General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

18. It's basic criminal procedure....when you carve out a privilege, it generally fetters the rights of

Thu May 8, 2014, 11:06 AM

May 2014

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

someone else--in this case, the accused.

I respect that there are privileges accorded to certain persons with regard to testimony.

You seem to be arguing for a new privilege for reporters, but have not offered a reason why the First Amendment privilege sought should constrain the 6th amendment right of the accused. I suggest that this is because you have not considered the case beyond its connection to the Administration.

Although--here's Sterling's indictment.

http://cryptome.org/0003/sterling/sterling-001.pdf

Kindly make a case as to why he should not be prosecuted, based on his activity?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen threatened with jail time re: confidential sources [View all] marmar May 2014 OP

du rec. xchrom May 2014 #1

Not the change I hoped for. More from the article .... Scuba May 2014 #2

+1 xchrom May 2014 #3

So tell us why Judith Miller shouldn't have gone to jail? We should be consistent on DU. nt msanthrope May 2014 #4

Why should Judith Miller and James Risen not be compelled to testify against criminals? nt msanthrope May 2014 #5

From the article ... Scuba May 2014 #6

That was Miller's argument, trying to shield Scooter Libby...and doesn't answer my msanthrope May 2014 #7

It's not about shielding the criminal it's about protecting the free press's ability to investigate. Scuba May 2014 #8

1st, you are arguing for a 1stA right that doesn't exist. 2nd, you are arguing against the 6thA msanthrope May 2014 #9

I didn't argue either of the things you claimed I did. Take your strawman elsewhere. Scuba May 2014 #12

Actually, that is precisely the point of the cite you used. Risen is arguing msanthrope May 2014 #14

Your strawman is on fire. Scuba May 2014 #16

It's basic criminal procedure....when you carve out a privilege, it generally fetters the rights of msanthrope May 2014 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #62

I noticed that, too brentspeak May 2014 #35

... Scuba May 2014 #58

So, your argument in defense of reporter's privilege is not based on the 1st amendment? malthaussen May 2014 #61

Where did I say that? Scuba May 2014 #69

When you accused me of a strawman, as opposed to agreeing that I had correctly msanthrope May 2014 #71

Your strawman is not my argument. Scuba May 2014 #72

Is your argument the first amendment? If it is, then I didn't raise a strawman, but correctly msanthrope May 2014 #73

I have no clue why you think the "anti-confrontation clause" would have any relavence. Anything ... Scuba May 2014 #77

Well, I grant that you may be unfamiliar with the interplay of rights and privileges with regard to msanthrope May 2014 #87

Come on, Scuba, let's not play games. malthaussen May 2014 #75

Yes, ergo my last post to you on this topic. Scuba May 2014 #79

Thought that was to msanthrope.:) malthaussen May 2014 #90

Oh, I don't think the 6th amendment applies. malthaussen May 2014 #13

What? How does the 6th amendment not apply in the criminal case against Sterling? nt msanthrope May 2014 #15

I don't think the 6th amendment applies to the shield law. malthaussen May 2014 #17

There is no shield law. The extant case is a criminal one, US v. Sterling in which Mr. Risen msanthrope May 2014 #20

I use shield "law" colloquially, of course. malthaussen May 2014 #22

As an attorney, I don't use laws that don't exist at all. msanthrope May 2014 #24

Gocha. malthaussen May 2014 #33

My alternative is to leave the law as it is, as I take a dim view on privilege. Yeah--I'm satisfied msanthrope May 2014 #39

Thanks for the discussion. malthaussen May 2014 #54

I don't worry about this one, because although we don't have it, it doesn't stop the flow msanthrope May 2014 #56

"I think it is utter abrogation of progressive principles" brentspeak May 2014 #41

Indeed--it's an interesting day when the "true" progressives are backing a Fox reporter who wishes msanthrope May 2014 #52

I love the smell of 'Change' in the morning!!!! truebrit71 May 2014 #10

War on Truth. Octafish May 2014 #11

War on pesky embarrassing whistle blowers. L0oniX May 2014 #19

How is Jeffrey Sterling a whistleblower? He didn't reveal any abuse of power, or anything else. msanthrope May 2014 #25

Sad when the reporters become Enemies of the State, too. Octafish May 2014 #64

Another attack on journalists and whistle blowers. And why would this democratic administration sabrina 1 May 2014 #21

Jeffrey Sterling is not a whistleblower. In fact, here's his indictment--tell us all what msanthrope May 2014 #26

“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliff Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #23

This is what we get for backing a smooth-talking, glass-ceiling-breaking, guy-who-can-win FiveGoodMen May 2014 #27

Kindly read Mr. Sterling's indictment, and tell us all why he should not be prosecuted. msanthrope May 2014 #29

Yet another manufactrovery from Matthew Rothschild... SidDithers May 2014 #28

I'm still waiting for someone to read Sterling's indictment and tell me the whistleblowing activity. msanthrope May 2014 #31

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #30

but does she listen to what they say? uppityperson May 2014 #32

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #34

Sadly I do not. Don't you have some kale to attend to? Thank you for calling my an angel though uppityperson May 2014 #37

Nope. greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #36

Since she talked to me, does that mean I am an angel? Maybe you'll get a chance to be talked to to. uppityperson May 2014 #38

I think that you must be! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #40

Aw dang, sent back to heaven again. So sad. uppityperson May 2014 #45

She'll be back... greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #47

Cleanup in aisle three! nt msanthrope May 2014 #42

Done...and done. cyberswede May 2014 #43

Thanks! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #46

yes...like a recurring rash cyberswede May 2014 #49

... greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #51

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #76

Yes...just like that. cyberswede May 2014 #78

You are a pig!!! hrmjustin May 2014 #81

I think she gets off on upsetting you but I do agree uppityperson May 2014 #84

Not really. I expect it from her. hrmjustin May 2014 #85

back to talking to the angels again, ms vermin (to copy/paste from your deleted post) uppityperson May 2014 #82

Thank you, good job and good job and uppityperson May 2014 #48

LOL! nt cyberswede May 2014 #50

Looks like someone did it while we were smarting off! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #44

I am enjoying being able to welcome newbies, being just a general DUer again. uppityperson May 2014 #53

And that was certainly a warm welcome you gave to that member! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #55

it is annoying when that happens uppityperson May 2014 #57

And frustrating! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #59

But, but, but...we are the freest country in the world nadinbrzezinski May 2014 #60

This message was self-deleted by its author Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #63

The arrogance and blindness of Risen are striking. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #65

do you think he helped with a crime? serious question, as i have not followed this case. dionysus May 2014 #67

He defintely helped Sterling commit crime. What he did not do, however was commit a crime for msanthrope May 2014 #74

So it's an ego thing, then. randome May 2014 #80

Given the hatchet job he did against Wen Ho Lee, and his subsequent employment at Fox, he's pretty msanthrope May 2014 #88

It's the Judith Miller defense--redux. nt msanthrope May 2014 #70

I think you missed the details of this. KoKo May 2014 #83

The point is he did read the details...and some of us remember the hatchet job this Fox reporter msanthrope May 2014 #89

bad move, DOJ dionysus May 2014 #66

It's the only move consistent with the law. The Bush DOJ kicked the can down the road, and msanthrope May 2014 #68

thanks. i am not familiar with this case. dionysus May 2014 #86