Don't want any loose ends to screw up the police state.

This should be a totally awesome thread. I can't wait to read the constitutional argument that puts Miller in jail but frees Risen?

Tell us Manny...tell us how the jailing of Judith Miller was incorrect? Branzenburg v Hayes---I'll even spot you the case law.

Press prosecutions vs. year?

Are there any presidents who seem to be, oh, out of control when it comes to prosecuting the press? If so, how did that president perform vis-a-vis bankers? War criminals?

Miller in the can but not James Risen?

FYI-- Mr. Risen has been served a criminal subpoena. He is not being prosecuted. Ifhe fails to comply with the subpoena that will change. Again...what is your constitutional argument that Mr Risen should be able to avoid a criminal subpoena but you or I should not be able to?

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But somehow, other Presidents have not seen fit to go to war against the press.

That subpoena is so that Risen can be compelled to reveal his sources, let's not be obtuse about that.

One bit of the Constitution that I do understand is the Fourth Amendment. Pretty clear, simple language. Someone at the White House ought to read it sometime.

Mr. Risen, like Judith Miller, is expected to comply in a criminal proceeding. Yes...he is going to have to reveal his source much like Judith Miller did.

He retains his Fifth Amendment privileges. That you think that he has an additional privilege under the First Amendment my suggestion is that you eschew graphs and actually read the decisions.

I thought you guys were partial to maps.

a Cummins

but asking for a constitutional, law based argument on a political board (as opposed to a scholarly legal board) is kind of like asking fans at a football game to do calculus. Yes, some of them can do it, but it really is not the time or the place. I suspect that the purpose of the request is to deflect the attention away from our president by basically arguing that, yes it is legal, but ignoring the discussion of whether it is right or wrong.

All that said, maybe you truly are looking for a reasoned and informed dialog about the relative constitutional merits of Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), a controversial 5-4 decision which created as many questions as it answered. And you are in luck, as I happen to be an attorney with a profound interest and respect for our constitution, and thus particularly well suited to have the type of discussion you appear to be seeking.

So, to answer your first question (not really a question, but you did use a question mark) "I can't wait to read the constitutional argument that puts Miller in jail but frees Risen?", I have to look no further than to quote one of the 4 dissents, this one joined by that right-wing nut job justice, Thurgood Marshall :

The Court's crabbed view of the First Amendment reflect a disturbing insensitivity to the critical role of an independent press in our society. The question whether a reporter has a constitutional right to a confidential relationship with his source is of first impression here, but the principles that should guide our decision are as basic as any to be found in the Constitution. While MR. JUSTICE POWELL's enigmatic concurring opinion gives some hope of a more flexible view in the future, the Court in these cases holds that a newsman has no First Amendment right to protect his sources when called before a grand jury. The Court thus invites state and federal authorities to undermine the historic independence of the press by attempting to annex the journalistic profession as an investigative arm of government. Not only will this decision impair performance of the press' constitutionally protected functions, but it will, I am convinced, in the long run harm, rather than help, the administration of justice.
I respectfully dissent.

