Fourth Circuit Guts National Security Investigative Journalism Everywhere It Matters

The Fourth Circuit — which covers CIA, JSOC, and NSA’s territory — just ruled that journalists who are witnesses to alleged crimes (or participants, the opinion ominously notes) must testify in the trial.

There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source.

With this language, the Fourth applies the ruling in Branzburg — which, after all, pertained to the observation of a drug-related crime — to a news-gathering activity, the receipt of classified information for all the states in which it most matters.

The opinion goes on to echo DOJ’s claims (which I recalled just yesterday) that Risen’s testimony is specifically necessary.

Indeed, he can provide the only first-hand account of the commission of a most serious crime indicted by the grand jury –- the illegal disclosure of classified, national security information by one who was entrusted by our government to protect national security, but who is charged with having endangered it instead.

[snip]

There is no dispute that the information sought from Risen is relevant. Moreover, it “can[not] be obtained by alternative means.” Id. at 1139. The circumstantial evidence that the government has been able to glean from incomplete and inconclusive documents, and from the hearsay statements of witnesses with no personal or first-hand knowledge of the critical aspects of the charged crimes, does not serve as a fair or reasonable substitute.

[snip]

Risen is the only eyewitness to the crime. He is inextricably involved in it. Without him, the alleged crime would not have occurred, since he was the recipient of illegally-disclosed, classified information. And it was through the publication of his book, State of War, that the classified information made its way into the public domain. He is the only witness who can specify the classified information that he received, and the source or sources from whom he received it.

[snip]

Clearly, Risen’s direct, first-hand account of the criminal conduct indicted by the grand jury cannot be obtained by alternative means, as Risen is without dispute the only witness who can offer this critical testimony.

This language will enhance the strength of the reservation DOJ made to its News Media Policies, allowing it to require testimony if it is essential to successful prosecution.

The only limit on the government’s authority to compel testimony under this opinion is if the government is harassing the journalist, which (with proof of the way the government collected phone records, which remains secret) might have been proven in this case. There is a strong case to be made that the entire point of this trial is to put James Risen, not Jeffrey Sterling, in jail. But Leonie Brinkema has already ruled against it. I think the subpoena for 20 AP phone lines might rise to that level as well, except that case is being investigated in the DC Circuit, where this ruling doesn’t apply.

This pretty much guts national security journalism in the states in which it matters.

Golly. It was just last week when the press believed DOJ’s News Media Guidelines would protect the press’ work.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+5Email to someone

32 Responses to Fourth Circuit Guts National Security Investigative Journalism Everywhere It Matters

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @benjaminwittes @csoghoian Gotta say, @emptywheel is not a whiskey girl, she is really a beer lady. I am the whiskey/bourbon one.
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @steve_vladeck @emptywheel By the way, I don't like Brehm. But it strikes both it+Ali presenter abetter cases than Hamidullan appears to.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I think the Lions just saved $5,000 in airfare to London. Maybe they can put that to paying off people's H2O bills? https://t.co/Jq6aG7yZ47
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @steve_vladeck @emptywheel Like I said, I used (perhaps too loosely) that as shorthand for the entire process.
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @steve_vladeck @emptywheel Should US soldiers have the same exposure in all foreign jurisdictions, or are we just exceptional that way?
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @benjaminwittes Except I don't drink whiskey. I wonder if @ageis drinks whiskey? @csoghoian
7mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @steve_vladeck @emptywheel Doesn't it trouble you that the US criminal code+procedure is going to cover the stated "battlefield" acts?
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @steve_vladeck @emptywheel I used the term generically. What is the "criminal act" that occurred on a battlefield? Is war just a crime now?
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @csoghoian Hey, do I get whiskey for beating @benjaminwittes to HTTPS? (Note, I'd need to find someone to drink it for me, but still...)
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel There are forums that exist for such a thing?
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JamesFallows Yep. I tried thinking about it. Only way I could figure is if the rotor could be jettisoned (sounds dangerous!), so prob not.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @bmaz Again, they might find your point more compelling with a more sustained discussion. ;p
15mreplyretweetfavorite
July 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031