Posted on 08/27/2007 4:54:16 PM PDT by jpl
JUST WHEN YOU thought it was safe again for journalists to talk to confidential sources inside government, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. has ordered five reporters - Allan Lengel of the Washington Post; Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, both of Newsweek; Toni Locy, formerly of USA Today; and James Stewart of CBS News - to disclose the names of government sources to whom they promised confidentiality.
The order comes in a civil suit filed by Steven Hatfill, the bioterrorism expert whom federal investigators suspected was behind the 2001 anthrax mailings.
A former federal employee, Hatfill claims that the Justice Department and the FBI, by leaking to the press information about their suspicions of him, violated his rights under the federal Privacy Act. Hatfill, who has never been charged in the still-unsolved anthrax homicides, sued only the government, not the reporters (although in a separate case he sued the New York Times for libel based on Op-Ed articles by columnist Nicholas Kristof published in 2001; that suit was dismissed earlier this year).
The subpoenaed reporters have acknowledged in pretrial depositions that their stories about Hatfill were based on leaks from government investigators.
Until now, however, they have refrained from naming those investigators. The order issued this week by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton - who presided over the trial of I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby - directs the reporters to identify their sources, finding that the names "are central to Dr. Hatfill's case" against the government.
Walton's order leaves the reporters few options to avoid jail or fines for refusing to reveal confidential sources. The reporters can hope that the government will settle the case, as it did a similar Privacy Act lawsuit that was brought by Livermore physicist Wen Ho Lee, who had been falsely accused of giving nuclear secrets to the Chinese government. To resolve that litigation and protect their reporters from contempt sanctions, news organizations, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, ABC News and the Associated Press, contributed $750,000 of a $1.6 million settlement deal between Lee and the government.
But repetition of the settlement in the Lee case is unlikely. The Justice Department was willing to settle with Lee in part because it had no hope of prosecuting him further. The Bush administration, however, has not necessarily given up on prosecuting Hatfill, whom investigators characterized as a "person of interest" at the time of the anthrax crimes.
Nor are the reporters in the Hatfill case likely to be able to obtain valid waivers from their sources, freeing them from their promises of confidentiality. Although the waiver strategy was invoked by half the Washington press corps in the Libby trial and in the Valerie Plame grand jury proceeding leading up to it, waivers in the Hatfill case would be highly suspect: Why would government sources, after all, willingly admit to career-ending misconduct (or worse)? Any waivers must be viewed as coerced and involuntary.
Walton's order is a reminder to journalists - whether reporters for national news media or bloggers writing about local politics - that use of confidential sources can lead to demands for disclosure not only in grand jury proceedings and criminal trials, but also in civil litigation filed by private individuals in federal court.
Civil litigation may pose the greater threat. Private plaintiffs are not subject to the guidelines that apply to federal prosecutors for obtaining evidence from journalists.Ê Private plaintiffs, moreover, are completely unaccountable. U.S. Attorneys are subject to oversight by the Justice Department, which in turn is accountable to congressional committees that control the agency's budget. This food chain provides opportunities for the application of political pressure to rein in an over-zealous prosecutor. But private plaintiffs, of course, are subject to no such constraints.
It's hard to see how the Hatfill case won't end badly for the subpoenaed reporters and the news organizations they represent. The remedy is for Congress to pass a federal Shield Law comparable to those in effect in California and most states. Legislation to do that, the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2007," is before both the House and Senate. Although it's not perfect - exclusions for confidential sources of "national security" information and "trade secrets" would be too easily abused - the bill is an improvement over previous versions and the best that we are likely to see anytime soon.
It's time for a federal Shield Law to be transformed from theory to law.
Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, which is based in San Rafael (www.cfac.org).
Very interesting, his comment about the feds "not necessarily given up on prosecuting Hatfill". Personally, this sounds to me a lot more like desperate, wishful thinking on this guy's part as opposed to anything based in fact or recent evidence.
