Journalist sent to jail!

[amicus]

I thought to lurk and see what Litsters had to say about a New York Times reporter being sent to jail today for refusing to disclose a source of information.

I was surprised to find no threads on the subject.

Having had a career as a print and broadcast journalist; one who has felt the threat of political and legal action concerning articles I have written, my ears perked up while surfing the news today.

I am not going to pull up source material, 'get your own box', rather relate what I heard and saw on MSNBC, CNN and FOX news this afternoon.

Two reporters, one from Time Magazine and one from the New York Times newspaper, were under threat of prison from a Federal Judge for refusing to disclose the source of information concerning the public exposure of a CIA covert agent some time ago.

As the story developed today, one reporter had the charges dismissed as the management at Time magazine decided to release the information to the Court.

The other reporter did not disclose information and was sentenced to four months in jail.

I expected to find a firestorm here about claims of 1st Amendment rights and the Bush administration. Imagine my surprise to find not a whisper.

As far back as the time of Benjamin Franklin, reporters have been jailed for what they wrote and for refusing to divulge their sources.

The was a Supreme Court decision in 1972, pre Watergate era that addressed the issue of 'shield' protection of news reporters. Nearly all States have a form of 'shield protection' for Journalists, but there is no Federal shield law, although some have been proposed in Congress.

The specifics in the current case are being described as a 'political vendetta'.

It apparently stems from information concerning the Iraqi attempt to purchase 'yellow cake' (uranium ore) from Nigeria in the 'alleged' pursuit of the Iraqi's to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

As I understand the news today, a story presented by a reporter name Novak, on CNN challenged the accusation that the Iraqi's were manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD's. In the process of Novak and the two other reporters, classified information was leaked to the Press.

It is a Federal crime to release classified information without authorization.

Some one in Congress or the Bush Administration has committed a crime.

While reporters do have First Amendment rights and freedom of speech is of great import, those rights do not permit a reporter to aid and abet in the commission of a crime.

No one yet knows what public official leaked the classified information. It was said on another thread that Carl Rowe, advisor to President Bush was under suspicion.

I find that unlikely and here is why:

The original story appeared on CNN. CNN is owned by Ted Turner & Jane Fonda and is a news channel tilted far to the Liberal Left.

Time Magazine is owned by CNN. One of the reporters worked for that magazine.

The New York Times has consistently opposed the Bush administration on all levels and is widely known, along with the Washington Post as being Liberal Left Wing newspapers.

It is suggested that this will be a huge story, eventually involving the Bush administration and the course of events surrounding shield laws concerning reporters and 1st Amendment rights of the press.

Should be an interesting summer and being a news junkie...I just could not stay away, the devil made me do it.


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

I thought to lurk and see what Litsters had to say about a New York Times reporter being sent to jail today for refusing to disclose a source of information.

I was surprised to find no threads on the subject.

Having had a career as a print and broadcast journalist; one who has felt the threat of political and legal action concerning articles I have written, my ears perked up while surfing the news today.

I am not going to pull up source material, 'get your own box', rather relate what I heard and saw on MSNBC, CNN and FOX news this afternoon.

Two reporters, one from Time Magazine and one from the New York Times newspaper, were under threat of prison from a Federal Judge for refusing to disclose the source of information concerning the public exposure of a CIA covert agent some time ago.

As the story developed today, one reporter had the charges dismissed as the management at Time magazine decided to release the information to the Court.

The other reporter did not disclose information and was sentenced to four months in jail.

I expected to find a firestorm here about claims of 1st Amendment rights and the Bush administration. Imagine my surprise to find not a whisper.

As far back as the time of Benjamin Franklin, reporters have been jailed for what they wrote and for refusing to divulge their sources.

The was a Supreme Court decision in 1972, pre Watergate era that addressed the issue of 'shield' protection of news reporters. Nearly all States have a form of 'shield protection' for Journalists, but there is no Federal shield law, although some have been proposed in Congress.

The specifics in the current case are being described as a 'political vendetta'.

It apparently stems from information concerning the Iraqi attempt to purchase 'yellow cake' (uranium ore) from Nigeria in the 'alleged' pursuit of the Iraqi's to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

As I understand the news today, a story presented by a reporter name Novak, on CNN challenged the accusation that the Iraqi's were manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD's. In the process of Novak and the two other reporters, classified information was leaked to the Press.

It is a Federal crime to release classified information without authorization.

Some one in Congress or the Bush Administration has committed a crime.

While reporters do have First Amendment rights and freedom of speech is of great import, those rights do not permit a reporter to aid and abet in the commission of a crime.

No one yet knows what public official leaked the classified information. It was said on another thread that Carl Rowe, advisor to President Bush was under suspicion.

I find that unlikely and here is why:

The original story appeared on CNN. CNN is owned by Ted Turner & Jane Fonda and is a news channel tilted far to the Liberal Left.

Time Magazine is owned by CNN. One of the reporters worked for that magazine.

The New York Times has consistently opposed the Bush administration on all levels and is widely known, along with the Washington Post as being Liberal Left Wing newspapers.

It is suggested that this will be a huge story, eventually involving the Bush administration and the course of events surrounding shield laws concerning reporters and 1st Amendment rights of the press.

Should be an interesting summer and being a news junkie...I just could not stay away, the devil made me do it.


amicus...

Have not heard, Amicus, of anything new. I have heard in Cdn news of those charged Journalists in reporting on a banned items. Notably the Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffey murders. Sad thing. I lived there at the time, and it was frightening, believe me. Everyone knew something or someone, but ... and I must and be a devil ... why is this case more important than anything? To such what ... and I NEED TO SAY IT, that A female participant to a sexual murder is more abhorred than the thousands of males? HOW HORRID considering the pedophiles, 354 in my neighborhood alone? What a sad state of focus. Journalists are sadists, of the worst crime, and so is public opinion.

Back to it ...

We have no 1st amendment, but I am betting that this is ending soon in the US? It already has is a way. Sad.

 

[Guest]

I do find it interesting that Robert Novak, the originator of the article, has not been ordered to turn in his sources. Nor has he been charged, of course, with a refusal to do so.

So it truly does make a difference who your buddies are, I guess.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I do find it interesting that Robert Novak, the originator of the article, has not been ordered to turn in his sources. Nor has he been charged, of course, with a refusal to do so.

So it truly does make a difference who your buddies are, I guess.

Excellent point sarah. It's true nothing has been done to Novak who originally exposed the story on network news.
It's sad the NY Times is not standing behind it's reporter. He did the samething as many journalist have done. Quoted a confidential informant. From Deep Throat to today it seems each reporter only reported what they were told and that they were able to verify through other resoursces.
It'll be interesting to see how this changes things for reporters and the American Press. I guess freedom of speech and the 1st amendment was thrown out today.
As Lenin once said, communism and democracy will meet in the middle. It's just been proven.

 

[amicus]

CharleyH...we seem to seldom exchange ideas and seem in abject disagreement when we do.

However, the the case you are referring to took place in Canada where a woman was recently released from prison after serving a sentence, for the rape, torture and murder of three young women, I only heard a brief summary of the case and how people were upset that she was set free.

As to why women sex offenders are treated different than men; I have a take on that, not one that you will probably appreciate but nonetheless...

Many wish for there to be gender equality in all things, I am not one of those. I think the genders are magnificently different, so much so as to be near opposites, each complimenting the other. I rather think that is what nature intended, both physically, mentally and psychologicially.

Thus when I say that many men place women on a high pedastal, look up to them, worship them with a sense of awe at their ability to show compassion and concern for children and other small things, you may not agree.

We entrust our children to the care of women and share with them our deepest and most private thoughts and moments.

We mourn when a female soldier is lost in battle, we feel great anger when a girl child is kidnapped, molested or murdered.

I think we view female criminality as a betrayal of all things we value and honor.

Sorry, I doubt you share that viewpoint, but I read your thoughts and that came to mind.


And yes, I wonder also why Robert Novak, also of CNN, was not brought before the Court on charges also.

