Posted on 06/05/2004 1:04:32 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
Media Subpoenas in U.S. Terror Case Raise Concerns
Fri Jun 4, 2004 11:48 AM ET
By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has subpoenaed four journalists from major media to testify in the trial of a lawyer facing terrorism charges in a case which has raised fears for the freedom of the press.
The subpoenas are in the trial of Lynne Stewart, who is charged with helping her client Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted of encouraging bombings in the United States, communicate from prison with what prosecutors say are his terrorist followers.
The New York Times, Reuters and Newsday are seeking to quash the unusual subpoenas of their reporters. Their success or failure may set legal precedents in a case pitting the media's concerns about protecting sources and impartiality against government efforts to win the battle against terror.
"We seem to be moving to a potential conflict between First Amendment interests and those of national security," said prominent press freedom attorney Floyd Abrams.
"This is an area fraught with danger for journalists and their ability to protect confidential information and sources, as well as non-confidential material," he said.
The four journalists involved are Joseph Fried of The New York Times, New York Times freelancer George Packer, Esmat Salaheddin of Reuters and Newsday reporter Patricia Hurtado.
Government prosecutors want them to confirm in court that comments they attributed to Stewart in articles were in fact made by her.
Legal experts say that without the reporters' confirmation under oath, the articles are considered hearsay and are not admissible in court. If confirmed, the information can be used as evidence.
While all three media stand by the stories, they oppose the subpoenas on principle and because testifying could open the door to far broader cross-examination by the defense.
The government says the subpoenas call for extremely limited but important testimony from the journalists and would not compromise the so-called "reporters' privilege."
Reporters say that without their privilege to refuse to disclose even non-confidential information, based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, they cannot do their job.
"Our sources will dry up if sources ... think that anything they tell us will be repeated against them in court. Why would you speak to a reporter if those words are going to be read back against you in court?" said George Freeman, in-house counsel for The New York Times.
"We are supposed to be the watchdog of our government, not its lap dog, so we shouldn't be in bed with it testifying," Freeman said.
SETTING A PRECEDENT
Kevin Goldberg, a lawyer for the American Society of Newspaper Editors, said the subpoenas could set a dangerous precedent.
"There are provisions in the USA Patriot Act (post-Sept. 11, 2001 anti-terrorism legislation) that conceivably make it very easy for the government to trample on First Amendment rights," he said. "The really dangerous precedent I'm seeing from this case is the increasing reliance on journalists to be an investigatory arm of the government."
Michael Gerhard, a First Amendment expert at the William & Mary School of Law, said: "There is a tension here that we haven't seen much before between the journalists' efforts to do their job and the government's explicit acknowledgments that it has paramount concerns."
Presiding Judge John Koeltl has not yet ruled on the New York Times' and Reuters' motions to quash the subpoenas. Newsday's in-house counsel Stephanie Abrutyn says the paper plans to file its motion within two weeks.
The trial is due to start June 21.
| Media move to quash subpoenas on CIA leak (Tim Russert subpoenaed) |
||||||
| Posted by ambrose On News/Activism 06/04/2004 8:26:53 PM PDT with 44 comments Newsday ^ | 6.5.04 Media move to quash subpoenas on CIA leak BY TOM BRUNE WASHINGTON BUREAU June 5, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Time magazine and NBC on Friday filed motions seeking to quash grand jury subpoenas issued last month to compel testimony from their reporters about whether Bush administration officials leaked the name of a covert CIA operative. The motions, claiming reporters' privilege under the First Amendment, were filed under seal in U.S. District Court in Washington, Time and NBC said, and represent what many attorneys say could be an uphill battle because of unfavorable case law. Time and NBC are fighting subpoenas issued... |
||||||
| Reporters Tim Russert, Matthew Cooper [TIME] Subpoenaed in CIA Leak... |
||||||
| Posted by kcvl On News/Activism 05/21/2004 8:40:51 PM PDT with 60 comments Drudge Report... Reporters Tim Russert, Matthew Cooper [TIME] Subpoenaed in CIA Leak... Developing... |
||||||
| Media groups concerned by Justice Dept. investigation of CIA leak; prepared to oppose subpoenas |
||||||
| Posted by Brian S On News/Activism 09/30/2003 5:40:55 PM PDT with 142 comments Associated Press ^ | 09-30-03 <p>Media organizations prepared Tuesday to oppose any efforts by the Justice Department to subpoena journalists and their notes to learn who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent to columnist Robert Novak.</p> <p>Subpoenas could be challenged on the basis of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of the press, said Bill Felber, editor of The Manhattan (Kan.) Mercury and freedom of information chairman for the Associated Press Managing Editors. But they could also be challenged, he said, if they were too broad or if the information could be obtained in other ways.</p> |
