On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:59:35AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Don't tar me with that brush, Declan!
Upon rereading your post, I think it was Dave and John that I should have mentioned, not you. My apologies.
I made no claims about whether reporters routinely refuse to name their sources. (I did hint that Jeff Gordon, the victim/witness/real prosecutor probably took into account the "can of worms" he would be opening if he sought to compell disclosure of certain things...an implicit reference to the fact that many reporters will refuse to name sources and to disclose things said to them.)
I found the article I was thinking of, saying 13 reporters jailed in the last two decades: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60300-2001Aug25.html John, who I admire, seems to think that the government can wave a wand called "homeland defense" that will cause journalists around the U.S. to instantly say, "Oh, we must reveal our sources and what they said." This is, of course, nonsense -- and even insulting to journalists who take their responsibilities to sources seriously. If I sound a little peeved, that's why.
I think John Young would have had a much harder time claiming reporter's privilege. Checking the archives for the period when Bell was trying to track down home addresses of agents should clarify this point. John might have done better to assert 5A rights and make them force the issue by dropping the line of questioning or granting him some form of immunity.
I think you're right on both counts. (While I think John should be considered a journalist, the public interaction he had with Bell over the suspected CIA facility would likely make some mainstream journalism groups like RCFP hesitant to back him.) This is why it makes sense to talk to an experienced, local, and savvy lawyer before taking the stand at the prosecutor's behest. -Declan