. Journalism 101 -> protecting confidentiality of sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

But then you know that, right?

[Recursion]

12. Yeah, and journalists have gone to jail for that

And will probably continue to for some time. It's not a privilege the courts recognize.

[treestar]

26. It is kind of funny though that

the government can't keep classified information - it's like reporters are able to stand above the law in the minds of some here.

They get to decide what is classified or not. They get to decide whether they testify or not.

Why? If I set myself up as a journalist, can I do whatever I want too?

[99th_Monkey]

35. Reporters acting like they "are above the law"

Certainly not "above" honoring the US Constitution's protection of the free press though,
which is more than I can say of some at DU who apparently are just a-ok with our
spankin' new 100%-saturation (illegal) Surveillance & Security State.

[treestar]

41. This is not a matter of free speech

It's a matter of being a witness to a crime. Crimes in this country are duly passed laws. Why are you OK with a certain subset of people thumbing their noses at it?

You'd probably complain if a "bankster" got away with it, but a journalist can, why?

[99th_Monkey]

42. Because no where in MY copy of the US Constitution does it state that Banksters are protected

whereas "the Press" on the other hand IS specifically protected.

Is very simple really.

[treestar]

46. The Constitution applies to everyone

Where does it say the "banksters" don't have those rights?

It is incredible. You are stating that certain groups of people don't have rights if accused of a crime or sued? Because you are that prejudiced against them?

[99th_Monkey]

53. Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of THE PRESS"

freedom of speech = everyone
freedom of PRESS = THE PRESS <-- THIS was spelled out, for EMPHASIS, by the framers.

Is that clear enough for you?

[treestar]

57. The Risen case is about something different

Everyone has the same rights to try to quash a subpoena served on them. But no one has special rights - well, journalists do have some:


.

. . the Court states that no harassment of newsmen will be tolerated. If a newsman believes that the grand jury investigation is not being conducted in good faith he is not without remedy. Indeed, if the newsman is called upon to give information bearing only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation, or if he has some other reason to believe that his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have access to the court on a motion to quash and an appropriate protective order may be entered. The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct. The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions.

That is in the case.

[99th_Monkey]

58. "...without a legitimate need of law enforcement" <-- the operative phrase

Where did this text (without a link) originate? Is it by someone else, or you?

[Brewinblue]

16. Seriously?

[DeSwiss]

15. It's this administration that should be jailed. K&R :-| n/t

[xocet]

22. ...and the last one as well. It seems to be a trend. n/t

[DeSwiss]

37. Indeed.

[Hubert Flottz]

17. Obama promised "Transparency" when he was campaigning, but

what we're getting is a war on transparency.

[treestar]

32. You did not think he meant that classified information could be leaked whenever?

And that reporters don't have to testify if they don't feel like it?

Who is not being transparent in this particular case?

[kenny blankenship]

19. President Bush is a thug.

[woo me with science]

20. The United States of America is now a surveillance state

that aggressively targets journalists and whistleblowers, while protecting war criminals.

I never in my life thought my country would come to this.

[99th_Monkey]

43. That really does sum up our sorry-ass situation pretty well. eom

[DevonRex]

27. So all you outraged people want Iran to have nukes?

And you want the United States to have NO secrets from any other country? And it's fine for other countries to keep THEIR secrets from US and spy on US?

Got it.

[treestar]

33. Honestly

They really don't get, or pretend not to get, that they are "our" secrets from the Russians, terrorists, etc. As for thinking through the implications of what they demand, they don't have time to get that far in the reasoning process apparently.

[DevonRex]

39. I have decided what I finally said in my post. IMO it is the only logical

conclusion. I honestly can't see any way around coming to that conclusion. I tried so very, very hard. And IMO it's impossible to conclude otherwise.

[forestpath]

38. Bet the same people defending this now rightfully would have torn Bush a new

asshole for doing the same.

I guess IOKIYO.

[99th_Monkey]

54. That is painfully clear isn't it?

It fries my brain everytime I think about it.

btw, what's "IOKIYO"

[forestpath]

55. ....

It means It's OK If You're Obama.

[99th_Monkey]

56. Ahh..I see. nice one. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Question …

Does it matter to anyone that this “journalist” disclosed the classified information in a book (that he sold); rather than, though a media outlet, i.e., reporting?

Broader question …

Without prosecutions, what is to stop Russia or China or Israel, or any other nation from seeking out classified information, then once obtained, publishing it and claiming a 1st Amendment right to do so?

[LiberalAndProud]

59. Since when does the first amendment apply to Russia, China or Israel?

I'm not taking an opinion yet on this prosecution. More than one reporter has been obliged to spend time in jail rather than reveal sources. But to extend first amendment privileges to foreign countries would be stretching the point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. I would have thought ...

I didn't have to spell out, when I mentioned Russia, China and Israel, that I was talking about agents of those states ... which the Constitution would apply to, especially if those agents are US citizens. And it would not be a stretch for those nations to do that.

[alarimer]

60. Obama's defenders can't see the irony

They would be up in arms if it was the Bush administration doing this (and they did).

[Demo_Chris]

65. If the White House cannot imprison journalists how can we call ourselves free?!

Or something like that.