Media move to quash subpoenas on CIA leak

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON -- Time magazine and NBC on Friday filed motions seeking to quash grand jury subpoenas issued last month to compel testimony from their reporters about whether Bush administration officials leaked the name of a covert CIA operative.

The motions, claiming reporters' privilege under the First Amendment, were filed under seal in U.S. District Court in Washington, Time and NBC said, and represent what many attorneys say could be an uphill battle because of unfavorable case law.

Time and NBC are fighting subpoenas issued May 21 by a Washington grand jury led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named six months ago to probe the leak last year of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.

Fitzgerald, seeking the identity of the leaker or leakers, wants to question Matthew Cooper of Time and Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press," who reported on the leak.

They are the only two journalists known to have been subpoenaed, though Fitzgerald also has sought interviews with reporters at Newsday and The Washington Post. Fitzgerald's spokesman declined to comment.

more…
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usleak0605,0,3486330.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

[Old and In the Way]

1. We have gone through the looking glass.

I'm old enough to remember a time when corporate media would fight to expose government wrongdoing with the help of legal system. Now they are using the legal system to help protect the criminal wrong doing of government.

[mmonk]

2. another time

and another media. The US has changed.

[AP]

3. Personally, I don't think government employees who are on the clock...

...doing the job taxpayers pay them to do should be entitled to confidentiality.

If the calls were made from government property by people whose job it is is to communicate with the press, or by the supervisor of someone with that job description, my feeling is that everythign they do or say is said on the behalf of the public, and therofre shouldn't be entitled to confidentiality.

Just a theory.

Discuss, if you'd like.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. Sorry, but I think National Security trumps the right of a journalist...

...to keep their sources a secret. This is particularly true when the individual that is exposed to the public is a field operative running a global intelligence operation.

I don't think ANY judge will go along with the media's motion to squash.

[FreakinDJ]

6. Quite true

How does National Security in the light of the Patriot Act play out in all of this.

Sure Novak could claim 1st amendment rights and refuse to disclose the name, but then he is in violation of the National Security Act.

[teryang]

8. I agree

This privelege doesn't stand up to compelling interests, it never has.

The privilege is as strong as the willingness of the reporter to spend time in jail for contempt.

[LizW]

5. These are routine motions

Any time a subpoena is issued for information that is protected by privilege, (reporter/source, doctor/patient, attorney/client), the holder of the information files one of these, and a hearing is held and usually a judge orders the information released (or testimony given). The court order is a second layer of protection for the holder of the information against a lawsuit by the owner of the priviledge. It's just a CYA kind of thing, so that when the reporter testifies, he can say, "Hey, I did everything I could, but the judge compelled me to testify."

[crossroads]

7. Interesting...

:shrug:

[justjones]

9. Doesn't the Patriot Act exempt them from all of this???

If it was anyone or anything else, they would just use the Patriot Act to surpass all this legalese and get the information that is needed to bust whoever breached national security. Now all of a sudden, it's like it doesn't exist.

The can use the Patriot Act to look into private citizens' personal and professional life, why not use it in this case? I can't think of a more appropriate use. I guess it just depends on who did the leaking.....

Bastards!