||||||
| Journalists subpoenaed in CIA leak case |
||||||
| Posted by swilhelm73 On News/Activism 05/24/2004 3:36:22 PM PDT with 7 comments CNN ^ | 5/22/04 | Scott Spoerry WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two journalists, including NBC's Tim Russert, have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department in the investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, according to the journalists' media outlets. Russert, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," and Time Magazine columnist Mathew Cooper received subpoenas from investigators trying to learn who disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson. |
||||||
| CIA to investigate leak of drone video (Media more interested in leak than contents of NBC report). |
||||||
| Posted by Libertarian444 On News/Activism 03/17/2004 9:44:29 AM PST with 17 comments CNN ^ | March 17, 2004 | David Ensor <p>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials say CIA surveillance aircraft video that they think shows Osama bin Laden in 2000 was "highly classified," and that the CIA will investigate who leaked it to the media.</p> <p>The CIA often investigates when unauthorized material is leaked to the media, U.S. officials said.</p> |
||||||
| Russert, Cooper Subpoenaed By Justice Dept. |
||||||
| Posted by Hillary's Lovely Legs On News/Activism 05/25/2004 5:16:36 AM PDT with 13 comments cnn ^ | 5-25-2004 | Scott Spoerry WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two journalists, including NBC's Tim Russert, have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department in the investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, according to the journalists' media outlets. Russert, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," and Time Magazine columnist Mathew Cooper received subpoenas from investigators trying to learn who disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson. Wilson, a longtime career Foreign Service officer with expertise in African affairs, believes his wife's name was leaked by Bush administration officials in retaliation for his criticism of the administration. He... |
||||||
| Interview on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert [quote about Iraqi theocracy here] |
||||||
| Posted by yonif On News/Activism 05/16/2004 11:18:18 PM PDT with 1 comment State Dept. ^ | May 16, 2004 MR. RUSSERT: Secretary Powell, good morning. Let me show you the headline that greeted Americans and people around the world yesterday: "Powell Says Troops Would Leave Iraq if New Leaders Ask." What happened to staying the course? SECRETARY POWELL: We are planning to stay the course, and we expect that the Iraqi interim government that will come into place on the 1st of July would certainly ask us to remain and help them stay the course. But basically, what we are anxious to do is return sovereignty. But it's a long way between that initial return of sovereignty and national... |
||||||
On April 9, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft, while on a visit to New York City’s Ground Zero, indicted Lynne Stewart for conspiracy and materially aiding a terrorist organization. Charged with her were her Arabic translator Mohammed Yousry and two supporters of the Sheikh, Ahmed Abdel Sattar (now held in the United States without bail), and Yassir Al-Sirri (currently free in England).
For way too long, so called journalists have gotten away with "first amendment rights" and "protect my sources". It doesn't wash anymore - especially since they've shown their true hate-America colors. 97% of the journalists today are not honorable, they lie, they have agendas, etc., etc. - hence, they are no longer protected. They have and continue to work against America and like any other citizen should be hauled into court.
Since none of these so-called media outlets even understands what the First Ammendment to the Constitution guarentees [not grants!], I guess it's okay for them to whine. What's worse is that our courts don't seem to understand it either.
I can only hope that the judge in this case uses a bit of common sense. I won't be holding my breath though.
Ramsey Clark is the founder of the International Action Committee (IAC), a pro-Saddam, pro-Milosevic organization that regards America as the world's leading and most threatening terrorist state. In a previous article about the "peace" organization A.N.S.W.E.R (March 29, 2002), I noted IAC's interlinking directorate with the Workers World Party (WWP), a Stalinist organization which was created in 1959 as a splinter of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. In that year, WWP leader Sam Marcy and his comrades supported the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution which had sought unsuccessfully to break free from the Soviet empire. WWP cadres staff the IAC offices and share political platforms. For example, WWP leaders spoke at an IAC rally in 1995 condemning Republicans generally and The Contract with America, specifically. Among them was Gavrielle Gemma, who has been credited with recruiting Clark to the IAC.