I
The reporter's constitutional right to a confidential relationship with his source stem from the broad societal interest in a full and free flow of information to the public. It is this basic concern that underlie the Constitution's
Page 408 U. S. 726
protection of a free press, Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 297 U. S. 250; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 376 U. S. 269, [Footnote 3/1] because the guarantee is "not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us." Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 385 U. S. 389. [Footnote 3/2] Enlightened choice by an informed citizenry is the basic ideal upon which an open society is premised, [Footnote 3/3] and a free press is thus indispensable to a free society. Not only does the press enhance personal self-fulfillment
Page 408 U. S. 727
by providing the people with the widest possible range of fact and opinion, but it also is an incontestable precondition of self-government. The press
"has been a mighty catalyst in awakening public interest in governmental affairs, exposing corruption among public officers and employees and generally informing the citizenry of public events and occurrences. . . ."
Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 381 U. S. 539; Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 384 U. S. 219; Grosjean, supra, at 297 U. S. 250. As private and public aggregations of power burgeon in size and the pressures for conformity necessarily mount, there is obviously a continuing need for an independent press to disseminate a robust variety of information and opinion through reportage, investigation, and criticism, if we are to preserve our constitutional tradition of maximizing freedom of choice by encouraging diversity of expression.
A
In keeping with this tradition, we have held that the right to publish is central to the First Amendment and basic to the existence of constitutional democracy. Grosjean, supra, at 297 U. S. 250; New York Times, supra, at 403 U. S. 270.
A corollary of the right to publish must be the right to gather news. The full flow of information to the public protected by the free press guarantee would be severely curtailed if no protection whatever were afforded to the process by which news is assembled and disseminated. We have, therefore, recognized that there is a right to publish without prior governmental approval, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697; New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, a right to distribute information, see, e.g., Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 303 U. S. 452; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141; Grosjean, supra, and a right to receive printed matter, Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301.
Page 408 U. S. 728
No less important to the news dissemination process is the gathering of information. News must not be unnecessarily cut off at its source, for without freedom to acquire information, the right to publish would be impermissibly compromised. Accordingly, a right to gather news, of some dimensions, must exist. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1. [Footnote 3/4] Note, The Right of the Press to Gather Information, 71 Col.L.Rev. 838 (1971). As Madison wrote: "A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both." 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed.1910).
B
The right to gather news implies, in turn, a right to a confidential relationship between a reporter and his source. This proposition follows as a matter of simple logic once three factual predicates are recognized: (1) newsmen require informants to gather news; (2) confidentiality -- the promise or understanding that names or certain aspects of communications will be kept off the record -- is essential to the creation and maintenance of a newsgathering relationship with informants; and (3) an unbridled subpoena power -- the absence of a constitutional right protecting, in any way, a confidential relationship from compulsory process -- will either deter source from divulging information or deter reporters from gathering and publishing information.
Page 408 U. S. 729
It is obvious that informants are necessary to the news-gathering process as we know it today. If it is to perform its constitutional mission, the press must do far more than merely print public statements or publish prepared handouts. Familiarity with the people and circumstances involved in the myriad background activities that result in the final product called "news" is vital to complete and responsible journalism, unless the press is to be a captive mouthpiece of "newsmakers." [Footnote 3/5]
It is equally obvious that the promise of confidentiality may be a necessary prerequisite to a productive relationship between a newsman and his informants. An officeholder may fear his superior; a member of the bureaucracy, his associates; a dissident, the scorn of majority opinion. All may have information valuable to the public discourse, yet each may be willing to relate that information only in confidence to a reporter whom he trusts, either because of excessive caution or because of a reasonable fear of reprisals or censure for unorthodox
Page 408 U. S. 730
views. The First Amendment concern must not be with the motives of any particular news source, but rather with the conditions in which informants of all shades of the spectrum may make information available through the press to the public. Cf. Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, 362 U. S. 65; Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449. [Footnote 3/6]

And the dissenting opinion also contained a prediction of the future...

Not only will this decision impair performance of the press' constitutionally protected functions, but it will, I am convinced, in the long run harm, rather than help, the administration of justice.

That was well delivered.
I enjoyed the slap down.

Second, let's give Potter Stewart his props, shall we? He wrote the dissent you are quoting. While Marshall joined, I cannot imagine why you think this is relevant to the argument at hand, unless you think that your argument against what you perceive as an Obama administration overreach is some how bolstered by mentioning Justice Marshall. Why would that be?

Third, the section you have bolded is not the core of the argument. This is:

I've been lurking for several years - I'm not a big poster in general anywhere, but this topic I find compelling and important.

And thanks for the thoughtful response.

In his dissent, Douglas was trying to bridge the gap between the majority and the dissent to create a flexible framework. It is a very pragmatic approach, but fundamentally flawed (in my opinion and the opinion of the other dissenters) because that kind of framework itself creates a chilling effect on first amendment rights.

I get the argument about the press having no special privileges when it comes to evading the duties of citizenship. That carried the day, at least back then. As an aside, with the unique makeup of the court to day, I think that decision comes down differently, as many 5-4 decisions are want to do).

The framing of the question as being "solely about the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas" presupposes an answer. This is a classic straw man technique as identified by the dissent and dozens of scholars. But the issues are not either-or propositions, and the issue is not JUST about the obligation to respond to a subpoena. It is about the obligation to respond to a subpoena when it abridges the freedom of the press.

If the court had ruled the other way, they would not be creating special powers in the press that did not previously exist. They would have instead acknowledged the role provided in the constitution itself (the whole "shall not abridge" idea) in striking down an unconstitutional law. So what you have here is a law that, according to the reasoning of the dissent, abridges the press's constitutional guaranty, a guaranty that does go beyond what "normal" citizens enjoy (the definition of who and what is "press" is a really fascinating one given the age we live in, but will take us to far afield from our current topic).

