Judge: Reporters must testify about CIA leak



WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Two journalists must disclose conversations with their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating a leak that exposed the identity of a covert CIA operative, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.

It upheld a ruling that found New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, the White House correspondent for Time Magazine, in contempt for refusing to testify. They each could be jailed for up to 18 months.

The three-judge panel ruled that the two journalists must comply with a subpoena from a grand jury investigating whether the Bush administration illegally leaked the CIA officer's name to the news media.

"There is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought," Judge David Sentelle wrote in the main opinion for the court.

He rejected the argument by the journalists that the identity of their confidential sources was protected by a reporter's privilege under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The judge's ruling also revealed that investigators were seeking information about a certain government official, who was not identified.

The subpoenas seek documents and testimony about conversations between Miller and "a specified government official," and between Cooper and "official source(s)," the ruling said.

In a statement, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said, "We look forward to resuming our progress in this investigation and bringing it to a prompt conclusion."

Arthur Sulzberger Jr, publisher of The New York Times, vowed to challenge the decision and said, "If Judy is sent to jail for not revealing her confidential sources for an article that was never published, it would create a dangerous precedent that would erode the freedom of the press."

Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief of Time Inc., said, "We fully intend to pursue all of our legal avenues with respect to today's decision. ... In the United States no journalist should have to go to jail simply for doing his or her job."

The grand jury has heard testimony from officials and journalists to try to establish who leaked the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, in 2003 to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who revealed her identity in a column.

Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a diplomat in the Clinton administration, accused the White House of being responsible for the leak. He said officials did so because Wilson had publicly disputed a claim by President Bush about Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear weapons parts.

Disclosing the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer is a crime. No charges have been brought so far in connection with the investigation, which began in January last year.

Although Miller and Cooper talked to sources about the Plame story, neither had anything to do with leaking her identity.

All three appeals court judges upheld the subpoena requiring the journalists to testify.

Judge David Tatel wrote separately that he might have quashed the subpoena "were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate."

Tatel said Fitzgerald had established the need for testimony by Miller and Cooper, and that reporters do not have an absolute right to protect the identities of their sources.

The appeals court cited a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a reporter can be called to testify before a grand jury about confidential information.

"We're going to appeal and trust that eventually the importance of the public's right to know will be acknowledged by the courts," Miller told Reuters. "We hope the full appellate court will agree with our interpretation. I think this demonstrates the need for a federal shield law."

I think even if they are told to release the names, they won't and will do time.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Two journalists must disclose conversations with their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating a leak that exposed the identity of a covert CIA operative, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.

that would be full of integrity but absent of common sense

I don't know all the details of this because mainly what happens to journalists really doesn't bother me in the least. But I think if their actions caused someone to be put in considerable danger then they and their sources should be held accountable.

It should bother you. Ever heard of freedom of the press? It's one of the ways we hold the government accountable. Well, used to be, for the most part. Still, journalists need to have protections in order to get the truth out without fear of reprisal.

even if that truth puts someones life in danger?

Any journalist has a responsibility to think about the possible consequences of the story they may run before they run it. It's always an option not to run a story if the bad consequences outweigh the good. It comes down to a personal, ethical decision, and most journalists with an education know this and keep it in mind when covering a story. More than likely, someone's life might be in danger for revealing information to a reporter, hence the need for confidentiality. If a reporter has promised that to a source, they will most likely stick to it.

It should bother you. Ever heard of freedom of the press? It's one of the ways we hold the government accountable. Well, used to be, for the most part. Still, journalists need to have protections in order to get the truth out without fear of reprisal.

Very well said. I have to admire any journalist who has the integrity, not to mention balls, to go to the slammer instead of releasing a source's name. I am a journalism major, and though I hate journalism and will not be a journalist, I hope I never have to face such a tough decision.

I think forcing a journalist to ID sources is bad. Because once "sources" cant trust journalists then a lot of info will not be reported...I do think, sometimes, especially today, journalist rely WAY too much on unnamed sources.

No, it doesn't bother me and I still don't care about what happens to the press. They're mostly all vultures and I don't really mind if they got some of the starch taken out of their shirts. Perhaps it would do them some good.

you too ara, i want your input on this


are you saying that journalists should never reveal their sources, but the govt should reveal their sources when say an operation like Iraqi Freedom is started?

now having said that, people can point out that they used false reasons blah blah blah and im not going to argue with that, but i feel the ends justifies the means on that, isnt that what journalists do also? (im sure i didnt put that in the correct form of how i wanted to compare it)

Any journalist has a responsibility to think about the possible consequences of the story they may run before they run it. It's always an option not to run a story if the bad consequences outweigh the good. It comes down to a personal, ethical decision, and most journalists with an education know this and keep it in mind when covering a story. More than likely, someone's life might be in danger for revealing information to a reporter, hence the need for confidentiality. If a reporter has promised that to a source, they will most likely stick to it.

i think the problem lies within a undisclosed gover operative (using the term loosely) leaked information that could have cost someone their life. if the journalist would be charged for that also, i would have no problem.

but thats sorta like your friend getting mad at you when you tell him that his girl is a whore cause 10 guys told you the bukkaked her one night.

maybe i really do look at things in their simplest form

Really? I always thought that it was simply their responsibility to report "the truth". I suspect that, these days, most "journalists" who have integrity, aren't journalists. I agree with the observation about someone's life being in danger means that they should NOT disclose their source, regardless of who is asking.