Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Feds ask Supreme Court to reject case on reporter’s privilege to shield source

Published time: April 26, 2014 03:56
US Supreme Court.(AFP Photo / Karen Bleier)

US Supreme Court.(AFP Photo / Karen Bleier)

Obama administration lawyers have asked the US Supreme Court to not hear testimony from a New York Times reporter who argues that the First Amendment protects him from revealing his sources, a claim the Justice Department seems to find dubious at best.

In July 2013 a federal appeals court decided by a 2-1 margin that James Risen would be forced to reveal a source who provided information about a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) effort to subvert the Iranian nuclear program. Risen, a Pulitzer-Prize winner and veteran of the New York Times, has asserted that he should be protected from doing so because of a legal precedent known as reporter’s privilege, which applies in a variety of situations where press freedom is perceived to be at risk.

The constitutional argument began in this case when Risen was subpoenaed to testify in the federal trial of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was charged with illegally providing information that later appeared in Risen’s book, “State of War.” Risen has consistently refused to testify, undaunted even by the aforementioned federal appeals decision.

Politico reported Friday that the Department of Justice has formally asked the Supreme Court not to hear Risen’s appeals to the previous appeals court decision, saying that even if the Supreme Court believes journalists have a right to reporters privilege in criminal cases, Risen’s case presents a poor example.

While the question presented does not warrant this court’s review, this case is a particularly unsuitable vehicle,” the government argued Friday.

Journalist Josh Gerstein explained that the Justice Department was once willing to proceed in the Sterling trial but now seems intent on forcing him to take the witness stand. Other options include dropping the case entirely or entering into a plea deal with Sterling, as forcing the high court’s hand could have major implications.

If the Supreme Court does not take up Risen’s appeal, he could be held in contempt in district court and might be sent to jail or fined if he refuses to identify his sources or testify about other details of his reporting,” Gerstein wrote.

He has said repeatedly that he will not divulge details about his sources. That could place President Barack Obama in the awkward position of presiding over the jailing of a journalist in an administration the president has vowed to make the most transparent in history.”

In the brief filed Friday, the Justice Department cited as a precedent Branzburg v. Hayes, which found no privilege for media personnel called as grand jury witnesses in certain criminal investigations. Prosecutors also claimed that, because Risen’s case concerns national security, his case is extraordinary when compared to the protections afforded to journalists who work under different laws in various states throughout the US.

Although many states recognize a reporter’s privilege of some sort in some circumstances, no ‘consensus’ exists about who qualifies for such a privilege, what types of communications are covered, and the circumstances in which it may be invoked,” the brief said. “Importantly, none of the state laws or decisions petitioner cites addresses the uniquely federal interest in preventing the unlawful disclosure of classified national-defense information.”

Coincidentally, on the same day the Justice Department essentially asked the Supreme Court to send Risen to jail, the US State Department announced the beginning of its third annual “Free the Press” initiative, an attempt to recognize “journalists or media outlets that are censored, attacked, threatened, or otherwise oppressed because of their reporting.”

Comments (23)

 

NathanE. 27.04.2014 21:56

Shahna 27.04.2014 20:59

If State has a problem then that problem is with the leaker and a journalist always protects his sources if he intends working tomorrow.

  


That's who they are going after. Once again, Risen is not being prosecuted. What Risen is demanding is a new precedent that expands the reporter's privilege, which right now is pretty narrow.

As far as the operation being old, what if the relevant agent was still in danger? That's why there is a 50-year release for classified documents. There is as much interest in protecting former agents from as expanding press rights.

 

Shahna 27.04.2014 20:59

NathanE. 27.04.2014 20:09

[/quote]

This distracts from the real issue. ....

  


Risen was doing his job - and he did it well.
Merlin was already 6 years past when he published that book. If State has a problem then that problem is with the leaker and a journalist always protects his sources if he intends working tomorrow.

A nd really, it's highly disingenuous of the US to whine that Iran has the blueprints to build The Bomb when they gifted them the bloody blueprints themselves!

Better they shutup on the subject than make bigger fools of themselves.

 

NathanE. 27.04.2014 20:17

Does anyone seriously believe that the Russians would let a government employee leak this kind of information to the press? They'd send them to prison just as fast, if not faster, than any Western government. That's necessary for security purposes. You cannot tolerate that kind of behavior from sworn government employees.

If you disagree with government policy or an operation, then resign. If it is something blatantly unethical, then it might be justified. You should still expect prosecution unless you flee the country.

View all comments (23)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us

Follow us