So, the subpoena power, as so ably described by the dissent, does necessarily have a chilling effect on the dissemination of information by informants. If an informant things he can be prosecuted for talking to the press, she will tend not to talk to the press because the reporter can be forced to disclose her source. I think it is hard to rationally argue against this proposition.

The ultimate question thus becomes, do the protections afforded by the constitution to the press trump the government's role in prosecuting a "leaker" of confidential information. Infringements upon the first amendment are traditionally analyzed under a form of "strict scrutiny", meaning, essentially, that the reason for the restriction is overwhelming (e.g., prevention from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) and there is no other way to achieve the government's purpose.

Here, the goal of the government is to prosecute a suspected leaker. The government has many, many alternatives to prosecute such a person that do not involve infringing upon the rights of the press. Thus, I think the decision was flawed. And to the OP's original point, few administrations have previously exercised their "rights" under this case to go after the press. That likely is for political purposes, but it is also likely because this area of the law is not nearly so settled as the Obama administration would like to assert.

Great discussion so far. Certainly does not fall into the typical sound-bite responses you get around here a lot. I (honestly) am looking forward to further substantive debate.

issues that the majority raised.

And you still haven't answered the question....how does Miller go to jail (a move cheered here) and Risen doesn't?

You are a well respected poster here, with many who admire you. I am a newbie in every sense of the word. An interloper, a guest, a plebe, a junior.

So your question bothers me. Am I misunderstanding it? Is there another meaning? Or is it as lacking in understanding and foundation as it appears to be? I hesitate in even writing the foregoing.

So I will presume that you mean what you say, that you believe I have not answered your implied assertion that my position is inconsistent because Miller went to jail and Risen should not. Well, the answer is simple. Miller should never have gone to jail. I can't speak to those who cheered the prior jailing as I was not here, but I would tell them that they are also wrong. The reason for the answer is as I laid out in my original reply - the Court made a fundamental and tragic error in its decision, a decision that will go down in infamy with Plessy v. Fergueson, Dredd Scott, Citizens United and Bush v. Gore, to name a few.

The more practical answer is that Miller likely will go to jail, but only if the administration wants him to. Remember, they are the ones choosing to prosecute the case. The law is on their side, and overturning even heinous decisions and law is a long shot (though one I think is doable in this case).

As to your reference to the Fifth Amendment, I can only assume that you are not an attorney and don't particularly have a deep knowledge of the legal aspects of what is going on. I'm sorry, that was condescending. I am prone to do that.

The Fifth Amendment has ZERO bearing on this case because the government made sure it would not. As you so ably pointed out yourself, it is not Risen that is on trial (yet). He is being compelled to testify about his source. He has been granted immunity in his testimony by the Administration for the specific purpose of depriving him the ability to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, thus, ipso facto the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution does not apply. Here is what the the Appeals Court for the 4th Circuit said about the fifth amendment in this case:

The controlling majority opinion in Branzburg and our decision in Shain preclude Risen’s claim to a First Amendment reporter’s privilege that would permit him to resist the legitimate, good faith subpoena issued to him. The only constitutional, testimonial privilege that Risen was entitled to invoke was the Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination, but he has been granted immunity from prosecution for his potential exposure to criminal liability. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s decision granting Risen a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege that would shield him from being compelled to testify in these criminal proceedings.

The Fifth amendment issue does not pertain to Risen's ability to invoke against self-incrimination.

The Fifth Amendment issue concerns the primacy of the grand jury and the courts. There is no privilege to conceal criminal behavior from a grand jury and no court will recognize a privilege arising from an agreement to break the law...as the Branzburg majority opinion makes clear. You can argue the First but the real block is the Fifth.

The issue is whether Risen could seek protection using the Fifth Amendment. He cannot, as he has been granted immunity; he therefore could say anything and not have it held against him. Using your words, is no Fifth "block" because Risen is not being prosecuted (yet) and is immune from prosecution for anything he may say. It is his failure to rat out his source that puts him at jeopardy, not the fact that he had a source or engaged in any kind of criminal conduct - HE HAS BEEN GRANTED IMMUNITY FOR ANY SUCH ALLEGED CRIME.