Among its icons, like Cuba's dictator Fidel Castro, the Workers World Party has an unrestrained admiration for North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung. In November 1986, Deirdre Griswold, an IAC executive, declared that North Korea was a socialist success story because there was no poverty, famine, or homelessness in North Korea. Griswold alleged that Kim Il Sung's birthday was celebrated both in North and South Korea.
The National Co-Director of the IAC is Brian Becker, who is a member of the secretariat of the WWP, and a member of the A.N.S.W.E.R coalition steering committee. A.N.S.W.E.R. is presently coordinating anti-American, pro-Iraq "peace" protests across the country. Becker is much admired by the Korean Communists for his loyalty to the terrorist state. In its March 16, 2002 edition, the Korean Central News of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea reported that , "Brian Becker, member of the secretariat of the Workers World Party of the United States, at a press interview held in Pyongyang before his departure from the DPRK, denounced the U.S. for having committed crimes against the Korean people. He said that his visit to the Sinchon Museum during his stay in the DPRK offered a good opportunity to know well about the thrice-cursed mass killings of peaceable people committed by the U.S. during the Korean War. The United States which is chiefly responsible for the division of Korea keeps almost 40,000 troops in South Korea, staging various war maneuvers and mercilessly killing innocent people, he noted. He demanded the U.S. troops be withdrawn from South Korea at once, taking their lethal weapons with them. He stressed that the Workers World Party of the United States would in the future, too, conduct a more vigorous solidarity campaign condemning the U.S. administration's moves to perpetuate the division of Korea and calling for the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from South Korea."
As well as being a moving force in the WWP, IAC and A.N.S.W.E.R., Becker is chairman of the U.S. Troops Out of Korea Committee and vice chairman of the International Committee of the same. He helped coordinate the protests at the inaugural of President Bush and in general seems to be involved in every anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-democratic effort mounted by the political left.
Becker and the IAC are also staunch defenders of Slobodan Miloslevic, Kim II Sung and Kim Sung II and Mumia Abu-Jamal. On June 23, 2001 Becker directed a "people's tribunal" condemning US war crimes in Korea. One of the sponsors of the tribunal was Al-Awda, The Palestine Right of Return Commission. Clark and IAC members periodically meet with North Korean, Iraqi and Cuban government officials. Among other charges the group has made, the IAC has claimed that Usama bin Laden is the victim of an American imperialist plot. They contend that the military-oil complex is exploiting 9/11 to take control of the oil resources of the Middle East — a claim echoed by the Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel and other factions of the left.
The Workers World Party is an anti-semitic, Stalinist organization, whose goal is a communist revolution which would overthrow the American "ruling class" and establish a "workers state."The founder of the WWP, Sam Marcy, was a Communist who believed that Soviet leaders Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin were counter-revolutionaries. Marcy allied the WWP with the Russian Communist Workers Party (RKRP) an anti-Semitic group that criticized Vladimir Putin for being too close to the Jews. The WWP decried perestroika — Gorbachev's attempt to reform Communism — and associated itself with Iraq after the USSR severed its contact with Hussein. They considered Saddam Hussein a victim of U.S. imperialism.
The FBI considers the WWP a terrorist organization. On May 10, 2001, FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that "Anarchists and extremist socialist groups — many of which, such as the Workers World Party, have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States."
The mainstream media has somehow missed the fact that the most ubiquitous organizer of "anti-war" protests is directed by a terrorist support group. It would seem that a question on this front to Ramsey Clark at one of his regular press conferences might be in order.
Inquiring minds want to know.
You're right, if the President of the United States is ordered to divulge national secrets to al Qaeda on prime time television, the liberal media should be held accountable for their sources as well.
If this is true - that they are being called to attest to the words they placed in the public domain for money, obstructing in any way is truly reprehensable.
Stewart is accused as well of having played a role in facilitating (by pretending to be consulting with her client) the release of other instructions given by Rahman. Among them was the issuance of a fatwah under Rahman's name, calling on "brother scholars everywhere in the Muslim world to do their part and issue a unanimous fatwah that urges the Muslim nation to fight the Jews and to kill them wherever they are."