Perhaps as time goes by we will learn more...

regards...amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

CharleyH...we seem to seldom exchange ideas and seem in abject disagreement when we do.

However, the the case you are referring to took place in Canada where a woman was recently released from prison after serving a sentence, for the rape, torture and murder of three young women, I only heard a brief summary of the case and how people were upset that she was set free.

As to why women sex offenders are treated different than men; I have a take on that, not one that you will probably appreciate but nonetheless...

Many wish for there to be gender equality in all things, I am not one of those. I think the genders are magnificently different, so much so as to be near opposites, each complimenting the other. I rather think that is what nature intended, both physically, mentally and psychologicially.

Thus when I say that many men place women on a high pedastal, look up to them, worship them with a sense of awe at their ability to show compassion and concern for children and other small things, you may not agree.

We entrust our children to the care of women and share with them our deepest and most private thoughts and moments.

We mourn when a female soldier is lost in battle, we feel great anger when a girl child is kidnapped, molested or murdered.

I think we view female criminality as a betrayal of all things we value and honor.

Sorry, I doubt you share that viewpoint, but I read your thoughts and that came to mind.


And yes, I wonder also why Robert Novak, also of CNN, was not brought before the Court on charges also.

Perhaps as time goes by we will learn more...

regards...amicus...

Amicus,

We have had several conversations, during which we attempted to be respectful of each other even though we disagreed. While I agree with you that it is interesting why Novak hasn't been brought to task I disagree with you on your views on women.

Yes I like many tend to put women on a pedastal, but when they like men decide to break the law I feel they must be punished. They wish to be treated as equals and I have absolutely no problem with that. I understand that I am in the minority when I can honestly say that I treat everyone as my equals, regardless of their race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Personaly I believe that we as a country as well as we as the human race have enough problems without adding to them by treating others as being below us.

Respectfully,
Cat

 

[CharleyH]

CharleyH...we seem to seldom exchange ideas and seem in abject disagreement when we do.

However, the the case you are referring to took place in Canada where a woman was recently released from prison after serving a sentence, for the rape, torture and murder of three young women, I only heard a brief summary of the case and how people were upset that she was set free.

As to why women sex offenders are treated different than men; I have a take on that, not one that you will probably appreciate but nonetheless...

Many wish for there to be gender equality in all things, I am not one of those. I think the genders are magnificently different, so much so as to be near opposites, each complimenting the other. I rather think that is what nature intended, both physically, mentally and psychologicially.

Thus when I say that many men place women on a high pedastal, look up to them, worship them with a sense of awe at their ability to show compassion and concern for children and other small things, you may not agree.

We entrust our children to the care of women and share with them our deepest and most private thoughts and moments.

We mourn when a female soldier is lost in battle, we feel great anger when a girl child is kidnapped, molested or murdered.

I think we view female criminality as a betrayal of all things we value and honor.

Sorry, I doubt you share that viewpoint, but I read your thoughts and that came to mind.


And yes, I wonder also why Robert Novak, also of CNN, was not brought before the Court on charges also.

Perhaps as time goes by we will learn more...

regards...amicus...

I agree the genders are different, but a male child abused is sadly more important than the many females in society abused , not that any abuse is worse - IT SHOULD NOT BE, though. I see you have difficultly with strong women. So, I will simply say, I agree with parts. disagree with others, and am sorry on behalf of all of us that you don't realize the beauty of everyone, It is a pity, friend.

 

[amicus]

Sighs...and you, like most, revert to an ad hominem....

I have no problems with strong women, and not 'everyone' is beautiful and I am not speaking cosmetically; and your 'pity' is wasted on me.

Still, it was kind of you to reply.


amicus...

 

[R. Richard]

It is a Federal crime to release classified information without authorization.

Some one in Congress or the Bush Administration has committed a crime.

Amicus:
I used to work as a computer programmer in defense applications. I had a high level government security clearance. One day I was setting up a classified application, using what the book described as nomenclature suitable for use over an open (non-cleared) telephone line. Some management idiot broke into the telephone line, insisted that I stop and then charged me with a security violation that would have ended my career.

We had what amounted to a trial and I cited the nomenclature that I had used and produced the book that stated that it was suitable for use in the circumstances in which I used it. The board decided that I had not violated security. I pointed out that I had not violated security, but that security had been violated. I then cited a paragraph in the security documents that made giving credence to classified information or what was thought to be classified information over an open telephone line was a secruity violation. The management idiot had comitted a Federal crime by his actions. The board would not even consider the clear and admitted security violation by a management level employee, but would have convicted me and taken away my career had I been convicted.

If you are high enough in the government and/or government contractors, only secretly giving infomation to an enemy is, de-facto, a security violation.

 

[CharleyH]

Sighs...and you, like most, revert to an ad hominem....

I have no problems with strong women, and not 'everyone' is beautiful and I am not speaking cosmetically; and your 'pity' is wasted on me.

Still, it was kind of you to reply.


amicus...

Kind of you, baby, to respond in your little girl way. I could rip you apart from your silliness. But I am un--piss-off-able And love ya. You do have difficulty with strong women though. I am not speaking cosmetic ... never brought it up. But if you like? I can

 

[Colleen Thomas]

under normal conditions, most states and the Federal government recognize the importance of journalistic confidentiality. this isn't a normal condition. You aren't talking about an expose on government waste, or a whistle blower pointing out fraud. You are talking about exposing an intelligence officer's identity. An exposure that not only ends that person's usefulness as an intelligence asset, but in a very real sense places her life in jepardy.

In a grand jury inquiry, that which is protected by confidentiality is limited. Even doctor/patient confidentiality can be removed with a court order, if, in the court's opinion, the information is relevant to the case.

To my knowledge, the only kind of confidentiality that is sacrosanct, is lawyer/client priveledge. For the obvious reason, that such priveledge is neccessary to conduct trials and a person's revelations to his/her lawyer come loosely under the heading of fith amendment protections.

She has a responsibility to protect her sources, but that responsibility is one she takes to continue to have the confidence of her sources. When a court order is involved, she dosen't have much say in what she doesn't wish to reveal. I don't see that she has a leg to stand on myself.

 

[amicus]

Well, RGraham, as I mentioned, I did not google the information, just passed only what I heard as accurately as I could remember. Several commentators on the three different cable news channels and then the three network channels I watched this evening, all agreed that leaking classified information was a Federal Crime.

Perhaps they are all wrong.


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

Well, RGraham, as I mentioned, I did not google the information, just passed only what I heard as accurately as I could remember. Several commentators on the three different cable news channels and then the three network channels I watched this evening, all agreed that leaking classified information was a Federal Crime.

Perhaps they are all wrong.


amicus...

Get non-google smart. I KNOW YOU CAN!

 

[amicus]

Colleen....I agree, don't see where she has a case either.

However, it was said that she never wrote or published the information she has whereas Robert Novak of CNN did.

And since early on, Rowe's name was in play, this may turn out to be a highly political thing, and not about 1st amendment rights or shield laws at all.

A curious affair all around with several reporters admitting they are 'confounded' over just what is really going on.

Time will tell...perhaps...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Hey everybody! CharlieH wants a piece of the old amicus.

Girly, girl...assuming you have either, you will leave this encounter with neither panties or virtue...step cautiously....

amicus ( I am what I eat)

 

[CharleyH]

under normal conditions, most states and the Federal government recognize the importance of journalistic confidentiality. this isn't a normal condition. You aren't talking about an expose on government waste, or a whistle blower pointing out fraud. You are talking about exposing an intelligence officer's identity. An exposure that not only ends that person's usefulness as an intelligence asset, but in a very real sense places her life in jepardy.

In a grand jury inquiry, that which is protected by confidentiality is limited. Even doctor/patient confidentiality can be removed with a court order, if, in the court's opinion, the information is relevant to the case.

To my knowledge, the only kind of confidentiality that is sacrosanct, is lawyer/client priveledge. For the obvious reason, that such priveledge is neccessary to conduct trials and a person's revelations to his/her lawyer come loosely under the heading of fith amendment protections.

