Judge orders reporter to name source

[Cowperson]

The New York Times describes this as the most serious clash between reporters and federal prosecutors since epic battles in the 1970's.

A federal judge in Washington held a reporter for Time magazine in contempt today and ordered him jailed for refusing to name the government officials who disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. agent to him. The magazine was also held in contempt and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 a day.

Should reporters be forced to name sources in situations like this?

You may have to register to read the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/politics...ND-LEAK.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/politics/09CND-LEAK.html?hp)

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

In matters of national security or where it can become harmful not to disclose the information. Absolutely. I've always thought the 1st ? Ammendment was a little too encompassing and written before the press had the power that it has now.

Reports are currently above the law as far as naming and creating news sources (ie the reporters who made up the stories of British mistreatment of prisoners). Its time they were made accountable for thier sources

[RougeUnderoos]

Yeah, they should force him. Normally I'd be a pretty staunch supporter of the press, but they are playing for keeps now. Can't have some yahoo just giving this kind of information out for sketchy purposes. Imagine if that woman got murdered over this.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 9 2004, 10:10 PM
Yeah, they should force him. Normally I'd be a pretty staunch supporter of the press, but they are playing for keeps now. Can't have some yahoo just giving this kind of information out for sketchy purposes. Imagine if that woman got murdered over this.
Moreover, if you're a fan of conspiracy theories, you want to know if her name was deliberately leaked for political motives.

A conspiracy theory that's fairly believeable . . . . and a legitimate, punishable crime.

Cowperson

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 9 2004, 02:43 PM

Should reporters be forced to name sources in situations like this?


Also from the article: "Disclosing the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer can be a crime" -- I think that says it all. If the source committed a crime, you shouldn't be able to hide behind a press badge.

I must say, though, that I found this to be a poorly written article. They don't name Cooper, the reporter in question, until the 5th paragraph, and then it's only in a quote. Then the next paragraph starts "The grand jury is to determine who told Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, the identity of the C.I.A. officer..." which, the first time I read the article quickly, lead me to conclude that Novak was the columnist going to jail.

In fact, why isn't Novak in the same boat as Cooper? I'd be all for sending him to prison B)

[???]

question. if the CIA girl got killed, could the paper or journalist get charged? cant quit remmeber the story but they did publish her name right?

[Displaced Flames fan]

I doubt Joe Wilson, the woman in question's husband and former ambassador, wants the source to get out. He's been making a living accusing the White House.

He's been exposed as a liar on some issues surrounding this case as it is so I would expect that it will be a bombshell.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 9 2004, 05:38 PM
I doubt Joe Wilson, the woman in question's husband and former ambassador, wants the source to get out. He's been making a living accusing the White House.

He's been exposed as a liar on some issues surrounding this case as it is so I would expect that it will be a bombshell.
You've sort of lost me with that second paragraph. Are you inferring that he himself was the leak?

Ho hum. Just another Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush flunky obviously making stuff up and writing a book. It seems to be a pattern. Fllluuuusshhh for this one. Criticism = lie these days, we all know that.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Aug 10 2004, 12:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Aug 10 2004, 12:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Aug 9 2004, 05:38 PM
I doubt Joe Wilson, the woman in question's husband and former ambassador, wants the source to get out. He's been making a living accusing the White House.

He's been exposed as a liar on some issues surrounding this case as it is so I would expect that it will be a bombshell.
You've sort of lost me with that second paragraph. Are you inferring that he himself was the leak?

Ho hum. Just another Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush flunky obviously making stuff up and writing a book. It seems to be a pattern. Fllluuuusshhh for this one. Criticism = lie these days, we all know that. [/b][/quote]
Has anyone ever told you what they say about assumptions?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Aug 9 2004, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Aug 9 2004, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 10 2004, 12:17 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Aug 9 2004, 05:38 PM
I doubt Joe Wilson, the woman in question's husband and former ambassador, wants the source to get out.# He's been making a living accusing the White House.

He's been exposed as a liar on some issues surrounding this case as it is so I would expect that it will be a bombshell.
You've sort of lost me with that second paragraph. Are you inferring that he himself was the leak?

Ho hum. Just another Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush flunky obviously making stuff up and writing a book. It seems to be a pattern. Fllluuuusshhh for this one. Criticism = lie these days, we all know that.
Has anyone ever told you what they say about assumptions? [/b][/quote]
Ha ha yeah -- they make an ass out of u! Says something about me too but I can't remember what that was.

Seriously though -- fair enough -- that was a weak response on my part. It just seems to me that several people from the actual Bush/Republican administrations have come out with criticisms of the war/war pre-amble and the response is either "he's lying" or "he's making money off saying that" or "he's lying and making money off lying". There has to be more to it than that. These are serious people and I don't think all of them would start lying through their teeth to make a few bucks on a book deal. I would *assume* that they are smart enough/well connected enough to get rich on merit and wouldn't sully their own reputation and long career for money.

That's kind of a conundrum I guess. It's kind of a "Damned if you do (we hired a bunch of liars for important positions!) and damned if you don't (we hired good people and they are now telling everyone what we did!)"