SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: T L Comiskey who wrote (584)2/25/2005 5:36:09 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 9838
 
washingtonpost.com

Reporters' Phone Records Are Protected, Court Rules
U.S. Attorney Can't Force N.Y. Times to Supply Documents
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 25, 2005; Page A03

The New York Times has a qualified right under the First Amendment and federal common law to protect the identity of its confidential sources by refusing to release telephone records to a prosecutor, a federal judge in New York ruled yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled that a federal prosecutor in Chicago cannot compel the newspaper to turn over records of two Times reporters' phone calls in 2001 as part of an investigation into possible government leaks. The effort by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald came in the cases of two Muslim charities accused of possible ties to terrorists.

Yesterday's decision runs counter to a ruling issued in Washington last week. A three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided on Feb. 15 that reporters for the New York Times and for Time magazine can be jailed if they continue to refuse to answer questions about their confidential sources before a grand jury. The grand jury is investigating whether an administration official knowingly revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

Lawyers for the Times welcomed yesterday's decision, but some First Amendment experts said Sweet's decision may have little sway in freedom of the press cases outside of New York.

John Harrison, an expert on the First Amendment at the University of Virginia law school, said yesterday's ruling -- from a lower court judge in a separate circuit -- is unlikely to influence the full D.C. Circuit next month, when it is expected to hear an appeal by Time and the Times.

In any case, he said, Sweet's stance stressing reporters' rights over prosecutors' powers "is the minority position" among most judges. "The more common position is there's nothing special about reporters," Harrison said.

In his ruling yesterday, Sweet said that "the free press has long performed an essential role in ensuring against abuses of governmental power." To rule in favor of the government in this case, he added, "has the potential to significantly affect the reporting of news based upon information provided by confidential sources."

The judge said the case boils down to a struggle between the U.S. government, which wants to maintain the integrity of a federal investigation into possible terrorist activity, and the American press, which seeks to preserve its ability to report on sensitive and controversial matters. "The government has failed to demonstrate that the balance of the competing interests weighs in its favor," Sweet wrote.

The case began in late 2001, when federal agents were investigating two Islamic foundations for alleged ties to terrorists. On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government's probable crackdown on the group.

U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller's article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day.

On Dec. 13, Times reporter Philip Shenon called the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation and asked for comment about the government's intention to freeze its assets because of allegations it had ties to terrorists. "FBI personnel learned that some of the targets [of the investigation] may be destroying documents," and agents "hastily assembled" a raid on the charity on Dec. 14, according to a report by the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Prosecutor Fitzgerald has assembled a federal grand jury in Chicago to look into alleged leaks to the reporters. Fitzgerald's office has sought records of calls made on the two reporters' phones about that time, but lawyers for the Times argued in part that prosecutors did not show that they had exhausted other avenues to unmask the leakers.

Times lawyer Floyd Abrams called Sweet's decision "a substantial vindication of the rights of journalists to keep their word to their confidential sources," and said he will bring it up in the other case.

George Freeman, assistant general counsel at the New York Times Co., said in a statement that the paper is "particularly gratified that the judge accepted our arguments that the reporter's privilege ought to be applied on both constitutional and common law grounds."

Miller is also one of the reporters threatened with jail in the separate case, in which a grand jury is investigating who exposed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to columnist Robert D. Novak. Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper have refused to appear before a grand jury in Washington.

Fitzgerald is also the prosecutor in that case but is serving as an appointed special counsel.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (584)2/26/2005 1:46:20 PM
From: PartyTime  Respond to of 9838
 
Media Omissions on Negroponte's Record

Media Advisory (2/22/05)

George W. Bush's February 17 nomination of John Negroponte to the newly created job of director of intelligence was the subject of a flurry of media coverage. But one part of Negroponte's resume was given little attention: his role in the brutal and illegal Contra war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the mid-1980s.

From 1981 to 1985, Negroponte was the U.S. ambassador to Honduras, a country that was being used as a training and staging ground for the CIA-created and -backed Contra armies, who relied on a terrorist strategy of targeting civilians. Those years saw a massive increase in U.S. military aid to Honduras, and Negroponte was a key player in organizing training for the Contras and procuring weapons for the armies that the United States was building in order to topple the socialist Nicaraguan government (Extra!, 9-10/01).

Negroponte's ambassadorship was marked by another human rights scandal: the Honduran army's Battalion 316, which operated as a death squad that tortured, killed or disappeared "subversive" Hondurans-- and at least one U.S. citizen, Catholic priest James Carney. Despite regular reporting of such crimes in the Honduran press, the human rights reports of Negroponte's embassy consistently failed to raise these issues. Critics contend that this was no accident: If such crimes had been acknowledged, U.S. aid to the country's military would have come under scrutiny, which could have jeopardized the Contra operations.

Many reports included brief mentions of Negroponte's past. The New York Times (2/18/05), for example, noted that "critics say" that Negroponte "turned a blind eye to human rights abuses" in Honduras. But the Times (like most mainstream reports) quoted no critics on the subject; to get a sense of what Negroponte's critics actually said, you had to tune into Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now (2/18/05), where Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive said that Negroponte "essentially ran Honduras as the Reagan administration changed it from a small Central American country into a territorial battleship, if you will, to fight the Contra war and overthrow the Sandinista government. He was really the head person in charge of this whole operation, which became a massive paramilitary war in the early 1980s."

Kornbluh added that declassified documents from those years show Negroponte had "stepped out of being U.S. ambassador and kind of put on the hat of a C.I.A. station chief in pushing for the Contras to get more arms, in lobbying and meeting with very high Honduran officials to facilitate U.S. support for the Contras and Honduran cooperation, even after the U.S. Congress terminated official support for the Contra war."

The night of Bush's announcement, network news broadcasts woefully understated or misrepresented this history. On NBC Nightly News (2/17/05), reporter Andrea Mitchell glossed over Negroponte's Honduran record: "As Ronald Reagan's ambassador to Honduras, he was accused of ignoring death squads and America's secret war against Nicaragua." While Negroponte might be accused of ignoring Honduran death squads, no one could credibly suggest he was ignoring "America's secret war against Nicaragua." The documentary evidence, as Kornbluh explained, suggests that he was intimately involved with running it. ABC's Good Morning America Robin Roberts turned this reality on its head (2/18/05), noting that Negroponte's "entire life has been a lesson in quiet and measured diplomacy" and that "he generated controversy long after a stint in Honduras when he denied he knew anything about the work of Contra rebel death squads."

Some reporters simply soft-pedaled the history; as CNN reporter Kitty Pilgrim put it (2/17/05), "During his four-year stint as U.S. ambassador to Honduras, he had a difficult balancing act in the battle against Communism in the neighboring Sandinista government in Nicaragua." (Sandinista Nicaragua, of course, was not Communist, but a country with a mixed economy and regular elections, one of which voted the Sandinistas out of power in 1990.) Pilgrim's CNN colleague, Paula Zahn (2/17/05), complained that "the critics are already out there sniping at him."

Fox News reporter Carl Cameron (2/17/05) noted that "the only partisan criticism noted Negroponte's role as U.S. ambassador to Honduras in the '80s, when he played a key role in the Reagan administration's covert disruption of Communism in the Nicaragua." In this case, "covert disruption" stands in as a euphemism for a bloody guerrilla war that took the lives of thousands of civilians. Cameron went on to note that the "partisan" remarks "came from a member of the House, which has no vote on his nomination."

NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly made similar observations (2/17/05), noting that previous confirmation hearings generated "a lot of questions about the role he played during the early '80s when he was the ambassador to Honduras." Kelly seemed aware of this history, but thought it a settled matter: "He has already dealt with those issues and obviously answered them satisfactorily-- he was confirmed for that job at the United Nations."

Some pundits were remarkably lenient in the standards by which Negroponte should be judged. Fox News Channel commentator Charles Krauthammer explained (2/17/05) that "he was the ambassador in Honduras during the Contra war. So he clearly knows how to deal with clandestine operations. That was a pretty clandestine one for several years. And he didn't end up in jail, which is a pretty good attribute for him. A lot of others practically did."

In general, right-wing pundits and commentators were much more likely than mainstream news reporters to cite Negroponte's shady past-- as proof that he is the right man for the job. On CNBC (2/17/05), Tony Blankley happily summarized Negroponte's human rights record: "Negroponte is not just some ambassador. He has a track record. Starting in Honduras in 1981, he was the ambassador who oversaw the management when the Argentines turned over the covert operations against the Nicaraguans. He took over that responsibility. He managed it operationally. The CIA was very impressed with the way he handled that."

After James Warren of the Chicago Tribune disagreed (calling the Contra war an "at times slimy operation"), Blankley offered a blunt response-- "Well, we won"-- which host Lawrence Kudlow endorsed: "We did win. Thank you, Tony. I was just going to say, you know, the forces of freedom triumphed with a little bit of help from the right country."

Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes took the same line (2/19/05): "I would say on Central America, I give John Negroponte credit, along with people like Elliott Abrams and President Reagan, for creating democracy in all those countries in Central America, in Nicaragua, in El Salvador and in Honduras, where Marxists were going to take over, they fought them back." By way of balance, Fox pundit and NPR correspondent Juan Williams noted that while he didn't "have any love for Marxists," it was important to note "what death squads do to people, and you understand that nuns were involved, Fred, then you think-- wait a second-- excess is not to be tolerated in the name of democracy." Barnes' response: "Well, now that we have democracy, there are no death squads."

fair.org