Should Obama Send This Reporter to Jail ?


tay
#1
The Obama administration has fought a years-long court battle to force longtime New York Times national security correspondent James Risen to reveal the source for a story in his 2006 book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (external - login to view). Risen may soon serve jail time for refusing to out his source. The fight has drawn attention to Obama's less-than-stellar track record on press freedom—in a recent interview (external - login to view), Risen called the president "the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation." But lost in the ruckus are the details of what Risen revealed. Here's what has the government so upset.


In State of War, Risen revealed a secret CIA operation, code-named Merlin, that was intended to undermine the Iranian nuclear program. The plan—originally approved by president Bill Clinton, but later embraced by George W. Bush—was to pass flawed plans for a trigger system for a nuclear weapon to Iran in the hopes of derailing the country's nuclear program. "It was one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world," Risen wrote in State of War, "providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from the rogue countries like Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short."


In a sworn affidavit (external - login to view) filed in 2011, and in a recently rejected appeal to the US Supreme Court, Risen has argued that his reporting served the public good. Published at a time when military action in Iran seemed possible, State of Fear revealed how much of the effort to gather information on Iran's nuclear capability was not just shoddy but dangerous—even, in the case of Operation Merlin, helping Iran get closer to building a nuclear weapon.


The Bush administration did not see it that way. In 2008, Bush's Justice Department subpoenaed Risen, demanding that he reveal his source—or face jail time for contempt of court. After taking office in 2009, the Obama administration renewed the Bush-era subpoena and continued to try to identify and prosecute Risen's source. Justice Department staff believe they know who the source was—an ex-CIA operations officer named Jeffrey Sterling, who was previously an on-the-record source for Risen—but they want Risen to confirm their hunch and fill in a few details. In legal filings (external - login to view), Justice Department lawyers have called Risen a witness to "serious crimes that implicate the national security of the United States" and argued that "there are few scenarios where the United States' interests in securing information is more profound and compelling than in a criminal prosecution like this one."




The Government May Soon Send This Reporter to Jail. Here Are the Embarrassing Secrets He Exposed. | Mother Jones (external - login to view)
 
Tecumsehsbones
#2
In the United States, there is no journalist-source evidentiary privilege (some states have adopted such a privilege). It's an ongoing debate. As things currently stand, the privilege does not exist on the Federal level, which means journalists can be coerced into giving up info, or punished for refusing to do so.
 
Grievous
No Party Affiliation
#3
No, he shouldn't at all.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#4
No he should not go to jail this is a long standing thing with media and government
never should a news person reveal their sources perhaps with the exception where
a victims life is in Immediate Danger. That is almost never by the way
 
petros
#5
Too many Spiderman cartoons misinforming people.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

The Obama administration has fought a years-long court battle to force longtime New York Times national security correspondent James Risen to reveal the source for a story in his 2006 book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (external - login to view). Risen may soon serve jail time for refusing to out his source. The fight has drawn attention to Obama's less-than-stellar track record on press freedom—in a recent interview (external - login to view), Risen called the president "the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation." But lost in the ruckus are the details of what Risen revealed. Here's what has the government so upset.





The Government May Soon Send This Reporter to Jail. Here Are the Embarrassing Secrets He Exposed. | Mother Jones (external - login to view)




Nah, I don't believe in that sh*t!
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#7  Top Rated Post
Reports from the NY Slimes are what helped trigger the war on Iraq which has cost us over a trillion dollars and thousands of lost lives. These treasonous pro war Orwellian pack of liars have helped cause countless deaths and undermined the entire region. Therefore, they do not deserve the First Amendment shield they are clamoring for here. The Amendment was intended as a check on government, not the promotion of war and treason.

The government was willing to use torture to get information which it never found at Abu Ghraib. Many right wingers applauded and even laughed at the innocent victims. Therefore, they should have no objection to using the same methods to get the information the government needs in this case.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

In the United States, there is no journalist-source evidentiary privilege (some states have adopted such a privilege). It's an ongoing debate. As things currently stand, the privilege does not exist on the Federal level, which means journalists can be coerced into giving up info, or punished for refusing to do so.

There's Freedom of the Press.... but there isn't a freedom of press secrecy.

It's an interesting contradiction. The Media wants the government to be more transparent and will seek out information to release to the public that the government wants to remain secret..... and yet at the same time, when the government wants the media to be more transparent, it's apparently a one-way street.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for transparency with governments and for the media to help inform the public on what's going on. An informed public is a smarter public (most times.)

But at the same time, it's hypocritical when the media wants to remain secret regarding sources and such.

Yes, there's the excuse that their sources would never come forward and would risk legal action or other kinds of threats if they were known..... but the same argument exists towards the government regarding "National Security."

You can't have it one way and not the other.... otherwise, who can you really trust?

A secret government who tells you nothing because it's in your best interests and we're supposed to believe them?

Or media outlets who tells you various things, doesn't tell you how they got this information or their sources and we're supposed to believe them??

It begs the question as to who's really on your side.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
Quote:

I'm all for transparency with governments and for the media to help inform the public on what's going on. An informed public is a smarter public (most times.)

But at the same time, it's hypocritical when the media wants to remain secret regarding sources and such.




When the WaSH1Tton Post and NY Slimes both claimed they had incontrovertible proof that Saddam had WMD and was about to launch them, they never named their sources. Because of that, war hysteria was stirred up to a fever pitch. If transparency had been imposed we would have been spared that war, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, and our national debt would be reduced by a couple of trillion dollars.
 
BaalsTears
#10
Obama should stop screwing with journalists.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

When the WaSH1Tton Post and NY Slimes both claimed they had incontrovertible proof that Saddam had WMD and was about to launch them, they never named their sources. Because of that, war hysteria was stirred up to a fever pitch. If transparency had been imposed we would have been spared that war, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, and our national debt would be reduced by a couple of trillion dollars.

Send them to Gitmo.... I'm all for irony.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Send them to Gitmo.... I'm all for irony.


Gitmo is for political prisoners.

The hanging tree is for traitors.
 
MHz
#13
Give him a posting in Iraq, there seems to be an opening.
 

Similar Threads

11
Don't disrespect Obama, you could go to jail!
by skookumchuck | May 22nd, 2012
0
2
Send less criminals to jail, says Lord Woolf.
by Blackleaf | Aug 19th, 2005
no new posts