This was in fact the holding of the 4th Circuit and the basis for overturning the lower court. Because the Fifth Amendment is not applicable (he is not subject to criminal prosecution for anything he says), the court held that the government can compel him to testify; if he refuses, he goes to jail. This is the EXACT chilling effect predicted by the dissent and subsequent commentators to the Branzburg case.

If the SC declines to accept the petition for certiori, or if it accepts it and fails to overturn Branzburg, and if Risen sticks by his principals and refuses to testify, the Oboma administration will be successful and Risen will go to jail. Remember, Risen is not being prosecuted for anything he did in connection with his journalistic functions. He is being prosecuted for not cooperating with the prosecution of his source (his testimony which, btw, is wholly unnecessary at this point). I'm not sure what you are not understanding.

Bottom line, the horrible Branzburg precedent makes it possible for an overzealous executive branch to prosecute journalists for doing their job (in this case, protecting his source). I can't tell you how much it saddens me to see a democrat filling that role.

majority opinion. It's short-sighted law practice because even if you don't agree with the majority you still have to be able to address the issues presented in order to overcome them.

The Fifth Amendment issue isn't about Risen's immunity. You're on the wrong clause.

Here's the issue from Branzburg you keep avoiding:

I'm not intentionally avoiding any issue. I just did not understand that you want to re-argue the reasoning in the Brazenburg case.

So, The Fifth amendment does several things. It provides the protection of a Grand Jury to the accused "No Person shall be held to answer for a captial, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ." This is an important protection in the scheme of protections we give the accused, and designed to be an impediment to the prosecution.

The majority framed the issue thusly:

The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime. Citizens generally are not constitutionally immune from grand jury subpoenas; and neither the First Amendment nor any other constitutional provision protects the average citizen from disclosing to a grand jury information that he has received in confidence. [note 21] The claim is, however, that reporters are exempt from these obligations because if forced to respond to subpoenas and identify their sources or disclose other confidences, their informants will refuse or be reluctant to furnish newsworthy information in the future. This asserted burden on news gathering is said to make compelled testimony from newsmen constitutionally suspect and to require a privileged position for them.

We are unwilling to embark the judiciary on a long and difficult journey to such an uncertain destination. The administration of a constitutional newsman's privilege [704] would present practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order. Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods. Cf. In re Grand Jury Witnesses, 322 F.Supp. 573, 574 (ND Cal. 1970). Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" which "is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450, 452 (1938). See also Mills [705] v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 111 (1943). The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow of information to the public, that he relies on confidential sources of information, and that these sources will be silenced if he is forced to make disclosures before a grand jury. [note 40]

In each instance where a reporter is subpoenaed to testify, the courts would also be embroiled in preliminary factual and legal determinations with respect to whether the proper predicate had been laid for the reporter's appearance: Is there probable cause to believe a crime has been committed? Is it likely that the reporter has useful information gained in confidence? Could the grand jury obtain the information elsewhere? Is the official interest sufficient to outweigh the claimed privilege?

Thus, in the end, by considering whether enforcement of a particular law served a "compelling" governmental interest, the courts would be inextricably involved in [706] distinguishing between the value of enforcing different criminal laws. By requiring testimony from a reporter in investigations involving some crimes but not in others, they would be making a value judgment that a legislature had declined to make, since in each case the criminal law involved would represent a considered legislative judgment, not constitutionally suspect, of what conduct is liable to criminal prosecution. The task of judges, like other officials outside the legislative branch, is not to make the law but to uphold it in accordance with their oaths.

At the federal level, Congress has freedom to determine whether a statutory newsman's privilege is necessary and desirable and to fashion standards and rules as narrow or broad as deemed necessary to deal with the evil discerned and, equally important, to refashion those rules as experience from time to time may dictate. There is also merit in leaving state legislatures free, within First Amendment limits, to fashion their own standards in light of the conditions and problems with respect to the relations between law enforcement officials and press in their own areas. It goes without saying, of course, that we are powerless to bar state courts from responding in their own way and construing their own constitutions so as to recognize a newsman's privilege, either qualified or absolute.

In addition, there is much force in the pragmatic view that the press has at its disposal powerful mechanisms of communication and is far from helpless to protect itself from harassment or substantial harm. Furthermore, if what the newsmen urged in these cases is true--that law enforcement cannot hope to gain and may suffer from subpoenaing newsmen before grand juries--prosecutors will be loath to risk so much for so little. Thus, at the federal level the Attorney General has already fashioned a set of rules for federal officials in connection [707] with subpoenaing members of the press to testify before grand juries or at criminal trials. [note 41] These rules are a major step in the direction the reporters herein desire to move. They may prove wholly sufficient to resolve the bulk of disagreements and controversies between press and federal officials.

Finally, as we have earlier indicated, news gathering is not without its First Amendment protections, and grand jury investigations if instituted or conducted other than in good faith, would pose wholly different issues for resolution under the First Amendment. [note 42] Official harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter's relationship [708] with his news sources would have no justification. Grand juries are subject to judicial control and subpoenas to motions to quash. We do not expect courts will forget that grand juries must operate within the limits of the First Amendment as well as the Fifth.

The people who govern are often far removed from the cabals that threaten the regime; the people are often remote from the sources of truth even though they live in the city where the forces that would undermine society operate. The function of the press is to explore and investigate events, inform the people what is going on, and to expose the harmful as well as the good influences at work. There is no higher function performed under our constitutional regime. Its performance means that the press is often engaged in projects that bring anxiety or even fear to the bureaucracies, departments, or officials of government. The whole weight of government is therefore often brought to bear against a paper or a reporter.

The crux of the Court's rejection of any newsman's privilege is its observation that only "where news sources themselves are implicated in crime or possess information relevant to the grand jury's task need they or the reporter be concerned about grand jury subpoenas." See ante, at 691 (emphasis supplied). But this is a most misleading construct. For it is obviously not true that the only persons about whom reporters will be forced to testify will be those "confidential informants involved in actual criminal conduct" and those having "information suggesting illegal conduct by others." See ante, at 691, 693. As noted above, given the grand jury's extraordinarily broad investigative powers and the weak standards of relevance and materiality that apply during such inquiries, reporters, if they have no testimonial privilege, will be called to give information about informants who have neither committed crimes nor have information about crime. It is to avoid deterrence of such sources and thus to prevent needless injury to First Amendment values that I think the government must be required to show probable cause that the newsman has information that is clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of criminal law. [note 34] [745]

Similarly, a reporter may have information from a confidential source that is "related" to the commission of crime, but the government may be able to obtain an indictment or otherwise achieve its purposes by subpoenaing persons other than the reporter. It is an obvious but important truism that when government aims have been fully served, there can be no legitimate reason to disrupt a confidential relationship between a reporter and his source. To do so would not aid the administration of justice and would only impair the flow of information to the public. Thus, it is to avoid deterrence of such sources that I think the government must show that there are no alternative means for the grand jury to obtain the information sought.

Both the "probable cause" and "alternative means" requirements would thus serve the vital function of mediating between the public interest in the administration of justice and the constitutional protection of the full flow of information. These requirements would avoid a direct conflict between these competing concerns, and they would generally provide adequate protection for newsmen. See Part III, infra. [note 35] No doubt the courts would be required to make some delicate judgments in working out this accommodation. But that, after all, [746] is the function of courts of law. Better such judgments, however difficult, than the simplistic and stultifying absolutism adopted by the Court in denying any force to the First Amendment in these cases. [note 36]

The error in the Court's absolute rejection of First Amendment interests in these cases seems to me to be most profound. For in the name of advancing the administration of justice, the Court's decision, I think, will only impair the achievement of that goal. People entrusted with law enforcement responsibility, no less than private citizens, need general information relating to controversial social problems. Obviously, press reports have great value to government, even when the newsman cannot be compelled to testify before a grand jury. The sad paradox of the Court's position is that when a grand jury may exercise an unbridled subpoena power, and sources involved in sensitive matters become fearful of disclosing information, the newsman will not only cease to be a useful grand jury witness; he will cease to investigate and publish information about issues of public import. I cannot subscribe to such an anomalous result, for, in my view, the interests protected by the First Amendment are not antagonistic to the administration of justice. Rather, they can, in the long run, only be complementary, and for that reason must be given great "breathing space." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S., at 433.

1. Stewart is prophetic because he noted that the privilege would be difficult to administer. How does one not grant this privilege to anyone who merely starts a blog? Risen is a reporter of note, but at what level of reportage does the privilege end?

This is not an impossible task, but isn't it best done by statute rather than a judicially-created remedy to a fix a problem that hasn't been proven to exist?

