Shield law needed to protect sources

February 28, 2008
Shield law needed to protect sources

Ed Lake's rantings and his conspiracy theories.

The Issue: Another journalist has been found in contempt of court for refusing to reveal her confidential sources.
Our Opinion: A shield law is making its way through Congress that would protect journalists from having to reveal their sources. It needs to be passed as soon as possible.

Again the ability of journalists to keep the public informed is under attack, demonstrating the need for federal lawmakers to finish work on the proposed shield law as quickly as possible.
Last week a federal judge found a former USA Today reporter, Toni Locy, in contempt of court for refusing to reveal her confidential source for stories she wrote about an Army scientist, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, identified by investigators as a person of interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
The attacks, which involved anthrax powder in envelopes mailed to various individuals, killed five people. The case remains unsolved.
Investigators became interested in Hatfill because of his background in biochemistry. Hatfill had worked for Science Applications International Corp., a defense contractor, but was fired after his name began to appear in news articles about the anthrax attacks.
He also had worked at the Army’s biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., between 1997 and 1999.
Investigators searched Hatfill’s apartment at least twice, but no charges were filed against him. Hatfill has denied having anything to do with the anthrax attacks.
Hatfill is suing the federal government, claiming his reputation has been ruined because of leaks to the news media from law enforcement officials.
Locy and Jim Stewart, a former reporter for CBS, were subpoenaed to testify in Hatfill’s civil trial against the government, but both refused to reveal the sources for their stories.
Judge Reggie B. Walton said he would impose a sliding scale of fines beginning at $500 for each day Locy refuses to name her source. After three weeks he will consider other options, including jail time.
Walton said he would consider imposing contempt of court charges against Stewart at a later time.
In citing Locy with contempt of court, Walton said her testimony could help Hatfill pursue his case against the government.
However, Lucy A. Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press saw it differently.
“Of all the federal court sanctions on reporters for refusing to reveal confidential sources over the past several years, this is perhaps the most disturbing,” she said. “Toni Locy is being punished for doing what reporters are supposed to do: making sure important information gets to the public about whether the government had the investigation into a major public health threat under control.”
The danger in forcing journalists to reveal their confidential sources is that soon there will be very few people who will be willing to provide journalists with information concerning governmental fraud and corruption.
The Supreme Court has ruled that under the Constitution journalists cannot be afforded immunity from subpoenas to testify in court.
That’s why a federal shield law for journalists is crucial. Similar laws already have been passed by 32 states, including Pennsylvania, but they do not provide protection at the federal level.
The House has passed its version of a federal law by an overwhelming vote of 398-21. The measure is now being taken up by the Senate.
Passage of this measure should not be seen as a victory for journalists but for the public, because it’s the public who ultimately will be left in the dark if journalists are unable to do their jobs.

Posted by readingeagle at February 28, 2008 07:20 AM

Comments
You wrote: "Investigators became interested in Hatfill because of his background in biochemistry."
That is absolutely NOT TRUE.
The depostions show that FBI investigators checked out Dr. Hatfill in November of 2001 and found no reason to suspect him.
But, a small group of conspiracy theorists believed that the anthrax attacks were the work of the Bush administration as part of a plot to destroy the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC) which had met in July and August of 2001. The theorists looked around for who they believed was most likely the Bush administration's agent responsible for the attacks, and they settled upon Dr. Hatfill because of his published comments about how bioweapons could be cooked up in a kitchen, and because of his support for the Bush administration.
Their compaign to point the finger at Dr. Hatfill began at the next BTWC meeting in Geneva in November of 2001. At that meeting, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg gave a speech and began pointing the finger at the Bush administration and at an unnamed person who she and her group believed was the actual culprit.
She continued her campaign by talking with anyone in the media who would listen to her, here in the U.S. AND overseas. She gave speeches on college campuses. She published her beliefs on the web site for the Federation of American Scientists. One paper called "What the FBI Knows" all but said that the FBI was COVERING UP for the Bush administration and refusing to investigate the person behind the anthrax attacks.
In January of 2002, Nicolas Kristoff of The New York Times jumped on the bandwagon and began supporting this conspiracy theory, writing column after column about "Mr. Z" who he believed sent the anthrax letters. Others in the media also jumped onto this conspiracy theory bandwagon.
People began to call their congressmen demanding that the person who Dr. Rosenberg was talking about be arrested.
Finally, in June of 2002, EIGHT MONTHS after she began her campaign, Dr. Rosenberg was asked to appear before a group of senate staffers working for Senators Daschle and Leahy. She evidently convinced those staffers that the FBI WAS covering up for someone, so they asked that the FBI report to them on their investigation of the person Dr. Rosenberg had told them about.
One week later, the FBI did a public search of Dr. Hatfill's apartment, the media went into a feeding frenzy, and Dr. Hatfill becaame a household name.
Shortly after that, Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to defuse the media feeding frenzy by telling the media that Dr. Hatfill was just one "person of interest" from among 20 or 30.
That just added to the frenzy, and the media began truly pointing the finger at Dr. Hatfill.
Some lawyers in the Department of Justice evidently leaked information about Dr. Hatfill to the media as a way of currying favor with the media.
Meanwhile, the FBI kept saying OVER AND OVER that Dr. Hatfill was NOT a suspect.
So, we now have a situation where an INNOCENT MAN has had his life destroyed by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and by the media and by politicians who believed the conspiracy theorists.
AND we have a situation where some people in the media (Toni Locy and James Stewart specifically) are PROTECTING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO BROKE THE LAW.
One person who has already been named for giving FALSE information to the media may be prosecuted for what he did. As part of a "sting" operation to find out who was leaking information to the media, the FBI told this person that bloodhounds had gotten Dr. Hatfill's scent off of the anthrax letters. That person in the DOJ then leaked that FALSE information to Newsweek.
So, do we really want to protect lawyers in the DOJ who are leaking confidential information just because they want to curry favor with the media? They weare BREAKING THE LAW. Is it the media's job to protect lawbreakers?
Ed Lakewww.anthraxinvestigation.com
Posted by: Ed Lake at February 28, 2008 01:04 PM
So, do we really want to protect lawyers in the DOJ who are leaking confidential information just because they want to curry favor with the media? They weare BREAKING THE LAW. Is it the media's job to protect lawbreakers?
Ed Lakewww.anthraxinvestigation.com
Posted by: Ed Lake at February 28, 2008 01:04 PM======================================
I would say no, but is it the job of government to protect criminals? Again the answer is NO, but that has not stopped them from doing so, it is part of our history and is why most every American knows that our government is corrupt to the point of being of being the biggest organized crime group of the world. All supposedly to protect the people, well i beg to differ when it is all about CMA and EFTS.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 29, 2008 07:47 AM