The United States Supreme Court declined today to hear the cases of two reporters facing jail time for refusing to testify about conversations with their confidential sources.
The case now returns to the federal district court in Washington, where its chief judge, Thomas F. Hogan, is expected to hear arguments this week about when and where the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, will begin to serve their time.
Judge Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt in October for refusing to cooperate in a grand jury's investigation of the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame.
Remember Pravda? That was the old state-sponsored newspaper which was the mouthpiece for the Soviet Union's propaganda. Pravda never really criticized the Soviet Union, nor did the newspaper publish any stories on corruption within the government or its leadership. Whatever Pravda, or any of the other Soviet press agencies published had to be approved by the government. You could never see such stories as the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the Iraq War being published in the Soviet Union, or even Russia of today.
Today's decision by the Supreme Court to refuse to hear the two reporters cases on the Valerie Plame story is sending a message that the United States will no longer have a free press. For reporters to get the job done in gathering the news, they must give their word to their sources that the sources names will not be revealed. It is an issue of trust between the reporter and their source. Without this bond of trust, sources will never reveal important news information to the public--especially if this information regards government corruption or leaders that are breaking the law. With the United States government declaring more information and material as being classified or secret, simply because the leaders do not want to be embarrassed by the information's publication, it becomes more important for the reporters to retain the confidentiality of their sources. The Supreme Court says no. The reporters broke the law, therefore they must reveal their sources to federal investigators or a grand jury. The reporters must break their bonds of trust with their sources.
I will say that I do find it ironic that the federal investigators are going after these two reporters regarding the Valerie Plame story, and yet the identity of Valerie Plame was published by a conservative syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Novak identified Plame in his column. And yet, Novak has not been ordered to reveal his sources, he has not been held in contempt, nor is he being forced to serve jail. Robert Novak remains free and clear. According to the Times story:
Even as Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper prepare for jail, Mr. Novak remains free. Neither he (Robert Novak) nor (Special prosecutor Patrick J.) Fitzgerald will say why that is so.
Other aspects of the case remain shrouded in secrecy as well. Mr. Fitzgerald appears to assert that Mr. Cooper, who wrote about Ms. Plame after the Novak column, and Ms. Miller, who never wrote on the subject, have information that may point to criminal conduct by a government official.
The special prosecutor is going after two reporters who investigated the Plame story after Novak wrote his column. Cooper wrote his story after Novak's column was published, and Miller never wrote about the story. The special prosecutor is not investigating the key figure here--Robert Novak. I wonder if this investigation into the Valerie Plame matter has serious political overtones to it, where senior conservative government officials are steering this investigation towards beneficial conservative political goals? It is almost impossible to prove that assumption.
However, this whole issue really smells fishy.
In another important note, the Supreme Court will wrap up its business and adjourn today for the end of this year. If Chief Justice William Rehnquist is planning to retire, then today will be the big announcement. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment