TheRightWing
Wooooooooh Nelly look em' go!!!
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 5,277
- Reaction score
- 0
NEW YORK -- Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in a probe of the leak of a CIA officer's name. The New York Times, which is also involved in the dispute, said it was "deeply disappointed" at the move, which came days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected two journalists' appeal.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and Judith Miller of the Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources. Time said it believed its cooperation would make Cooper's jailing unnecessary.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. If jailed, the reporters would be freed at that time.
In a statement, Time, which is a defendant in the case along with the two reporters, said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society." '
But it also said that despite its concerns, it will turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.
"The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity," the statement said.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the newspaper's publisher, said: "We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records." He noted that one of its reporters served 40 days in jail in 1978 in a similar dispute.
"Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time," Sulzberger said in a statement. Unlike Time Inc., the newspaper itself is not a defendant because it did not publish anything. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story, while Cooper wrote a story about CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Miller was not available for comment, the newspaper said.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Norman Pearlstine, Time's editor in chief, said: "We are in possession of information and e-mail trafficking. I believe we will turn over all the records, notes and e-mail trafficking going over our company system."
"The Supreme Court made its ruling," Pearlstine added. "Once it made its ruling there was no other choice but to comply. I feel we are not above the law."
Pearlstine said he believed that Time's decision "obviates the need for Matt to testify and remove any justification for incarceration."
He said he did not know whether Cooper's position not to cooperate had changed or whether the judge would be satisfied with Time's production of the information sought by the special counsel.
Cooper did not immediately return a call for comment.
On Wednesday, Hogan agreed to hold a hearing next week to consider arguments against jailing the two. But he expressed skepticism that any new arguments would change his mind.
"It's curiouser and curiouser; I don't understand" why the reporters are asking for more time, Hogan said. "It seems to me the time has come. Much more delay and we will be at the end of the grand jury."
Time magazine's lawyers had revealed Wednesday that the company was considering turning over the documents sought by the grand jury, a step that Cooper said he hoped the magazine did not take. Fitzgerald said that the documents are Cooper's notes of his interviews.
"On balance, I think I'd prefer they not turn over the documents but Time can make that decision for itself," Cooper said outside the courthouse.
Columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to identify the CIA agent in print, told CNN he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved, adding that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.
Novak, who has not been held in contempt, has not commented on his involvement in the investigation.
Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, has been investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, wrote an opinion piece in the Times that undercut President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq.
Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing Time magazine, told the judge Wednesday, "We don't want to reargue this case."
The magazine hopes to "avoid this crisis and journalists going to jail," Boutrous added.
Robert Bennett, representing Miller, told the judge in asking for more time that "it's a big step to put two people in jail who have committed no crimes."
After Hogan held Miller, Cooper and the magazine in contempt, an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources.
It was that appeals court decision upheld Monday without comment by the Supreme Court.
Sulzberger's statement cited a case more than a quarter-century ago. "We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and the Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources," he said. "Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines."
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and Judith Miller of the Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources. Time said it believed its cooperation would make Cooper's jailing unnecessary.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. If jailed, the reporters would be freed at that time.
In a statement, Time, which is a defendant in the case along with the two reporters, said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society." '
But it also said that despite its concerns, it will turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.
"The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity," the statement said.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the newspaper's publisher, said: "We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records." He noted that one of its reporters served 40 days in jail in 1978 in a similar dispute.
"Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time," Sulzberger said in a statement. Unlike Time Inc., the newspaper itself is not a defendant because it did not publish anything. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story, while Cooper wrote a story about CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Miller was not available for comment, the newspaper said.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Norman Pearlstine, Time's editor in chief, said: "We are in possession of information and e-mail trafficking. I believe we will turn over all the records, notes and e-mail trafficking going over our company system."
"The Supreme Court made its ruling," Pearlstine added. "Once it made its ruling there was no other choice but to comply. I feel we are not above the law."
Pearlstine said he believed that Time's decision "obviates the need for Matt to testify and remove any justification for incarceration."
He said he did not know whether Cooper's position not to cooperate had changed or whether the judge would be satisfied with Time's production of the information sought by the special counsel.
Cooper did not immediately return a call for comment.
On Wednesday, Hogan agreed to hold a hearing next week to consider arguments against jailing the two. But he expressed skepticism that any new arguments would change his mind.
"It's curiouser and curiouser; I don't understand" why the reporters are asking for more time, Hogan said. "It seems to me the time has come. Much more delay and we will be at the end of the grand jury."
Time magazine's lawyers had revealed Wednesday that the company was considering turning over the documents sought by the grand jury, a step that Cooper said he hoped the magazine did not take. Fitzgerald said that the documents are Cooper's notes of his interviews.
"On balance, I think I'd prefer they not turn over the documents but Time can make that decision for itself," Cooper said outside the courthouse.
Columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to identify the CIA agent in print, told CNN he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved, adding that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.
Novak, who has not been held in contempt, has not commented on his involvement in the investigation.
Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, has been investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, wrote an opinion piece in the Times that undercut President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq.
Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing Time magazine, told the judge Wednesday, "We don't want to reargue this case."
The magazine hopes to "avoid this crisis and journalists going to jail," Boutrous added.
Robert Bennett, representing Miller, told the judge in asking for more time that "it's a big step to put two people in jail who have committed no crimes."
After Hogan held Miller, Cooper and the magazine in contempt, an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources.
It was that appeals court decision upheld Monday without comment by the Supreme Court.
Sulzberger's statement cited a case more than a quarter-century ago. "We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and the Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources," he said. "Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines."