2. Absent a showing that the press is actually inhibited from publication, how does one prove a need for a privilege necessary to override the needs of the grand jury? Until you do that, the prerogatives of the grand jury under the 5th will always overide an unproven First amendment claim. Always.

You are looking for an overrule. It's legislation of a reporter's shield that will fix this.

Sincerely for the conversation. I respect your position. It makes sense. I disagree with parts of it, but it makes sense.

I tend to distrust legislative fixes. Legislatures blow with the political wind. Courts do too, but it is a much longer cycle and generally less susceptible to public opinion or the current emergency du jur.

I would love to see a shield law. But I would much rather see the constitution used to protect against excesses of the legislative and executive branches. Democrats won't always be in power.

Looking forward to future debates. Peace.

And welcome to DU.

and deserves a thread of its own. Welcome to DU.

We are going backwards at mock speed.

What would it take for you to finally reach a point where you would look around and say,
"You know, this isn't right."









You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises, or excuses.

But blaming the present President for historical wrongs is wasting good energy. If the amount of adrenaline that is used against Obama and the massive spillage of hate, was put toward what the Baggers are doing right under your noses...

ah well.

...that President Obama was too accommodating to the real Racists in Florida,
and should have been firmer in calling them out in his recent speech?

I wish that our President had directed the Justice Department to immediately indict Zimmerman for Depriving Trayvon Martin of His Civil Rights to Walk While Being Black.
I am aware that there are many who would prefer to just brush this little incident under the rug.

Other Presidents have done this in the past to correct grievous Racially Motivated wrongs.
I can NOT wrap my mind around the small posse here that is pointing their fingers and screaming "RACIST" at those who believe that President Obama could have been more forceful.
Those dots do not connect.

You wanted Obama to step into the case before it was juried? Yeh, I'm sure I heard wrong.

...in the speech he gave over the weekend.
But I'm sure you already understood that.
It was pretty clear.

Me, along with many, many others thought it struck the right tone and message.
If you wanted Obama to pound fist and spittle froth, well, that is not going to happen as that is not his character.

If you want him to act, you'll be waiting for a while because he is thoughtful and honest.

Then it will all be ok.

A speech makes everything better.

I think this quote sums up modern politics quite nicely:

At a news conference two months ago, when President Obama refused to say a critical word about his Justice Department’s targeted surveillance of reporters, he touted plans to reintroduce a bill for a federal shield law so journalists can protect their sources. But Obama didn’t mention that he has insisted on a “national security exception” that would make such a law approximately worthless for reporters doing the kind of reporting that has resulted in government surveillance—and has sometimes landed them in federal court.

Always watch the actions, not the words.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was based on Branzenburg v. Hayes...a ruling from 1972 that stated that reporters have no privilege to escape criminal subpoena.

That's been the law of the land for over 40 years.

This is the same ruling that put Judith Miller in the can.

It is disingenuous to suggest that this is somehow something 'new' under this administration. I think it hypocritical to support a ruling that puts Miller in jail--- but not someone you think will be an effective Obama basher.

during the Plame/Libby affair. Libby was no whistleblower, but there was little concern over how prosecuting him could affect whistleblowers because TRAITOR. plenty of people enjoyed seeing a neocon sycophant like Miller in jail as well.

should have protections in a criminal proceeding that they themselves are not entitled to.

I'm also wondering when the civil libertarians are going to tell me that Judith Miller was wrongly jailed.


In the meantime I'm enjoying the Obama bashing over a 1972 Court decision.

... he did it back in 1978.

It was also around the same time that Obama used his big wheel as the get-a-way vehicle while helping Bill Ayers blow up the Pentagon.

Or something like that.

fake birth certificate, did you know that Obama went to 1974 to rig Social Security COLAs???

That is the ludicrously dumb shit argument I had with a DUer. Twice.

for a couple years.

I saw some of that nonsense here too.

This place can be a great source of information, and a great source for laughs too.

Its a great example of how some will take a complex issue and then leverage the complexity so as to mislead people into believing things that are not true.

Its like how in the NSA story, it starts with the mining of meta data ... but that's complex to understand, so they call it "wiretapping" ... people understand that term, and it scares them ... so what if its wrong.

And then, when you try to explain the difference, they change their terms ... drop "wiretapping" and change to "spying". Spying is even scarier, and it allows the reader to IMAGINE what ever they want.

Try to dissect that, and they claim that "the 4th Amendment has been torn up". And suddenly we are all Will Smith in Enemy of the State.

because his family knew he'd be President one day.

