It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: US Journalists Being Arrested

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 04:52 AM
link   
In the USA, journalists are being arrested in contempt of court, trying to keep their confidential sources secret. The freedom of press and speech are being threatened, as sources might be scared away from telling the truth. The Departement of Justice is also probling for telephone-transcript whereas to locate any sources.
 



pub.tv2.no
[Translation from Norwegian to English:]

During the last months three federal judges has convicted in all eight journalists in contempt of court, because the journalists deny to release information about confidential sources. All eight face jailtime.
The journalists has revealed anything from corruption in the buraucratic systems to the reveal of the CIA-agent Valerie Plame and a false suspicion and jailing of a nuclear physicist for espionage on behalf of China.

In the last case, the judge threatens to sentence five journalists for contempt of court, because they deny to reveal their sources.

In addition, The US Dept of Justice demands to get transcripts of phonecalls between reporters in New York Times and their sources during the fall 2001, with the goal to gain access to reveal the confidential sources of the reporters.

-Put this together, and you will se a wide attack on the Freedom of Press, which would terrify us if it happened in Kasakhstan, writes New York Times-writer Nicholas Kristof.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Related News
- WashingtonPost - Respecting Sources

I am curious to know if there is "none" out there that cares about reality/privacy? If our journalists, wether it's in the US, Romania, East-Germany or the Sovjetunion are being banned, mislead, supressed, it will lead, -not only eventually, but rather fast into a government of full dictatorship.
As we all should know, a dictatorship is never acting for the best of the population. It leads to war, poverty and worse. Is it the new policy of the democratic free country, USA, to arrest journalists?



[edit on 11-15-2004 by Zion Mainframe]




posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Yep, without a doubt, US is becoming a full dicatorship. I hope this item serves as wake-up call for those still fast asheep.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   
The next thing you know, our soldiers will be goose stepping to a different drum, and anybody observing the president will be required to give a hearty SIEG HIEL!



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Heh, well what can we, as residents (or citizens), do about this? I'll send off a 10 dollar check to support a journalist if need be.

Zip



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Been there done that...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I honestly hope the Bush is trying to become a regime because at least then the republicans..*cough*...idiots that voted him in can wallow in their stupidity. They Voted with emotions instead of logic.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Ok people....let's see if this has ever happened before....


Journalists jailed

Other journalists who have gone to jail rather than comply with subpoenas since 1984, when the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press began compiling such information, include:

.....................
Felix Sanchez and James Campbell, Houston, Texas, newspaper reporters, locked in judge's chambers for several hours in 1991; had refused to stand in the back of courtroom and identify possible eyewitnesses to crime.

Four newspaper reporters in South Carolina jailed for eight hours in 1991. Subpoenas sought unpublished conversations with state senator on trial in federal court for corruption.

Tim Roche, Stuart, Fla., newspaper reporter. Subpoenaed in 1990 to reveal source for leaked court order supposed to have been sealed. Jailed briefly, released pending appeal. Later sentenced to 30 days for criminal contempt. Served 18 days in 1993.

Libby Averyt, Corpus Christi, Texas, newspaper reporter. Subpoenaed in 1990 for information about jailhouse interview. Jailed over a weekend.

Brian Karem, San Antonio, Texas, TV reporter. Subpoenaed by defense and prosecution in 1990; refused to reveal names of individuals who arranged jailhouse interview. Jailed for 13 days.

Roxana Kopetman, Los Angeles, newspaper reporter. Jailed for six hours in 1987 for resisting prosecution subpoena seeking eyewitness testimony.

Brad Stone, Detroit, Mich., TV reporter. In 1986, refused to reveal identities of gang members interviewed several weeks prior to cop killing. Jailed for one day.

Chris Van Ness, California, free-lance writer. Subpoenaed in 1985 in connection with John Belushi's death. Jailed for several hours; revealed source; released.

Richard Hargraves, Belleville, Ill., newspaper reporter. Jailed in 1984 over a weekend in connection with libel case.


Excerpted from.
www.rcfp.org...

I put in bold a clear case in 1985 where the journalist refused to reveal the source, but after being in jail for several hours he revealed the source and was released...

This is nothing new, there are some circumstances when Judges will ask for the names of informants to be given out.

Also below is one of the most recent cases and the reason why this was done...


Miller told U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan at a hearing Thursday that she would not answer questions from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about her conversations with confidential sources. Hogan said Miller had no special right as a reporter to defy a subpoena in a criminal investigation, but agreed she could remain free on bond while the Times appealed his decision.
...................
Fitzgerald's investigation centers on whether a government official knowingly revealed the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Intentional disclosure of such information by an official authorized to have it could be a felony.


Excerpted from.
www.dailyiowan.com...

As we can see things like this have happened for a long time...and the information we have is only that which was compiled since "Other journalists who have gone to jail rather than comply with subpoenas since 1984, when the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press began compiling such information."


[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBigD
....idiots that voted him in can wallow in their stupidity. They Voted with emotions instead of logic.


