[Infowarrior] - WH and journo shield protections

[Richard Forno]

Ahem.  Define "significant" in specific non-political, non- 
overreaching, non-fishing-for-leaks terms, please.

Change we can believe in, right??    Riiiiiiight.    -rf


White House Proposes Changes in Bill Protecting Reporters’  
Confidentiality
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: September 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01shield.html?_r=2

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it  
opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned  
if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material  
about national security, according to several people involved with the  
negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a  
“media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections  
against forcing reporters to testify.

The bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust  
other methods for finding the source of the information before  
subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests  
with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free  
flow of information.”

But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not  
apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to  
national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be  
deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused  
or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with  
the proposal.

The two Democratic senators who have been prime sponsors of the  
legislation, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of  
Pennsylvania, said on Wednesday that they were disappointed by the  
administration’s position.

Mr. Specter called the proposed changes “totally unacceptable,” saying  
they would gut meaningful judicial review. And in a statement, Mr.  
Schumer said: “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence  
of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback. It will make it  
hard to pass this legislation.”

But Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, called the proposed changes  
appropriate and argued that the administration was making a  
significant concession by accepting some judicial review. He noted  
that the Bush administration had strongly opposed such a bill as an  
incursion into executive power.

“The president believes the courts should have the power to review  
whether administrations appropriately conclude that the disclosure of  
information is necessary because maintaining confidentiality could  
cause significant harm to our national security,” Mr. LaBolt said.

The administration informed Congress of its proposal after an Oval  
Office meeting Monday between Mr. Obama and several top members of his  
national security team, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.;  
the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III; and Homeland Security  
Secretary Janet Napolitano, according to people involved with the  
negotiations. Military and intelligence officials have also expressed  
concerns about the bill.

Several advocates for reporting groups reacted with dismay. They noted  
that as a senator, Mr. Obama had co-sponsored an earlier version of  
the “media shield” bill and that Mr. Holder had testified in favor of  
such legislation.

“This is the question I would have to ask, ‘Do they really want a  
bill?’ ” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters  
Committee for Freedom of the Press. “It doesn’t appear that they do.”

Proponents of a shield law argue that it is in the public interest to  
allow reporters to protect confidential sources in order to bring  
important information to light. Opponents note that the unauthorized  
disclosure of classified information is illegal and argue that members  
of the news media should not be allowed to decide whether exposing  
national security secrets is justified.

About three dozen states have some form of a reporter-shield law, Ms.  
Dalglish said.

In a recent letter calling for a vote on the shield bill, Mr. Specter  
said that at least 19 journalists had been subpoenaed by federal  
prosecutors for information about confidential sources since 2001 and  
that four had been imprisoned for refusing to comply.

Among them was Judith Miller, who as a reporter for The New York Times  
was subpoenaed in connection to the Valerie Wilson C.I.A. leak case.  
Prosecutors also threatened two San Francisco Chronicle reporters with  
jail over reporting based on leaked grand jury information about  
steroid use by professional athletes.

The House has already approved a version of the shield bill, but it  
has stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Specter said  
lawmakers should vote the bill out and let the Obama administration,  
which has not taken an official stance on the bill, deal with it openly.

“If the president wants to veto it, let him veto it,” Mr. Specter  
said. “I think it is different for the president to veto a bill than  
simply to pass the word from his subordinates to my subordinates that  
he doesn’t like the bill.”