She has a responsibility to protect her sources, but that responsibility is one she takes to continue to have the confidence of her sources. When a court order is involved, she dosen't have much say in what she doesn't wish to reveal. I don't see that she has a leg to stand on myself.

We are not all in the US, which is becoming sticky.

 

[CharleyH]

Hey everybody! CharlieH wants a piece of the old amicus.

Girly, girl...assuming you have either, you will leave this encounter with neither panties or virtue...step cautiously....

amicus ( I am what I eat)

LOL I WANT YOU BABY! CUM'ere bad boy - LOL. I am strangely coherant, even if I spell like Colly

EDIT TO ADD: Sorry? babe.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen....I agree, don't see where she has a case either.

However, it was said that she never wrote or published the information she has whereas Robert Novak of CNN did.

And since early on, Rowe's name was in play, this may turn out to be a highly political thing, and not about 1st amendment rights or shield laws at all.

A curious affair all around with several reporters admitting they are 'confounded' over just what is really going on.

Time will tell...perhaps...


amicus...

My point was, whether she reported it or not , it isn't her call as to what is relevant or protected. Like it or not, the presiding judge in a grand jury inquiry has sweeping decision making power as to what is or isn't relevant to the issue. Just as he can issue a court order to a physician to release medical information on someone (a violation of the traditional confidentiality between doctor and patient) so too, he can issue a court order that abrogates her ability to hold back information she might feel is protected by journalistic confidentiality.

She has the ability to refuse to honor the court's order, but the consequences of doing so are usually jail time for contempt. I don't see what the big deal is here. This isn't a prosecutor trying to strong arm her into breaking confidence, it's a court order. You cannot simply refuse to comply with a court order and think you will not face the consequences.

 

[cantdog]

I'm not sure that's amicus's point, Colleen. I believe he has another aspect in mind here. His real interest was in the lack of a thread on the subject. Ami believes we ducked the issue from some sort of liberal malaise. He could give a shit about the case. He pleads ignorance of it at every turn.

 

[CharleyH]

I thought to lurk and see what Litsters had to say about a New York Times reporter being sent to jail today for refusing to disclose a source of information.

I was surprised to find no threads on the subject.

Having had a career as a print and broadcast journalist; one who has felt the threat of political and legal action concerning articles I have written, my ears perked up while surfing the news today.

I am not going to pull up source material, 'get your own box', rather relate what I heard and saw on MSNBC, CNN and FOX news this afternoon.

Two reporters, one from Time Magazine and one from the New York Times newspaper, were under threat of prison from a Federal Judge for refusing to disclose the source of information concerning the public exposure of a CIA covert agent some time ago.

As the story developed today, one reporter had the charges dismissed as the management at Time magazine decided to release the information to the Court.

The other reporter did not disclose information and was sentenced to four months in jail.

I expected to find a firestorm here about claims of 1st Amendment rights and the Bush administration. Imagine my surprise to find not a whisper.

As far back as the time of Benjamin Franklin, reporters have been jailed for what they wrote and for refusing to divulge their sources.

The was a Supreme Court decision in 1972, pre Watergate era that addressed the issue of 'shield' protection of news reporters. Nearly all States have a form of 'shield protection' for Journalists, but there is no Federal shield law, although some have been proposed in Congress.

The specifics in the current case are being described as a 'political vendetta'.

It apparently stems from information concerning the Iraqi attempt to purchase 'yellow cake' (uranium ore) from Nigeria in the 'alleged' pursuit of the Iraqi's to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

As I understand the news today, a story presented by a reporter name Novak, on CNN challenged the accusation that the Iraqi's were manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD's. In the process of Novak and the two other reporters, classified information was leaked to the Press.

It is a Federal crime to release classified information without authorization.

Some one in Congress or the Bush Administration has committed a crime.

While reporters do have First Amendment rights and freedom of speech is of great import, those rights do not permit a reporter to aid and abet in the commission of a crime.

No one yet knows what public official leaked the classified information. It was said on another thread that Carl Rowe, advisor to President Bush was under suspicion.

