Jed wrote: "But a clear and limited federal privilege law
protecting reporters and sources is now a must. Or we risk giving
up the openness of government that is one of the foundation stones
of our freedom."
Jed, you have infinitely more legal background than I do, but
would this not already be covered by the 1st amendment? I've heard
a lot of liberals arguing for such a law, but there's already a
contradiction in terms -- "a clear and limited federal privilege
law" would probably be like our other clear and limited laws. Given
media behavior in war zones, I can imagine situations where they
will claim it's perfectly okay to report deployment positions. But
we needn't go so far as security threats -- I'm thinking of the way
extortion and blackmail will come to a head in this regard, either
through corporate whistleblowing or sexual harassment lawsuits. The
accused, in these circumstances, should know the identity of their
accuser.
But Olson's article actually circles around this point: It's not
that journalists are inured to subpoenas, it's that the prosecutor
is indicting Libby on shaky ground. Criminal intent hasn't been
proven, and indeed, is hardly even touched:
If special prosecutors can be empowered to investigate
allegations of conduct that isn't first established to be criminal,
and to interrogate witnesses -- especially reporters -- about
memories of distant conversations with sources regarding conduct
that isn't plainly criminal, there is no politically motivated
allegation that can't be turned into a criminal
cover-up.
In short, Judith Miller does not need protection; Fitzgerald
needs restraint.
topics:
Law
