Posted on 10/02/2007 3:22:11 PM PDT by jpl
WASHINGTON --A former Army scientist asked a federal judge Tuesday to hold two journalists in contempt for refusing to identify the government officials who leaked details about the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks.
Steven J. Hatfill, who worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory from 1997 to 1999, was publicly identified as a "person of interest" in the attacks. He is suing the Justice Department, accusing the agency of violating the federal Privacy Act by giving reporters information about him.
Five journalists are under court order to reveal their sources. In court documents Tuesday, Hatfill asked for a contempt order against two who have refused: James Stewart, formerly of CBS News and Toni Locy, a former Associated Press reporter who wrote about Hatfill while working at USA Today.
Locy testified that she could not remember specifically who told her information about Hatfill and she refused to disclose which officials she spoke to while reporting generally on the investigation.
After the reporters attempted to contact their sources to see if they still sought anonymity, Stewart identified one FBI official and Locy's attorneys identified an FBI official and a former Justice Department official. Stewart refuses to reveal three other FBI sources and Locy refused to reveal any of her remaining contacts, Hatfill's attorneys wrote.
Hatfill's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to fine the reporters $1,000 per day until they cooperate. The proposed fine would increase to $2,000 after a week and continue to increase $1,000 every week. Attorneys also asked that media corporations be prohibited from paying the fines for them.
The court documents did not mention whether the other reporters have cooperated. An attorney for the three reporters - Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek and Allan Lengel of The Washington Post - did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Ping.
Keep after them Dr. Hatfill. As we all learned from the
Scooter Libby trial, more weight is given to the
recollection of journalists than anyone else. We all need
to know who these journalists are.
The govt lawyers suggested the possibility that the “sources” did not exist, ie, the reporters were making it up, or copying each other.
I thought that possible, but think that less likely at least for these reporters given that they gave up some names (but not others, to confusing to think why now!)
If I understand correctly, we know who the journalists are. What we do not know is the identity of all of their sources. Those sources served in the Bush Administration, though they are likely life-time civil servants in the FBI and other, similar agencies. If the doctor here had his privacy violated and his name besmirched, then their (the leakers) privacy (or identity) should be fair game. Not quarelling, just clarifying what I think the situation is.
If the sources were “made up” then that is intentional on the reporters’ part and places liability on them. You can’t legally make up stories and print them and then hide from liability. I doubt that all of the reporters in the story somehow “made up” stories identifying the same alleged perpetrator — or copied the story from one reporter who “made it up” — either way, discovery should get to the bottom of this. Let it roll, Dr. H.
10/3 update -
“Union wants anthrax answers,” New Haven Register, 10/03/2007
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18877740&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517514&rfi=6
The author of the new book Bioviolence has had extensive (unclassified) discussions with the FBI. He tells me that the rumor is that they think Al Qaeda is responsible but they are not certain.
Anthrax Letters Still Being Sorted 6 Years Later
http://www.postalmag.com/anthrax-6-years-later.htm
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that a couple of government sources for other reporters have actually voluntarily come forward and admitted that they were sources.
In other words, the government was lying. That may be a big shock to Ed Lake, but it isn't surprising to me, because they've been lying about a lot of things when it comes to "Amerithrax" for a while now.
Since Allan Lengel of The Washington Post isn't mentioned in the motion to cite Locy and Stewart for contempt, it seems very likely that Lengel's sources either came forward or were named by Lengel. But, it's possible that there might just be some kind of delay with Lengel.
Plus, there's a SIXTH reporter involved in this. For some kind of jurisdictional reason, Dr. Hatfill's effort to depose Brian Ross of ABC is being presided over by Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York City. It's difficult to find any information about what's going on with the Brian Ross deposition.
In other words, the government was lying. That may be a big shock to Ed Lake, but it isn't surprising to me, because they've been lying about a lot of things when it comes to "Amerithrax" for a while now.
There's nothing in this that says "the government" was lying about anything.
If an FBI agent who isn't actually involved with the investigation thinks the Dr. Hatfill is the culprit, and the FBI agent tells a reporter what he believes, that isn't lying.
If an FBI agent tells a reporter that Dr. Hatfill is being investigated because a number of scientists have been pointing at Dr. Hatfill as the "most likely" person to have sent the anthrax letters, that wouldn't be a lie. That would be a violation of the Privacy Act, which is what the lawsuit is all about.
FBI agents definitely lied about what those bloodhounds were looking for, but that's not the same as "the government" lying. As far as I know, it is legally okay for an investigator to lie to a potential suspect, or even to a potential witness, as a way of getting to the truth. The FBI apparently lied about the real reason the bloodhounds had been brought in, and that lie got to the media. That's what the Newsweek depositions were all about. The government has indicated it will explain what the bloodhound incident was about.
If you think "the government" was lying about something else, you need to explain to us what you believe "the government" was lying about. Blanket statements are worthless at this stage of the game.
Gee, I wonder what their big clue could have been?
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.