[liberallarry]

This is an outrageous statement, made without proof. This is what the grand jury is investigating, and until its findings are known it is irresponsible and unprofessional to make this accusation.

If you'd made this statement from the beginning and left it at that I would have agreed with you.

[Miss Marple]

There is no constitutional right to shield sources. There is not a federal shield law, only laws state by state. The reason I know this is that Mike Pence, CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN from Indiana, has introduced a federal shield law in this session.

In general the sources for a reporter aren't required by the government, except in cases of national security. In the Plame/Wilson case, we apparently have someone who may have broken national security laws. In the case of the Islamic charities raid, we have someone who revealed information that was given to the Islamic charities and allowed them to destroy evidence, when such raid was done a few months after 9/11 and was the government's appropriate efforts to discover sources of terrorism money and people IN THIS COUNTRY who were aiding and abbeting their activities.

[Shermy]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0316-25.htm

Here's a prof for journalistic protections - but not in this particular case.