[Infowarrior] - Justice Official Mum on Possible Prosecution of Journalists

[Richard Forno]

Silence Angers Judiciary Panel
Justice Official Mum on Possible Prosecution of Journalists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601
303_pf.html

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 7, 2006; A05

Senior Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
sharply criticized a Justice Department official yesterday for refusing to
say whether the Bush administration has ever considered prosecuting
journalists for publishing leaked national security information.

The senators also bristled when Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew W. Friedrich
declined to answer questions about the rationale for the FBI's attempts to
review the papers of the late columnist Jack Anderson.

"You're basically taking what would be called a testifying Fifth Amendment.
You should be ashamed of yourself, or your superiors should be ashamed of
themselves," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) told Friedrich after he declined
to answer questions from committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen.
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

The purpose of the hearing, Specter said in opening the session, was to
examine Justice Department efforts to control leaks, explore suggestions
that newspapers and their reporters can be prosecuted under the 1917
Espionage Act and take comment on legislation that would protect reporters
through a shield law. The law would provide an exception if national
security matters were involved.

Friedrich, in his opening statement, confirmed that the Justice Department
was prepared to investigate and prosecute leaks, but referred to Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales's recent statement that the "primary focus is on
the leakers of classified information, as opposed to the press."

When Friedrich confirmed that the department thought that journalists or
"anyone" could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing
classified information, Specter asked specifically about whether the law
could be applied to reporter James Risen of the New York Times, the
newspaper that published an article in December about the National Security
Agency's warrantless surveillance program.

"Obviously, Senator, I can't comment as to any particular case or specific
matter," Friedrich said. He added that espionage laws "do not exempt . . .
any class of professional, including reporters, from their reach."

Specter then asked, without specifying a particular case, whether the
department, under Gonzales or former attorney general John D. Ashcroft, ever
considered prosecuting a newspaper or reporter for publishing leaked
classified information.

"I don't think it would be appropriate for me to give an indication one way
or another, and I hope people don't read anything into my answer one way or
another," Friedrich said. But after a short lecture from Specter, he added
that it was his "understanding" that there were historical examples of
officials considering whether to prosecute journalists.

"I'm not interested in history this morning," Specter responded. "I'm
interested in current events."

Grassley sought to follow up on questions he had posed to FBI Director
Robert S. Mueller III at a hearing last month about the bureau's attempts to
access Anderson's files. Friedrich declined to answer but said that
"hopefully the bureau will be submitting some type of factual submission to
you on that."

Grassley responded: "I would think that the department would send somebody
here to testify that could answer our questions if they [had] any respect
for this committee whatsoever."

Friedrich told Specter that the department is studying a policy on issuing
subpoenas for documents from the estate of a deceased reporter such as
Anderson. He also said that Justice continues to maintain that no new
legislation is needed to protect reporters, but said he will "take a closer
look" at a bill now before the committee that would shift the decision to
subpoena journalists from the executive branch to a judge.

Yesterday afternoon, Specter also put off a vote on issuing subpoenas for
executives of three telephone companies to testify on whether they
cooperated in the NSA warrantless surveillance program by providing records
of millions of phone calls.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company