I find that unlikely and here is why:

The original story appeared on CNN. CNN is owned by Ted Turner & Jane Fonda and is a news channel tilted far to the Liberal Left.

Time Magazine is owned by CNN. One of the reporters worked for that magazine.

The New York Times has consistently opposed the Bush administration on all levels and is widely known, along with the Washington Post as being Liberal Left Wing newspapers.

It is suggested that this will be a huge story, eventually involving the Bush administration and the course of events surrounding shield laws concerning reporters and 1st Amendment rights of the press.

Should be an interesting summer and being a news junkie...I just could not stay away, the devil made me do it.


amicus...

LOL

 

[Colleen Thomas]

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=350002

Leave it to the bullet. It isn't as if it has fallen below the radar. Simnply that there isn't a lot to say about it that I see.

 

[CharleyH]

Hey everybody! CharlieH wants a piece of the old amicus.

Girly, girl...assuming you have either, you will leave this encounter with neither panties or virtue...step cautiously....

amicus ( I am what I eat)

Only your ass love. anything else - I dont care - you will be my bitch SOON! You leave, I hope with pleasure. Step into my world of chaos, friend - YOU CAN NEVER PISS ME OFF. LOL

 

[CharleyH]

I'm not sure that's amicus's point, Colleen. I believe he has another aspect in mind here. His real interest was in the lack of a thread on the subject. Ami believes we ducked the issue from some sort of liberal malaise. He could give a shit about the case. He pleads ignorance of it at every turn.

WHAT is the subject?

Or did I successfully destroy it

 

[minsue]

under normal conditions, most states and the Federal government recognize the importance of journalistic confidentiality. this isn't a normal condition. You aren't talking about an expose on government waste, or a whistle blower pointing out fraud. You are talking about exposing an intelligence officer's identity. An exposure that not only ends that person's usefulness as an intelligence asset, but in a very real sense places her life in jepardy.

In a grand jury inquiry, that which is protected by confidentiality is limited. Even doctor/patient confidentiality can be removed with a court order, if, in the court's opinion, the information is relevant to the case.

To my knowledge, the only kind of confidentiality that is sacrosanct, is lawyer/client priveledge. For the obvious reason, that such priveledge is neccessary to conduct trials and a person's revelations to his/her lawyer come loosely under the heading of fith amendment protections.

She has a responsibility to protect her sources, but that responsibility is one she takes to continue to have the confidence of her sources. When a court order is involved, she dosen't have much say in what she doesn't wish to reveal. I don't see that she has a leg to stand on myself.

I would agree were it not for one thing - the journalist jailed did not publish the story. She has integrity, both in what she will print and in keeping her word. The bastard that published it appears to be walking away scot free. Rumor has it that he cut a deal and turned in his source and that is why he is not sitting there with his feet to the fire like the others. Which, if true, makes one wonder why they needed this woman to testify and why the fuck she's sitting in jail.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I would agree were it not for one thing - the journalist jailed did not publish the story. She has integrity, both in what she will print and in keeping her word. The bastard that published it appears to be walking away scot free. Rumor has it that he cut a deal and turned in his source and that is why he is not sitting there with his feet to the fire like the others. Which, if true, makes one wonder why they needed this woman to testify and why the fuck she's sitting in jail.

But min, it dosen't matter if she published or not. It matters that she has information that he judge has deemed relevant to the case. If the man who did publish it turned over the information he had, there is no reason for the grand jury to hold him in contempt. There is still pleanty of reason he could be censured and plenty for the rest of us to hold him in contempt over, but, as far as the case before the inquiry, he isn't important anymore.

You just can't decide you aren't going to co-operate with a grand jury because you don't feel like it. The system counts on people coming forward when called upon and the system gives the judge coercive measures for those who refuse. How many prosecutions would fail if people were able to just say, fuck you, I don't want to tell you?

Her integrity is not impeached if she complies with a court order. That is an exceptional circumstance and in that circumstance, the needs of the justice system must be put before her devotion to confidentiality.

I'm not saying she is more or less guilty by publishing or not. I am saying she can't refuse to cooperate with a grand jury inquiry and expect not to pay the price for that refusal.