Islamic terrorism has become the darling of our liberal media and our very own military dying to protect their foul and putrid vomit is targeted for libel, slander, and demoralization (all at the liberal media's whim and great pleasure).
The fact that the liberal media in this nation has gone to bed with Islamic terrorism at the expense of national security is being proven over and over again . .
It has become something of an annual tradition. Every year, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) releases a civil rights report that documents cases of anti-Muslim discrimination in America. Every year, CAIR reports an increase in the number of such cases. And every year, these claims are supported by questionable information and statistical manipulation.
Recently, however, the reports have taken on a new dimension. Instead of simply arguing that discrimination is on the rise, CAIR has sought to identify the Bush administration as the culprit in this trend. This year’s report, for example, related a 15% increase in hate crimes to, “the U.S. Government’s continuing reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11th.”
Vilifying the Bush administration has been CAIR’s modus operandi since the September 11th terrorist attacks. No aspect of the war on terror has escaped criticism by the Council’s media machine. The 2002 civil rights report, titled Stereotypes and Civil Liberties was CAIR’s first formal attempt to portray the backlash against Muslim Americans after September 11 as an outgrowth of policies that the administration established to bring terrorists and their financiers to justice.
Stereotypes and Civil Liberties followed the standard CAIR civil rights report blueprint. It documented hundreds of unsubstantiated claims of discrimination and harassment suffered by Muslims, grouping together the truly heinous with the outright ridiculous, and placing all of the blame on the Federal Government. Where the 2002 report differed from previous CAIR reports was a section titled, “September 11 Anti-Muslim Incidents,” which was confined to the time period immediately following the 2001 attacks. For statistical purposes, these 1,717 instances were excepted from the yearly total.
For such a large assertion, one might expect CAIR to present supporting evidence, but they did not. Although the number of “backlash incidents” in 2001 were more than three times higher than incidents during the rest of the year, not one account or example was given.
The introduction explained that a different collection methodology was applied to the post-September 11 backlash calculation, by which individual violations were counted instead of incidents. “Thus,” the introduction states, “a single report of hate violence and harassment may include more than one instance.” Without a shred of evidence, we will can know what liberties CAIR took in totaling singular “instances” in order to arrive at its massive total.
What is even more alarming than CAIR’s specious reasoning is its conclusion that the Bush Administration and its anti-terror policies are singularly responsible for the alleged 1,717 anti-Muslim incidents. For instance, the CAIR report, while initially praising the President’s efforts to verbally distinguish between ordinary Muslims and the September 11th attackers, also alleged that, “ since that initial period of support, a number of government policies have singled out American Muslim organizations and immigrants from Muslim countries.”
The suspect policies include the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the detention of illegal immigrants, the closure of Muslim charities suspected of raising funds and diverting them to terror organizations, raids on the homes and businesses of suspected terrorist supporters, and voluntary interviews with legal visa-holders. The reader should not be fooled into believing that CAIR is protesting these policies merely in the name of civil rights, for in the report, CAIR specifically defends several groups that have been targeted by government action.
For example, the report stated that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) had its assets frozen in December of 2001 for its suspected support of the terrorist group Hamas and deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. In defense of the group, CAIR stated that, “HLF has insisted that its social and health services have been extended to assist Palestinian orphans, widows, and poor persons irrespective of political views.” CAIR made no mention of the investigation of the HLF that had been ongoing since 1996, nor of public statements by officials involved in the operation regarding the charity’s support of Hamas. HLF’s claim of innocence was enough to elicit CAIR’s condemnation of the administration’s actions and it even compelled CAIR to denounce the investigation as a religiously motivated act of discrimination. In January of 2003, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals ruled that the Treasury Department had acted appropriately and with “overwhelming evidence” in freezing the group’s assets. CAIR’s allegiances, it would seem, are misplaced.
What effect does this campaign of misinformation produce? By convincing moderate Muslims that they are being targeted unfairly by the Bush administration’s policies, CAIR incites fear among members of that demographic. If innocent Muslims are then convinced that they will be the target of government action, then they have no incentive to reject an extremist ideology that resists the government’s anti-terror policies. Not coincidentally, it is CAIR that provides this political outlet. This is the essence of CAIR’s strategy: shock moderate Muslims about the motivations of the U.S. Government, turn them into post-911 victims, and then recruit them as supporters for your political agenda when they are ripe for the taking.