The "not necessarily" is a huge weasel word term, and notice that he doesn't even attribute this to anonymous sources within the government, which strongly suggests to me that this is nothing more than his unsubstantiated opinion.
Also note that later on, he says that it will likely "end up badly" for the journalists in question, which suggests to me that even he doesn't necessarily believe what he's spouting. The journalists wouldn't be in any trouble if he didn't have a solid case.
Finally, he is of course incorrect on the merits of his argument. In a little bit of Stalinist turnabout logic, he claims that private litigants want no accountability, when he is really arguing for journalists to be liable from any and all accountability in their reporting.
No federal shield law for journalists.
Ping.
The author has one of the standard arrogant preconceptions of “journalists”: that the reference to the “press” in the 1st amendment gives a class of people (the “press”) enormous EXTRA privileges, over and above those of the “lower classes” they report on.
The plain meaning of the 1st amendment is that the People (that means you, me, and the idjit preening himself as a “journalist”) have a right to use a printing press for whatever purpose we wish. It does not make a “journalist” class which is immune to jack. That’s a perversion of the Constitution and whenever someone refers to the Press and the 1st Amendment in that manner, make sure you put that idiot in his place.
In short, the second that “journalists” (a class that did not exist in 1787) get special rights like the shield law due to their inability to take math courses and their liking of gossip, is the second that they have successfully destroyed the Bill of Rights.
I agree 100% with everything you said sir.
The idea of creating a new federal privilege arrangement between government and the media (when the two are supposed to be adversaries, and not partners in crime), and making journalists a class of people essentially fully immune from prosecution and all accountability is one that should scare the hell out of us all.
Just who decides who is a “journalist? Why do they deserve “special” protection?
Good question! No doubt the so-called "mainstream" press would love to be able to define the term to their own benefit and to the exclusion of those they don't like.
All you need to know, what a combination. Let me guess, he makes regular contributions to the DNC and the ACLU.
Since journalists have signed a collective blood oath to support and defend every avowed enemy of the United States, and are willing to do whatever it takes to bring about the demise of our Republic; we ought to take pause before considering this plea.
What exactly have journalists done to deserve such a Get Out of Jail Free card? If they were the true seekers of truth and scourge of the power obsessed as they claim to be, we might be inclined to support them. But, they are not. They are crass purveyors of partisan propanganda supporting their extreme left wing view of the world. They are without moral foundation, willing to lie, cheat, steal - whatever advances their distorted cause, at whatever cost.
We need every law at our disposal to bring them to the bar of justice and send them away until dementia blunts their evil sword. And we need to demand that our politicians exercise the courage required to do what is right and hold them to account. I despair that the politicians will do what is necessary.
Bravo Sierra! A reporter is just a hack doing a job. They are no more entitled to a shield law than copier salesmen are.
A free press, not a protected press.
bookmark
Is this guy related to Robert Scheer? He sure writes like he is.
Only after it approves a shield law for John Does who report suspicious behavior.
Journalists need more openness, not less. They already fabricate sources and documents (e.g. Dan Rather and Bush’s “National Guard” docs).
Reporters lie far too often to be trusted with government immunity for their conduct.
In 2003, Yazid Sufaat’s assistants Barq and Wahdan were captured. One was Egyptian, the hother was Sudanese.
“Extremely virulent” anthrax was found in after Hambali was harshly interrogated in Jordan. Ron Suskind in “One Percent solution” describes it as unweaponized but authorities knew it could be readily weaponized. This may mean it was highly concentrated.
After these and other developments, conspicuous surveillance was called off on Dr. Hatfill in late 2003.
In the Summer 2006, the “911 Imam” Awlaki (Aulaqi) was arrested in Yemen. Awlakii met both in San Diego and in Falls Church with hijacker Nawaf who had been at the planning meeting in January 2000 at the condo of anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat.
911 planner Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh had the number of Awlaki’s mosque. CIA Director Tenet in his 2007 book says authorities were startled to find that the anthrax planning had been done in parallel with the 9/11 planning and that Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh had a CBRN role.
