US Journalist Facing Imprisonment for refusing to disclose Source

[Exarch]

this is a disturbing trend, especially in light of the NSA revelations and the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers.
James Risen of the New York Times is facing gaoltime because he refuses to disclose the sources that revealed the extent of CIA wrongdoing under the Bush administration:

The US supreme court has declined to intervene on behalf of a New York Times reporter who is facing prison for refusing to identify a confidential source.The court rejected requests from James Risen, plus several media organisations, to overturn a lower court's order on the grounds that reporters are protected by the constitution from testifying about their sources.
But the judges offered no reason for turning down the case.
Federal prosecutors want Risen to testify in the case of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA analyst who they believe gave Risen information for his 2006 book State of war: the secret history of the CIA and the Bush administration.
In the book, Risen detailed classified information about the CIA's efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme. He has said he will go to prison rather than reveal his sources.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which provides legal assistance to journalists, said it was "extremely disappointed" at the supreme court decision. Its statement said:

"The lower court's ruling sends an undeniable chill through current and future news sources who would want to come forward with information essential to the well-being of the community and the country."

Joel Kurtzberg, Risen's attorney, said he and Risen were also disappointed.
He said: "The ball is in the government's court... the government can proceed in the Sterling trial without Jim's testimony if it decides to do so, and I hope that they don't seek to find him in contempt for protecting his sources and doing his job."
Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, called the decision troubling. He said. "Journalists like Jim depend on confidential sources to get information the public needs to know. The court's failure to protect journalists' right to protect their sources is deeply troubling."
The Paris-based press freedom watchdog, Reporters Without Borders, has registered its concern about the supreme court decision. Its head of the Americas desk, Camille Soulier, said: "Forcing Risen to testify would be a serious violation to the confidentiality of sources.
"Risen is a Pulitzer prizewinner and a renowned investigative journalist. Sending him to jail would make reporting on national security issues a crime, and would set a dangerous legal precedent."
But US attorney general Eric Holder indicated during a meeting last week with journalists that prison for Risen would be unlikely. "As long as I'm attorney general, no reporter will go to jail for doing his job," Holder said.
Risen is continuing to write about national security issues for the New York Times. On Sunday, the paper published an article written jointly by him and Laura Poitras about the interception of images on social media platforms by the National Security Agency. It was based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor.
The Obama administration, leaks and the press

The case against Sterling is one of several the justice department has brought against people charged with leaking government secrets.
The crackdown on whistleblowers has been accompanied by investigations into journalists, which included the department secretly obtaining phone records for Associated Press journalists and investigators tracking the movements of a Fox News reporter.
Law enforcement officials looked extensively into Risen's phone calls, banking records and travel history.
Earlier this year, Risen called the Obama administration "the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation."
Margaret Sullivan, public editor at the NY Times, has written about the administration's "unprecedented attacks on a free press." And former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie called the administration's efforts to control information "the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration."
Reporters Without Borders has regularly condemned the war that the Obama administration is waging against whistleblowers such as Snowden and Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning.
It claims that eight alleged whistleblowers have been charged under the US espionage act since Obama became president in 2009, compared to three in all previous administrations combined.
Sources: Washington Post (1) & (2)/RCFP/New York Times/Reporters Without Borders

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...new-york-times

a talk given last December at UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism

[Vanoi]

Holder has already said he wouldn't be facing jail time most likely and own't face any jail time for continuing to not reveal his sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f0a_story.html

U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. indicated last week at a meeting with journaliststhat prison for Risen would be unlikely.
“As long as I’m attorney general, no reporter will go to jail for doing his job,” Holder told those in attendance.
The department said that Holder wasn’t speaking about any particular case but was reiterating a position he has long held. But his statement suggests that Risen won’t face time in prison if he continues to withhold the name of his sources, as he has vowed to do, when the case goes back to the lower court.

I am more curious to hear on why the US Supreme Court denied the case.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I am more curious to hear on why the US Supreme Court denied the case.

I have an issue with how you phrased that, because I do not think its accurate and I think stuff like this needs to be discussed accurately. One of the problems we have in politics is not accurately defining what is going on. Not trying to pick a fight with you here, I just want things to be clear.


The Supreme Court did not deny the case. They refused to hear the case. The difference between those two is huge. When the court denies a case, its over and done with. Its dead. When they refuse to hear the case they can change their mind and decide to hear the case at a later date. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most cases that are brought to it and in most cases I am sure its the sheer volume of cases they actually get. Just today they refused to hear another totally unrelated case. They have to pick and choose the cases they think will have the biggest impact on society, and most of the time those cases are not even in the public eye like this one is. At least not to this extent.

In this instance, I agree with most of you that this guy shouldn't be forced to give up his sources. But since Eric Holder is already on the record about how he will handle this the Supremes don't really need to get involved.

[Gaidin]

In this instance, I agree with most of you that this guy shouldn't be forced to give up his sources. But since Eric Holder is already on the record about how he will handle this the Supremes don't really need to get involved.

