Advertisement
So it is bad news that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the cases of two reporters who are facing jail time because of their refusal to testify about what they learned from confidential sources.
At issue is the case of CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was revealed in a column by prominent conservative columnist Robert Novak, based on confidential sources.
But it isn't Novak who is being threatened with prison. Instead, it is two reporters — Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine — who had no role in making public Plame's CIA employment.
Miller and Cooper were questioned in the government's investigation into how the agent's identity was revealed. Identifying agents is a violation of federal law because it could put them in danger.
Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., held the two reporters in contempt in October after they refused to testify in a grand jury investigation of the Plame case.
He ordered the reporters held for 18 months or until the grand jury completes its inquiry, whichever is sooner. He also ordered Time Magazine to pay a fine of $1,000 a day for refusing to turn over documents.
The odd part about this case is that Novak, who actually made public Plame's identity, is not being threatened.
Instead, the government is going after Cooper, who wrote about the case only after Novak's column appeared, and Miller, who never even wrote about the case.
Given that the person who actually revealed Plame's identity does not seem to be facing any consequences, the potential jailing of Miller and Cooper seems overly punitive.
There are times when information is not available without offering anonymity to a source — and then keeping that promise.
The case could have a chilling effect on gathering the news. Cooper and Miller are being threatened with jail time for doing their jobs.
|
More Opinion: |