The Falls Church “911 Iman” Awlaki would speak alongside fellow Falls Church imam Ali Al-Timimi and Bilal Philips about the signs of the coming day of judgment. In August 2001, he spoke with Ali Al-Timimi in London along with unindicted WTC 1993 conspirator Bilal Phliips.
Ali Al-Timimi had worked in the same building as famed Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID head Charles Bailey, who had co-invented a process using hydrophobic silica to lead to greater concentration of a biological agent. Dr. Bailey has been a prolific Ames anthrax strain researcher.
NSA intercepts showed that Ali Al-Timimi was working with Bin Laden’s sheik al-Hawali, who had been the subject of Bin Laden’s 1996 Declaration of War and his 1998 claim of responsibility for the embassy bombings. Timimi has been sentenced to life plus 70 years.
Bilal Philips had been Ali’s mentor and the father of Jafar the Pilot had been Bilal Philips’ mentor.
In 2007, we had the claim by a Afghan governor that anthrax packets intended for mailing to government officials had been seized.
In the big picture, there is no reason to think the USG government still suspects Steve Hatfill. It was a theory that needed to be explored, however, given the forensics showed a connection to USAMRIID through the genetic strain used.
Zawahiri’s operation to use weaponized anthrax against the US was under the mantle of the Vanguards of Conquest.
The Cairo lawyer Mamdouh Ismail for an expert on functionalized polymers was arrested and alleged to be Ayman Zawahiri’s chief conduit to jihadists in Egypt, Iraq, and Yemen. The biochemist, Magdy Al-Nashar provided the flat used by the 7/7 bombers to ship things to Zawahiri’s chief aide, al-Hadi, in Aghanistan. There is a strong connection between Leeds operatives and Falls Church operatives, through the Pakistan militant organization Lashkar ( LET ).
US Post Office worker Ahmed Abdel Sattar was in close contact with Vanguards of Conquest spokesman Al-Sirri, who was based in London. He was also in close contact with Egyptian Islamic Group Taha. He and Taha issued a fatwa to kill jews anywhere you find them under the blind sheik’s name in September 2000 without the blind sheik even knowing of it. He has been sentenced to 24 years. Sattar admits that they knowingly lied and said authorities were not providing the blind sheik medical treatmentn when actually he was refusing to take his insulin.
The anthrax operation was likely led by Mohammed Islambouli, who had been in a cell with KSM in connection with the planned attacks on the US using aircraft and other means. Islambouli’s role and his planned visit to the US in preparation for the attacks was the subject of the December 4, 1998 Presidential Daily Brief by the CIA to President Clinton.
If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
The job of journalists is news, not analysis. So they understandably need to wait until they are told these things by the government. But sometimes the government’s interest in the fruits intelligence activity causes them to forego explaining what is really going on or in seeking a criminal prosecution.
For example, the wiretap on Sattar’s telephone permitted them to catch the head of the Egyptian Islamic Group in Egypt October 2000. His name was Alia Atia. Similarly, by proceeding in great secrecy in Amerithrax, they have had numerous successes that otherwise would have eluded them.
The solution to Amerithrax, however, has been there for all to see — most intelligence is open source.
Amerithrax is best understood as a complex web of prosecutions. And in the end will be known as a great DOJ/FBI success story.
As for Egyptian Islamic Group Taha, he was rendered in years ago while transiting Syria. He had been sent by Ayman to set up Ansar al-Islam. He lived in a suburb of Tehran.
Al-Timimi’s friend Dr. Rafil Dhafir, a respected oncologist in Upstate New York, he got 22 years for financial irregularities. He had spoken alongside Awlaki, Philips, and Timimi in London in August 2001. In the sentencing memo, the governmentn says he gave money each year to Gama Islamiya (Islamic group) which was renamed Ansar Al-Islam.
Ceretain of Al-Timimi’s other IANA colleagues were deported or jailed.
One IANA writer was the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad Kamal Habib. Sattar had overseen the rejection in March 1999 of a political party by the blind sheik when Kamal Habib and former EIJ member Gamal Sultan (the IANA editor) sought the blind sheik’s endorsement.