That they can commit crimes, and squeal Amendment! Amendment! when they get caught.

Thanks for putting some reality into this issue, msanthrope.
It's astounding how many evils the President has done, in 1972 yet.

He is not the target of this proceeding.

He also retains his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

What the civil libertarians seem to be suggesting is that Risen has an additional privilege under the First Amendment of the United States that allows him to decline to testify after having witnessed a crime.

This was exactly the same argument that Judith Miller made with regards to Scooter Libby. It failed but it is amusing to read the rehash, isn't it?

I can't keep up with all the FireHead moanings.

Sid

and restricting investigative reporting. Our future as a party is with the NSA not Amnesty International.

That ruling has stood for 40 years. I think the Republic is safe.

and applying stricter and stricter enforcement of laws that protect government secrets - the Republic will be safe and the government will be able to operate in more an more secrecy. Secrecy in government is the key to a strong leadership

Amnesty International and Reporters Without Boarders call in censorship!! I CALL IT LEADERSHIP!!

Obama Has Charged More Under Espionage Act Than All Other Presidents Combined

By Daniel Politi
|
Posted Saturday, June 22, 2013, at 3:32 PM

The U.S. government charged former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden with three felonies, including two under the Espionage Act. He now becomes the eighth person to be charged under the Espionage Act under Obama, according to Firedoglake. That is more than double all previous presidents combined. Prior to Obama’s administration only three people who leaked information had been charged under the 1917 statute that was never really intended for leakers. The arguments that Obama uses now to use that statute to go after those who reveal information were first brought up by Ronald Reagan’s administration when it went after a Navy civilian analyst who leaked photographs to a British military magazine. But now the practice has become widespread.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/22/edward_snowden_is_eighth_person_obama_has_pursued_under_espionage_act.html

8 is more than 3 ... who knew?

Fortunately, the article goes on to note that not only is 8 more than 3, it also points out that 8 is more than DOUBLE the number 3. Good thing they pointed that out.

Personally, I think they should have gone all in and said that the administration has "almost tripled" the number. That sounds way scarier.

as with the expansion of the surveillance state - now with the Democrats taking the lead we can look forward to the day when no reporter can ever again hide behind the Bill of Rights and claim they are protecting their sources and no government official will ever again have to fear the exposure of their secrets. Then and only they can we have the kind of government secrecy that a strong state truly needs.

And let's see, 8 reporters will become "all reporters" (since none will have access to the Bill of Rights), over what time frame?

Must be pretty soon if we live in a "surveillance state", as you claim.

The NSA's metastasised intelligence-industrial complex is ripe for abuse

Where oversight and accountability have failed, Snowden's leaks have opened up a vital public debate on our rights and privacy

by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 June 2013 13.00 BST


Let's be absolutely clear about the news that the NSA collects massive amounts of information on US citizens – from emails, to telephone calls, to videos, under the Prism program and other Fisa court orders: this story has nothing to do with Edward Snowden. As interesting as his flight to Hong Kong might be, the pole-dancing girlfriend, and interviews from undisclosed locations, his fate is just a sideshow to the essential issues of national security versus constitutional guarantees of privacy, which his disclosures have surfaced in sharp relief.

Snowden will be hunted relentlessly and, when finally found, with glee, brought back to the US in handcuffs and severely punished. (If Private Bradley Manning's obscene conditions while incarcerated are any indication, it won't be pleasant for Snowden either, even while awaiting trial.) Snowden has already been the object of scorn and derision from the Washington establishment and mainstream media, but, once again, the focus is misplaced on the transiently shiny object. The relevant issue should be: what exactly is the US government doing in the people's name to "keep us safe" from terrorists?

We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks – now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget – have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.

Today, the intelligence sector is so immense that no one person can manage, or even comprehend, its reach. When an operation in the field goes south, who would we prefer to try and correct the damage: a government employee whose loyalty belongs to his country (despite a modest salary), or the subcontractor who wants to ensure that his much fatter paycheck keeps coming? - Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/nsa-intelligence-industrial-complex-abuse

for writing that article ... I do notice their article lacks your level of hyperbole, however (except in the comparison to Manning, who is being tried under Military law ... there they go off the edge. Snowden is not military).

I'm curious if you read their last sentence in the clip you posted. It says ...

a subpoena and is expected to testify against Mr. Sterling who deserves his espionage charge.