And before Exarch again, I think a balance being struck is fair game. I think journalists are free to protect their sources, but I think also that the DoJ should be free to pressure them and consequences are consequences for reasons I stated above.

[GrnEyedDvl]

And before Exarch again, I think a balance being struck is fair game. I think journalists are free to protect their sources, but I think also that the DoJ should be free to pressure them and consequences are consequences for reasons I stated above.

I am ok with that opinion, and in certain cases I might even agree with that opinion. To me it makes a difference what it is they are protecting. If they are protecting a guy who told them about some politician banging one of his interns then there is no real reason to go after them. However if they are protecting a source that has information about a nuclear suitcase bomb I would have a much different opinion. It all comes down to what you think is more important; the journalists and the sources rights or some seriously public safety concerns. No law is absolute and sometimes judgment has to be used.

[Gaidin]

I am ok with that opinion, and in certain cases I might even agree with that opinion. To me it makes a difference what it is they are protecting. If they are protecting a guy who told them about some politician banging one of his interns then there is no real reason to go after them. However if they are protecting a source that has information about a nuclear suitcase bomb I would have a much different opinion. It all comes down to what you think is more important; the journalists and the sources rights or some seriously public safety concerns. No law is absolute and sometimes judgment has to be used.

Tell that to the guy who thinks it's black and white. I'm well aware there's a spectrum.

[Roma_Victrix]

But US attorney general Eric Holder indicated during a meeting last week with journalists that prison for Risen would be unlikely. "As long as I'm attorney general, no reporter will go to jail for doing his job," Holder said.

This is the part you should have put in bold text in the OP. With that in mind, Risen will most likely be fine, although this is rather disturbing to say the least.

I will agree, however, that the Obama administration is gunning for Snowden very hard when he is a genuine whistle blower, in the classic sense of Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Johnson and Nixon administration. Chelsea Manning has less sympathy from me because of his (now her) enormous release of classified data in one big lump, without any consideration that some of the material would be harmful. That still doesn't warrant the treatment Manning was given for years in solitary confinement, with sleep deprivation torture tactics taken right out of Guantanamo Bay. Snowden was fairly surgical and precise in the data that he released and it has already had policy implications such as the rollback of the metadata program used by the NSA. If that's not a vindication of Snowden's work, then I don't know what that would entail besides a handshake and a pat on the back from Obama himself.

[Exarch]

Holder has already said he wouldn't be facing jail time most likely and own't face any jail time for continuing to not reveal his sources:

I am more curious to hear on why the US Supreme Court denied the case.

This is the part you should have put in bold text in the OP. With that in mind, Risen will most likely be fine, although this is rather disturbing to say the least.

It'd be good if that were the case but a closer reading shows this won't be the case, hence why the DOJ under Holder attempted to quash Risen's motion in the Supreme Court:

However, it's important to note that Holder chose his words carefully, and might not actually be saying what some in the press seem to think he's saying. Note the caveat: it only applies to a "reporter who is doing his job." And, given the way the DOJ treats these things, it doesn't seem to think that reporting on leaks is a legitimate part of a reporter's job.

Kevin Gosztola, over at Firedoglake, further notes that the administration has been playing word games concerning Risen for a long time, including the repeated assertion that they're notprosecuting him. He points to this interview between Ken Auletta and the top lawyer for the Director of National Intelligence, Robert Litt:

KEN AULETTA: Do you agree that Jim Risen ought to be prosecuted for...?
ROBERT LITT: Jim Risen is not being prosecuted.
AULETTA: ...Not revealing his sources?
LITT: He’s not being prosecuted. He is being subpoenaed to give evidence as other people. The courts have determined that—to this day at least—that he doesn’t have a privilege against giving that information.
There was discussion in the last panel of a media shield law. That’s a law that President Obama has endorsed. I am not going to speculate as to how that would’ve applied to his particular case, but if there is a media shield law that’s passed, that’s another thing that the courts can do to enforce it.
There’s never been a reporter prosecuted. I don’t think there ever will be a reporter prosecuted because I think every president is aware of the adage about not getting into an argument with somebody who buys printer’s ink by the barrel. I think that as a practical matter, but it’s very different in my mind to go after the people responsible for leaking the information. [emphasis added]

So, he's not being prosecuted, and he won't go to jail if he only focused on "doing his job." But as long as he's involved in writing about leaks, he may not be "doing his job" and it seems quite likely that he may go to jail.

Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ing-that.shtml

I will agree, however, that the Obama administration is gunning for Snowden very hard when he is a genuine whistle blower, in the classic sense of Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Johnson and Nixon administration. Chelsea Manning has less sympathy from me because of his (now her) enormous release of classified data in one big lump, without any consideration that some of the material would be harmful. That still doesn't warrant the treatment Manning was given for years in solitary confinement, with sleep deprivation torture tactics taken right out of Guantanamo Bay. Snowden was fairly surgical and precise in the data that he released and it has already had policy implications such as the rollback of the metadata program used by the NSA. If that's not a vindication of Snowden's work, then I don't know what that would entail besides a handshake and a pat on the back from Obama himself.

even more daming is the fact that the NSA and DOJ tried to destroy evidence relating to warrantless mass surveillance
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/e...pying-evidence

[Gaidin]

Uhh...Not sure why Exarch is surprised. Being a journalist has never been a protection against charges. Ever. Being a journalist has let you have principles other career fields don't have in the sense of protecting your sources. But it doesn't make you special in the sense of following the law. If a journalist gets subpoenaed and doesn't cooperate, or is served a warrant and doesn't cooperate, guess what he's breaking. The law. Guess what happens to him. Just like everyone else. This is pretty simple, not so special math.

[Exarch]

Uhh...Not sure why Exarch is surprised. Being a journalist has never been a protection against charges. Ever. Being a journalist has let you have principles other career fields don't have. But it doesn't make you special.

i kinda doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were writing the Constitution; imprisoning journalists for revealing wrongdoing done by the government? sounds like something unFree countries would do. Are you admitting the US is no longer Free?

[Vanoi]

i kinda doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were writing the Constitution; imprisoning journalists for revealing wrongdoing done by the government? sounds like something unFree countries would do. Are you admitting the US is no longer Free?

what did the Founding Fathers have in mind? Pretty sure John Adams didn't like free speech much

[Gaidin]

i kinda doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were writing the Constitution; imprisoning journalists for revealing wrongdoing done by the government? sounds like something unFree countries would do. Are you admitting the US is no longer Free?

I couldn't give two what you think the Founding Fathers had in mind. Journalist-Source isn't a relationship that's literally built on the source telling the journalist his deepest secrets for it to function. No. It's the source telling the journalist someone else's deepest secrets. This ain't doctor-patient or attorney-client privilege here where you've got to tell them your deep secrets for it to function, and thus law has been written to protect you. You want to walk down this path as either a journalist or a source you're taking a chance with the dice because you're talking about other people's information. Not your own. And I don't care how much you think that information needs to be in the public domain. That's literally how things like this work. You want to leak something from either end of this spectrum. Roll the damn dice.

[Exarch]

I couldn't give two what you think the Founding Fathers had in mind. Journalist-Source isn't a relationship that's literally built on the source telling the journalist his deepest secrets for it to function. No. It's the source telling the journalist someone else's deepest secrets. This ain't doctor-patient or attorney-client privilege here where you've got to tell them your deep secrets for it to function, and thus law has been written to protect you. You want to walk down this path as either a journalist or a source you're taking a chance with the dice because you're talking about other people's information. Not your own. And I don't care how much you think that information needs to be in the public domain. That's literally how things like this work. You want to leak something from either end of this spectrum. Roll the damn dice.

the Nixon administration said the same thing about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg and ultimately the American people decided it was in their best interest to have known about the crap that was going on in their name in Vietnam and similarly what Risen revealed in his book are things the American people have every right to know; they should know what's being one in their name.
What you call "someone else's secrets' are actually highly unethical behaviour on the part of US government officials and i do think the American ppl have a right to know, but that's a debate for another time.

The bigger issue in this thread is that the US government thinks it's ok to imprison journalists-a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, no less- for revealing misconduct by US officials

[Gaidin]

the Nixon administration said the same thing about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg and ultimately the American people decided it was in their best interest to have known about the crap that was going on in their name in Vietnam and similarly what Risen revealed in his book are things the American people have every right to know; they should know what's being one in their name.
What you call "someone else's secrets' are actually highly unethical behaviour on the part of US government officials and i do think the American ppl have a right to know, but that's a debate for another time.

The bigger issue in this thread is that the US government thinks it's ok to imprison journalists-a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, no less- for revealing misconduct by US officials

So? Ask me if I give two about a four decades gone administration. And then reply to the principle of what I said instead of with a specific event as a red herring.

[SpinSta]

I agree with Gaidin in that the source is not as protected (by law) as much as a patient, but the very fact that the government is prosecuting a journalist on that very basis should be a question-raiser. Not only towards the validity of the information being shown, but also towards the agenda of the people getting outraged at being targeted.

The old cliche saying that 'government controls the media' might be hyperbole, but some truth should be granted to it. The amount of hostility and ruthelessness shown by the government towards 'whistle-blowers' who actively scorn at certain practices of the government and reveal it to the public should provoke questions and not just immediate gut-reactions from people (generalizing here).

I personally don't believe anything shown in main-stream media because of their corporate agendas, but I do believe that they have the right to provide all the information they can to the public which is verifiable. The safety of a journalist and their source (though not confirmed by law), should be taken into account by the public. Because ultimately, all information provided by the media should be there to affect a positive change in the lives of the people, be it through them knowing about how their government is operating, events occurring outside of their native country, and people who think all that is BS.

But this is not the case.

Also I think that the Founding Fathers would hardly recognize the administration of today's US of A. Also they would be tremendously hard to deal with because of their racism and bigotry.

Now everyone hates me