Mamdouh Ismail the lawyer who allegedly was the chief conduit to the jihadis sought to co-found a related party, with co-founder Montasser Al-Zayat. Montasser Al-Zayat participated in conference calls with Sattar and EIG leader Taha in 1999. It was in March 1999 when the blind sheik rejected the political party idea that Cairo attorney Al-Zayat said Ayman was going to use weaponized anthrax against US targets.
Note that the silly bioevangeleist theory was analogous to the theory Satter came up with in connection with the December 1996 letter bombs sent to newspapers in DC and NYC and people in symbolic positions. He said perhaps it was the FBI looking to undermine the sheik’s appeal which had just been submitted. The letters were sent on the “Day of Measures” a really important date in the islamic calendar. The same merry band responsible for the anthrax letters did the al-Hayat letter bombs. There is up to a $5 million reward for that unsolved crime under the Rewards for Justice program.
I’ve always pointed out that anthrax was in the context of the anthrax threat letters sent in connection with the EIJ shura member detained in Canada, Mahmoud Mahjoub. The threat to use mailed anthrax was sent after his bail hearing was announced in January 2001. His bail was denied on October 5 which was why and when the reall deal was sent to Leahy and Daschle. Timimi and the others had spoken in Toronto in July 2001. The FBI and CIA has known the solution to Amerithrax for 5 years and has been playing with these goffballs like a cricket in a glass jar. It’s a wonder those still at large don’t flee and find themselves a nice life in a remote part of the world.
Perps are stupid to keep using the telephones and stupid not to flee. Reminds me of Iyman Faris’ roommate in Ohio who stayed in the same apartment and then got a list of fax and telephone numbers in 2005. These perps are far more obvious and stupid than people appreciate.
Can you imagine the volume of intercepted calls over 5 years of Amerithrax?
Sattar’s line from 1998-2002 had 90,000 calls.
Hassoun’s group in Florida had 300,000 calls intercepted from 1995-2002.
Amerithrax involves many hundreds of thousands of calls given the number of targets and the complexity of the matter.
Both Sattar and Hassoun kept talking even though they knew their line was tapped.
Knowing his line was tapped, did Sattar really think he could solicit / threaten murder and get away with it?
He seems rather clueless and out of date on the subject!
Agreed ... and no shield for leakers either ... Perhaps the new AG will be more successful in exposing and prosecuting the traitors.
The most useful general summary of anthrax is by Tenet:
“Al-Qa’ida spared no effort in its attempt to obtain biological weapons. In 1999, al-Zawahiri had recruited another scientist, Pakistani national Rauf Ahmad, to set up a small lab in Khandahar, Afghanistan, to house the biological weapons effort. In December 2001, a sharp WMD analyst at CIA found the initial lead on which we would pull and, ultimately, unravel the al-Qa’ida anthrax networks. We were able to identify Rauf Ahmad from letters he had written to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Later, we uncovered Sufaat’s central role in the program. We located Rauf Ahmad’s lab in Afghanistan. We identified the building in Khandahar where Sufaat claimed he isolated anthrax. We mounted operations that resulted in the arrests and detentions of anthrax operatives in several countries.”
“The most startling revelation from this intelligence success story was that the anthrax program had been developed in parallel to 9/11 planning. As best as we could determine, al-Zawahiri’s project had been wrapped up in the summer of 2001, when the al-Qaida deputy, along with Hambali, were briefed over a week by Sufaat on the progress he had made to isolate anthrax. The entire operation had been managed at the top of al-Qai’da with strict compartmentalization. Having completed this phase of his work, Sufaat fled Afghanistan in December 2001 and was captured by authorities trying to sneak back into Malaysia. Rauf Ahmad was detained by Pakistani authorities in December 2001. Our hope was that these and our many other actions had neutralized the anthrax threat, at least temporarily.”
—Former CIA Director George Tenet in his May 2007 book Center of the Storm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.