Nat'l Press Club Protests Subpoena

AP | 9/7/01 | AP

[anniegetyourgun]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Press Club told Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Justice Department's subpoena of an Associated Press journalist's telephone records amounted to a threat to constitutionally guaranteed press freedoms.

"We believe such actions threaten the right of journalists to protect confidential sources and information, a cornerstone of a free press guaranteed by the First Amendment," the club's president, Richard Ryan, said in a letter to Ashcroft. Dated Wednesday, the letter was circulated Friday.

The Justice Department subpoenaed AP reporter John Solomon's home phone records while trying to identify what law enforcement officials told Solomon about a wiretap intercept a discussion by Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., of campaign donations.

The department obtained the records 10 days after a May 4 AP story ran about the wiretap in an organized crime investigation that led to guilty pleas by the operators of a Florida pizzeria.

Under Justice guidelines, such subpoenas normally are allowed only as a last resort and the targeted journalist has been notified.

In his letter, Ryan wrote that the 4,500-member National Press Club "is concerned that the Justice Department is threatening press freedoms and loosening 30-year-old policies against going after journalists' notes and records."

[anniegetyourgun]

Sleuth this!

[doodlebug]

bumping.

[RJCogburn]

A subpoena is okay in this case, according to the Bush/Ashcroft people, but Burton's supeona to find why Mark Middleton was not prosecuted is not.

Cute.

[anniegetyourgun]

Or maybe there is something you don't know.

[Grut]

These guys are such wimps! What they ought to be doing is going quietly to Congressional leaders and saying things like ''If you ever want to see your name in print again....''

[gatex]

"....a cornerstone of a free press guaranteed by the First Amendment," the club's president, ...."

And out of the other side of their collective mouths they say the right to bear arms is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment. (I know, it's not guaranteed, but limits govt)

[esmith]

This is pure crap. In the last l0 years, the Justice Dept has issued subpoenas at least l3 times it has been reported. It was OK for clinton but not for President Bush.

[johniegrad]

Not only that but who says it's a free press. Free enough, I guess, if you want to hear the Democratic talking points. LAT free....Ya You Betcha.

[RJCogburn]

Or maybe there is something you don't know.

Why, sure. That is a response that can be made to anyone, at any time, about anything. While it is certainly true, with all due respect, it adds a big zero to the discussion.

Yes, there is something that I admit I do not know....why did Mark Middleton not face prosecution? I'd like to know. Wouldn't you? Or, maybe I don't know that I don't know...but I do know that I don't.....or something like that :^)

[gatex]

"Free enough, I guess, if you want to hear the Democratic talking points..."

Good point---it's amazing how fast and widespread the same words and phrases start being used. It gets to be funny on the Sunday talk shows.

[johniegrad]

They want to protect their sources but how many of them didn't even check out their sources when they ran the presidential IQ story. The News and Information Service of National Public Radio even ran the damn thing.

Idiots hide behind the 1st Amendment when it is to their liking and then papers like the LAT print pieces of George Will's editorials. To top it off, they turn around and sue FR for discussion their articles. Hypocritical pieces of dung.

[white rose]

OK, Miss Annie, you tell me what it means when the Bush Administration and the press are on the same team!

[white rose]

Considering that what we have here is a situation where nobody wants to take subpeonas from anybody, isn't this what used to be known as a Mexican standoff?