Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Pat Fitzgerald and the First Amendment

The Duke has followed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's prosecution of the Valerie Plame case for two reasons: (1) the Duke knows personally how sensitive covert identities are, and is rip-roaring outraged at those who blew her cover; and (2) the Duke is a big fan of Mr. Fitzgerald's tenacity on terrorism and Illinois corruption cases.

But Fitzgerald's subpoenas to reporters have riled big media:
The Prosecutor Never Rests (washingtonpost.com): "His assiduous demands for answers from journalists alarms [sic] critics who believe he has created the greatest confrontation between the government and the press in a generation.

The Times editorial page has hammered Fitzgerald, saying that 'in his zeal to compel reporters to disclose their sources, Mr. Fitzgerald lost sight of the bigger picture.' His demand that Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper be forced to testify prompted the paper to call the case 'a major assault' on relationships between reporters and their secret sources, the very essence of reporting on the abuse of power.

Fitzgerald is too politic to talk back, at least before he has wrapped up the case. A federal appeals panel in Washington is due to rule any day on whether the reporters must testify, and his work on the leak investigation is not done. But he appears to wonder what the fuss is all about. He says freely that he is zealous, a term he translates as passion within limits."
But in a case like this, doesn't a prosecutor have an obligation to pursue the facts as far as the courts will allow? I would much prefer to have a court evaluate this issue than simply expect prosecutors to say "hands-off" of all reporters, all the time. It strikes me that Fitzgerald is bending over backwards to be quite focused and limited in his information requests. In somewhat uncharted waters, I want the prosecutor to make the best case for getting the information, the media to make the best case against it, and the judges to rule. That's what we pay these folks for.

3 Comments:

At 10:32 PM, Blogger The Duke said...

One more reason why the media should not be exempt from scrutiny of the courts:

Mon Feb 14th, 2005 at 16:18:05 PST

(From the diaries -- kos)

Hoyer, the House Democratic Whip released this item today... pretty cool.
HOYER STATEMENT ON "JEFF GANNON" CONNECTION TO VALERIE PLAME LEAK

WASHINGTON DC - House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer released the following statement regarding revelations that a man who went by the name of "Jeff Gannon," and who was given White House media credentials despite his lack of qualifications, was given access to classified documents which disclosed the identity of Undercover CIA Operative Valerie Plame:

"Valid questions are being raised regarding the Bush White House's relationship with James Guckert, also known as "Jeff Gannon," and his access to documents that revealed the identity of Undercover CIA Operative Valerie Plame.

"This issue is important from an ethical as well as from a national security standpoint. It is hard to understand why a man with little real journalism experience was given a White House press corps credential let alone access to sensitive security documents. In fact, it only raises questions as to the nature of the relationship between "Jeff Gannon" and the White House, and whether there was an alliance of interests that did not conform to ethical and security standards. President Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, called the disclosure of an undercover operative's identity treason.

"This most recent revelation is only the latest in the growing list of ways that Republicans in Washington are attempting to manipulate the American people through the media and avoid accountability. When the Bush Administration had trouble selling its domestic policies, it unethically paid journalists to promote its policies under the guise of journalism. When the Ethics Committee held Majority Leader Tom DeLay accountable for improper actions last year, the Republican leadership simply removed Chairman Joel Hefley (R-CO) and other Republicans from the Committee.

"I encourage the Special Counsel looking into the Plame matter to include "Jeff Gannon's" ties to the issue in his investigation."

 
At 12:14 AM, Blogger The Duke said...

Here's an interesting take, indicating a shift in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to perjury or obstruction of justice.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html

 
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the spirit of thomas paine lives

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com