PERHAPS IT is fitting in the last week of 2006 that Americans would be reflecting on the "long national nightmare" created by an elected leader's abuse of power.
It is imperative to remember: The system worked only because the criminal acts of the Nixon White House became known to the public. And the critical elements of that story of a government run amok were unearthed only because two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were able to assure key sources (including "Deep Throat") that their identities would remain confidential.
The BALCO investigation
The story: As part of their extensive investigation of the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs in sports, San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada obtained the federal grand-jury testimony of baseball stars Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi and other elite athletes.
What the government wants: To force Williams and Fainaru-Wada to reveal how they obtained the testimony, which drew worldwide attention after it was first published in The Chronicle.
Journalists' argument: The reporters, fully supported by the newspaper and its parent company the Hearst Corp., maintain that they obtained the testimony legally and that betrayal of confidential sources would undermine the ability of journalists to do their job.
Status: U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White held the two reporters in contempt in September and ordered them imprisoned for up to 18 months unless they reveal their sources. They are appealing the ruling, with the next hearing set for February.
New York Times vs. Gonzales
The story: Two New York Times reporters learn in December 2001 that the federal government is about to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities (one in Texas, the other in Illinois) suspected of supporting terrorism. The reporters allegedly called the charities for comment just before the FBI raided their offices. Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald then began investigating whether any government officials were involved in the leak.
What the government wants: To obtain the reporters' phone records.
Journalists' argument: The possibility that government could seize a news organization's phone records poses a serious threat to news gathering.
Status: In August, a federal appeals court ruled, 2-1, that reporters' phone records are not privileged. The Supreme Court refused to take the case, clearing the way for prosecutors to review the phone records.
More..
No comments:
Post a Comment