Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Justice department on steroids
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams should not go to jail if they do not reveal their source for stories on a grand jury investigation into steroids in sports. For one thing, they haven't broken any laws.

The U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles subpoenaed Fainaru-Wada and Williams to find out who leaked grand jury transcripts in violation of a court order. Apparently, prosecutors have been unable to identify the leaker, so they have resorted to the heavy-handed threat of incarceration in order to intimidate the reporters into breaking their pledge of confidentiality.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled last week that the law compelled him to deny a motion made by Chronicle lawyers to quash the subpoenas.

Trial attorney John Keker told me White ruled correctly because, "The feds have the law on their side," even if "they don't have common sense or good policy on the side."

As for those of you who see the prosecutors' heavy-handed play as a well-deserved comeuppance for arrogant journalists, you should understand that the same rules that allow the courts to jail reporters who won't give up sources can be used against any citizen who will not want to testify against a sibling, a co-worker or a neighbor.

That's why you want the courts to use discretion and take circumstances into consideration. In this case, prosecutors should note the federal government's history of not going after journalists unless the national security depends on it, a state law that shields California reporters and the fact that the two reporters stand to serve more time than any defendants.

Mark Corallo, who worked as spokesman for former Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed an affidavit for the Chronicle. He noted that Ashcroft took the steroids case so seriously that he announced the 42-count indictment against individuals tied to BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative) on television.

Still, Corallo believes the Department of Justice under Ashcroft -- a veritable Satan to many civil libertarians -- would not have served subpoenas on Fainaru-Wada and Williams. Corallo himself approved only one subpoena for a media person, and that was for a matter of "grave national security." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
dsweida: well...
... first of all, there are some who have posted here who do, in fact, think the press should be completely unfettered and without any liability exposure whatsoever.

But more importantly, you wrote: "With any sensitive material, the responsibility to keep it secret is solely that of those who took the oaths to defend their security..." Actually, that is incorrect. It is also illegal to receive classified material for which one doesn't possess the appropriate security clearance. Further, as I indicated earlier, in the case of those receiving secret grand jury testimony, by receiving information they know is secret they are accomplices after the fact, and fully prosecutable. That's simply the way the law is. You may not like it, but then your recourse is through the legislative process.

Who DOESN'T agree?
I don't think anyone with half of a brain is arguing that they shouldn't have to reveal their source(s). I think your second point is open to debate, though. I have a hard time coming up with anything (legally obtained) that should be ILLEGAL to print. Of course, there is a huge difference between what anyone CAN do and what they SHOULD do. With any sensitive material, the responsibility to keep it secret is solely that of those who took the oaths to defend their security. It would be nice to think that those in the press would exercise better judgment than they seem to have lately, but I don't see it as their legal obligation to do so. And a leak to the press is far more beneficial than a leak you will never know about. At least the publicity forces a reaction to improve security measures.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.