What possible justification can you offer for Mr Sterling revealing our attempts during the Clinton administration to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear warhead???

have available - that is what is important - and it will finally put the press in its place

acquiring nuclear arms. kindly tell me exactly how that leak helped us??

suspect the CIA might actually know a little bit more about it then you or me.

But if you do know better then tell us.... what was the advantage of revealing to Iran our attempts to stop them from acquiring nuclear arms?

information useful for their nuclear program. Especially considering the national intelligence estimate had already concluded that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. But as long as the press gets the message that they cannot report things with impunity - that's what is important.

Do you think CIA employees ought to be able to keep operational details and classified materials after they are fired??

What did you think of Valerie Plame being outed?

of government employees who act vindictively

If the source isn't Sterling, then Risen could be concealing evidence that exonerates him. Don't criminal defendants have the right to confront accusers? Should Risen and his source have that power? I don't think the first amendment rights of reporters trumps the rights bof the accused.

their prerogative. We are going down a very dangerous road when numerous actions by the government cannot help but chill the ability of investigative journalist to investigate. No one can dispute that the states does not have a legitimate need to keep some things secret. But no one can dispute that when the Intelligence Industrial Complex grows massively in size that the wall of secrecy surrounding such secretive institutions especially ones with largely unchecked power does in fact pose a clear and grave danger to the future of liberty. The ability to report is one of the few checks on a potentially dangerous institution.

Libby trial is ready to apologize to Judith Miller, right?

You seem to be making an argument that some reporters ought to be put in jail and some shouldn't.

That all important (D) vs (R) distinction. Nothing else matters. We're the White Hat Good Guys and we can do no wrong and anything we do will never set an precedent for any evil (R) to be able to get away with at a later date.
It is so simple. Which is the root problem, because it is not so simple. Just blinder wearing, simple minded thinking. What can possibly go wrong?

details about our attempts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear arms during the Clinton administration.

The person being prosecuted may well be a scumbag traitor who should be shot. That has ZERO to do with whether or not press freedoms should be abridged (at least what are left of them) to advance that prosecution.

For many, many reasons (many of which I referenced in a detailed response to you above), it is far more dangerous to restrict the freedom of the press than it is to allow one traitor to go free.

This is a press intimidation tactic. And is stinks to high heaven.

I have to wonder just how many of those doing so actually work for the Surveillance State or MIC or its contractors? I bet the answer, if we could know it, would be very enlightening.

If Bush was still President they would be singing the praises of Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald and Amnesty International and waxing eloquent about the great and glorious press freedom that only Democrats can be trusted to protect,

Does things to Loyalty and Integrity like some wouldn't believe if they paid 'em.

There are also alot of true believers. The combination is annoying.

and the number of responses within the 24 hour day on DU

Usually a tag team affair to fill in the working shift.

that there are programs so one paid "fonter" can manage 500 additional personas

I think the payees are those with the most OMG! posts - contentless and unsupported and trying to spin something into what it is not.

The 'Justice' Department is out of control.

I'm SURE we can dig up SOMETHING on them!

Narcissist? Communist? Libertarian perhaps? Maybe they took self photos? There's got to be SOMETHING!

I'm going to read it and then report back.

You can't make this stuff up.

is betrayed by the fervent activity of the propaganda brigade in this thread.

when in your anti-Obama jealousy you posted an article from a RW site about an interview with a Paul supporter.

Unless you forgot the sarcasm smilie

Dig deep and you can find monsters under the bed to get everyone worked up about.

The real problems that eviscerate real people every day? Shit, who cares?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

That could *never* happen today. Not now, not in this country. This government is officially waging a war of intimidation and vengeance against our free press.

It's when you look back and see the contrast with just forty years ago that you see how sick and authoritarian this government has become. This country has gone off the rails, and the propaganda, like a mantra, keeps telling us it's okay.

It's not.

bankers and war criminals?

...is a dumbass. Your letting the Administration build an infrastructure assuming that a Republican cannot get back in the presidency. Assuming is highly dangerous and people often get their assumptions shattered.

In addition, it was under the Obama Administration that Occupy Wall Street was so viciously cracked down, with evidence that the Federal Government was involved in it. You think that somehow your exempted, shows the bad part of American Culture: "I got mine, screw you" mentality.

Does anyone really think the Constitution still protects them? If official after official tramples on it and uses it for...