Journalists Hope Court Takes Up Plame Case

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160553,00.html

Journalists Hope Court Takes Up Plame Case
Friday, June 24, 2005
By Jane Roh

NEW YORK — With headline-making cases about botched reports, phony stories and flat-out errors, the last few years have not been good ones for journalists. Come Monday, for two reporters in particular, things could get much worse.

The justices of the Supreme Court on Thursday debated whether to take on the cases of Matt Cooper (search), a Time magazine reporter, and Judith Miller (search), a reporter at the New York Times. Both have refused to comply with federal subpoenas over the outing of former CIA official Valerie Plame's (search) identity.

The decision whether to grant certiorari, or take the appeal, is expected to be announced on Monday during the court's final session of the 2004 term. If the justices decline to intervene, both face up to 19 months behind bars.

The prospect of two journalists being hauled off to jail to protect their sources has the media largely up in arms. Thirty-six journalist groups and news organizations, including FOX News Channel, which owns FOXNews.com, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Cooper and Miller asking the court to hear their case.


<</SNIP>>

[librechik]

1. they want to protect the lying traitors who outed an agent for spite?

I'm in the media, and I say lynch 'em. That's THE OPPOSITE intention of the protecting-your-source concept. It is meant to protect the weak from the powerful, not the opposite!

[jsamuel]

2. does freedom of the press apply when the press commits treason?

[hootinholler]

3. And Just why isn't Novak on the hot seat? n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Because Novak

is one of the subjects of the investigation. Miller and Cooper are witnesses at this point.

[redqueen]

4. This is ridiculous!

These people aren't protecting the identitiy of some run-of-the-mill source... they're protecting a criminal!

:grr:

[mom cat]

8. Connections, connections and more connections. That's why!

[TacticalPeek]

5. Jane Roh is a lying liar.

Further digging by other news organizations leads to the conclusion that neither Plame nor her employer took pains to conceal her identity.

And the CIA's own lag in taking action — weeks passed before the agency expressed any displeasure over Plame's outing — may indicate that her identity was at best loosely tied to national security, they added.

Even those who believe Cooper and Miller should be jailed for refusing to comply with the grand jury concede that the sources who leaked Plame's identity did not break the law.



"other news organizations"? "conclusion"? This propaganda about not concealing her identity is easily disprovable, at which point Faux can blame "other news organizations" whose identity they must "protect".

And there was no lag at CIA in taking action - it was the FBI and WH lagging, to the point that Ashcroft recused himself and Gonzales had to cover his tracks.

Finally, the assertion that I and others, "who believe Cooper and Miller should be jailed", also "concede" that no law was broken is simply a lie.

Goebbels would be proud of Jane Roh.

[KansDem]

7. Yeah, its "Mr. Other News Organizations" and "Ms. Those Who Believe"

...cropping up again. My, how those two are always found around big news stories coming out of our Corporate Media!

[pfitz59]

6. Why isn't Novak in prison......

or Gitmo! He's the one who outed her! Who's his source?

[Must_B_Free]

9. Novak is probably a CIA asset

[newscott]

10. I think you just outed him. Rut roh!

[cascadiance]

11. Hmm.. I wonder if Rehnquist potentially leaving soon...

... will affect both this case and Sibel Edmond's appeal which she has until around August to file for.

I wonder if they are going to time Rehnquist's leaving to either:

a) find some procedural way of working around hearing these cases.

or

b) hold ruling on these cases hostage if the Dems try to fillibuster an extreme replacement that Bush tries to get through.

How long would Rehnquist likely stay on and could Supreme Court business be affected by any potential fillibuster that might happen then?