Now, this is completly unacceptable.....perhaps you like to spend your time insulting people instead of finding reliable links to back up your claims, but I surely don't.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Yes, I know this has happened before, and it will surely happen again.
This is why it is important with a reminder now and then.

I wanted to post a link to
www.ifex.org...

If someone is fighting this problem, it is these guys and girls.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I don't know why this is news. These are the facts. Defy a court order and you face contempt of court charges and you can be jailed as a result. It has never been any different.

A little advice--when the judge speaks, comply or face the consequences.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Then we reach a new topic. Political prisoners.
Sometimes it is better to be jailed, than to loose the cause, right?
-But is it still right to jail them?
-In who's perspective is it right? -The System, or in the freedom of speech with its denial of ignorance?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ulvetann
Then we reach a new topic. Political prisoners.
Sometimes it is better to be jailed, than to loose the cause, right?
-But is it still right to jail them?
......


Did you even read why these people were sent to jail?..... In one occassion the journalist refused to give up the identity of gang members who said what they were going to do to a police officer, which they carried out killing him....was it right to jail him?...yes... Perhaps you should read case by case and then make a more informed decision instead of just talking without knowing the facts.

There is a difference between political prisoners and what these reporters did....which is for example, refusing to give the names of informants who had given the identity of CIA undercover operatives, or the name of gang members who killed a police officer....etc, etc...



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 05:28 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   
College Teacher Shows 'Fahrenheit 9/11', Gets Rebuked; Film shown before elections in class on English composition.

even teachers are having a hard time.once again freedoms of speech being hit hard.

michaelmoore.com...

a canadian mp gets kicked out of her party for free speech.

www.cbc.ca...

so what do we think now about speaking out?gee they treat criminals better then they treat our media and other people of great thought.let bring back gaileo out of the castle dungeons.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by flukemol
College Teacher Shows 'Fahrenheit 9/11', Gets Rebuked; Film shown before elections in class on English composition.

even teachers are having a hard time.once again freedoms of speech being hit hard.

so what do we think now about speaking out?gee they treat criminals better then they treat our media and other people of great thought.let bring back gaileo out of the castle dungeons.




What does Michael Moore's 9/11 have to do with "English composition"?...

This teacher is obviously just presenting this because it is her/his agenda...

Since when is it a professor's job to teach about his/her own political agendas?....and Michael Moore?.....for crying out loud, this man spews more lies in his films than any administration in U.S. history.....

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
yes but why would a teacher want to lose his paycheck by teaching all views.nothing wrong with that.what i realy see is the freedoms of a teacher not allowed to teach a full idea.an idea that makes people think without someone else telling them no you cant think that.kids need all views and surpression will not make them any smarter.

micheal moore has 2 thumbs up and has 50 million people wondering should we be making better choices.he has not done governmental damage.he is refreshing and needs to sing aloud.besides freedoms that you have today where not giving by those who told you to shut up today.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Id like to know where being accessory to a crime is someone OK when one is a journalist? If the source is committing a crime by giving material to the reporter and then the reporter further enables the crime by reporting it then how can anyone think it is acceptable to allow the reporter to protect the source?

It's perfectly ok to ask for the source....and to hold the reporter accountable if one is not forthcoming.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
(...)If the source is committing a crime by giving material to the reporter and then the reporter further enables the crime by reporting it(...)


The idea I think, is to have police doing the detective work, to find the suspect that did whatever criminal act. The reporter should not be held responsible for people doing criminal acts. Heck, If it wasn't for the reporter, the police would not even realize there was some mischiefs going on! Why shoot the messenger?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
how can anyone think it is acceptable to allow the reporter to protect the source?
It's perfectly ok to ask for the source....and to hold the reporter accountable if one is not forthcoming.

This is a perfect way to silence the media, isnt it? And what about priests and doctors? There were reasons why these professions once had the privilage of protecting their sources, or were even committed to keep their mouth shut about certain things. Why should this change now? The times are indeed changing, or should we say "The Times"?...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   

The First Amendment also provides journalists with a limited privilege not to disclose their sources or information to litigants who seek to use that information in court. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court held that reporters did not have a privilege to refuse to answer a grand jury's questions that directly related to criminal conduct that the journalists observed and wrote about.

However, the court's opinion noted that news gathering does have First Amendment protections, and many lower courts have applied a qualified First Amendment privilege to situations in which the need for the journalist's information was less compelling than in Branzburg. These courts require litigants to prove that the material sought is relevant to their claim, necessary to the maintenance of the claim, and unavailable from other sources. In addition, more than half of the states have adopted statutes called "Shield Laws," which provide a similar privilege to journalists.



This site has some good information on the first amendment rights of journalists. I don't think they have ever had the right to withhold sources from the courts. There were a couple of movies made about that in the 70's, but don't ask me their titles.

IMO, journalists should have the right to withhold sources until a court or grand jury orders them to be revealed. And even then the names should be treated as confidential information unless and until they are used in a trial.

However, if a journalist still refuses to give the names I feel this is an action that should be viewed as obstruction of justice.

edit to add quote

[edit on 11/22/2004 by Montana]




top topics



 
0

log in

join