Time Inc. Hands Over Notes of Source In CIA Dispute (moved from ATSNN), page 1

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:19 PM

link

In a startling decision, Time Inc. has turned in sources in the famous CIA identity case. This is troubling to other news organizations, especially the New York Times which is also involved in the case. This is troubling to others because it takes away the freedoms of the press that for many years included anonymity.

www.nytimes. com
Time magazine said today that it would provide documents concerning the confidential sources of one of its reporters to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame.

The United States Supreme Court turned down appeals in the case on Monday, concluding the gravest legal confrontation between the press and the government in a generation. Two reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, face jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury. In an interview, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he made the decision after much reflection. "I found myself really coming to the conclusion," he said, "that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do."

The announcement by a major news organization that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a subpoena appears to be without precedent in living memory and suggests a turning point in the relationship between the press and the government. The news media have been under growing pressure and scrutiny over issues of accuracy, credibility and political bias.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This is very troubling to me. When sources lose their right to anonymity, that is another freedom that is disappearing with our society these days. More and more we hand over our rights in the name of liberty and justice (kind of ironic). I was never pleased with Time revealing the CIA agents name but that does not mean that the source loses their right to privacy. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth leaves the world blind and toothless.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by CAConrad0825]

Zaphod58

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:26 PM

link

Sources HAVEN'T lost their right to confidentiality. TIME MAGAZINE made the decision to obey the subpeona. Other magazines have made the decision to fight them and won. In this instance, an idividual magazine made the decision to obey the subpeona. That doesn't mean that EVERY magazine that has a confidential source HAS to turn over those sources. They can make the choice to fight it or not.

CAConrad0825

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:47 PM

link

People also said that our rights would be protected by Patriot Act too. This may be just the start, a snow flake that eventually turns into an avalanche. I am not saying that it will happen, more of that we need to watch this.

FredT

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:20 PM

link

SOrry, but I beat you to this story on ATSNN found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fred

CAConrad0825

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:16 AM

link

so what...i get that now. This isn't a competition its about the share of information. I see no problem with repeats, because it allows the initial opinion of others to be shown and not their response to what you have said.

FredT

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:27 AM

link

How many articles do you want of the same story? SHould we have 10 of the same topic?

Edit: Its not about competition, however, like any other forum here on ATS, if the topic already exists, you should respect that. More to the point, nothing is prevent you from stating your opinion in the existing thread.

[edit on 7/1/05 by FredT]

CAConrad0825

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:25 AM

link

it has happened before, and most times it works out