Perhaps it would do us well to ask who CAIR seeks to reach with their civil rights reports. We can immediately rule out terrorists and those who illegally support terrorists in this country, for they are fully aware of their actions, and discrimination by the government is the least of their worries. We may also discount current officials and members of CAIR, for they are so devoted to the group’s anti-administration stance that the results revealed in the report are unlikely to do anything but further entrench their views. Finally, non-Muslim political sympathizers are certainly welcomed by CAIR, but there is little evidence in the report to suggest they are targeted directly.
CAIR’s target audience is the relatively apolitical, possibly even non-practicing Muslims and Arab-Americans who have given little thought to what effect the war on terror has on their everyday lives. This audience is immensely large. Between 2002 and 2003, CAIR fielded discrimination complaints from 602 individuals; .0086% of the 7 million Muslims that CAIR estimates live in America. This means that an overwhelming majority of Muslims (not to mention Arab-Americans) have not been affected negatively by the administration’s successful efforts so far to root out terror.
That the number of unnecessarily affected Muslims is so small is surely a sign of success in the war on terror and a testament to our national character. Individual acts of violence and harassment have been few and far between, and met with appropriate justice. To CAIR however, the 99.9% of unaffected Muslims represents fertile ground from which to seek support, and in order to do so, they must be instilled with the idea that have become innocent victims.
Any American Muslims who are truly worried about “guilt by association” (the title of the latest CAIR report) should take notice of some of CAIR’s most notable associations. For example, CAIR was formed in 1994 by two former officials of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group acknowledged by former FBI counter-terrorism chief Oliver Revell as a front for the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas. One of the original founders, Executive Director, Nihad Awad, has stated plainly, “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” and Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper has defended Saudi financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Several CAIR officials have been arrested for their alleged support of terrorist activity within the United States. Former CAIR Civil Rights Coordinator Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer was recently arrested for his role in fighting with and recruiting for the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba. Bassem M. Khafagi, arrested in January for his involvement with terrorist finance group the Islamic Association of North America, was a Community Affairs Director for CAIR at the time of his arrest. Finally, Ghassan Elashi, arrested in December of 2002 for dealing in the property of a designated terrorist, was a founder of the Holy Land Foundation and a member of the founding board of Directors of CAIR-Texas.
While violent attacks and individual discrimination against Muslims are very serious matters, CAIR’s civil rights reports have done more to incite hysteria among peaceful Muslims than address to the problems directly. Muslims who are not involved in criminal or terrorist activity should remain unfazed by CAIR’s disingenuous reporting and take careful note of its political motives. Those who do not, and subscribe unwittingly to CAIR’s political agenda will do so at the expense of the protection that the administration has sought to provide to all American citizens in the midst of a domestic threat unlike any we have faced before.’Evan McCormick is the Henry M. Jackson National Security Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC. He is a recent graduate of Boston University.
Stewart is accused of having communicated, instead, is an instruction to kill people.
Lynne Stewart is alleged to have gone public with a violent instruction that Rahman did not even bother camouflaging.
It was a constant, constant stream of *deliberate* lies, slander, subversion, and damning article after article (mostly what animals our military are) and sympathy towards Islamic terrorism and Yassar Arafat.
Perhaps 5% was positive about our president and our military with the remaining 95% actively portraying constant misrepresentation to the advantage of liberalism, Islam, socialism, and how terrible our military and president have disgraced us before the world.
This scenario is *identical* to the time and energy CNN spent in 1999 to disavow the military absentee vote and steal the election in Florida.
CNN broadcasting is nothing more than pure socialist propaganda straight out of the dogma and doctrines of the Democratic Socialist party of America.
""This is an area fraught with danger for journalists and their ability to protect confidential information and sources, as well as non-confidential material," he said."
Interesting isn't it, these who claim original protection under the Constitution, don't give a rats behind about the whole document. They promote the document as a living document and willingly ignore the "freedom of religion" and "right to bear arms".
Hey "Deep Throat" come out of hiding we the PEOPLE have a right to know!!!!!
(And also that of the America, Bush, and US military haters.)
Check out that picture of Lynne Stewart! I think we've found the perfect match for Michael Moore.
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.