The San Francisco Chronicle
Friday 15 June 2007
Committee chair says Justice officials' remarks are "absurd."
Washington - The Bush administration, which opposes legislation to shield journalists from revealing their confidential sources, warned lawmakers Thursday that the measure's broad definition of journalists could protect the media wings of terrorist groups.
But House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., challenged the Justice Department's claim, calling it "totally absurd."
The administration made the assertion that terrorists would seek to evade prosecution by invoking a reporter's privilege in federal court at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the media shield bill. The bill would protect reporters, in most cases, from having to disclose their confidential sources or turn over documents to federal prosecutors.
Although the effort to protect reporters stalled last year in the House and Senate, supporters said its prospects appear to be improving in the new Congress controlled by Democrats.
Rachael Brand, assistant attorney general in the office of legal policy, said criminals might post documents or video on Web sites, then invoke the new protections for journalists in an effort to thwart prosecutors. The groups could include "media components of terrorist organizations," she said.
When Republican Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona signaled his agreement - "Outlets like Hamas could have a lot more latitude under this," he said - Brand added that the Justice Department shares his concerns about overseas terrorist groups.
"All of those entities are covered by this bill," she said.
But sponsors of the bill said Thursday the administration's claim was outlandish. Many groups labeled by the State Department as terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, have Web operations based abroad, making it unclear how they could take advantage of a U.S. shield law.
The House shield bill also contains exceptions that would allow federal prosecutors to seek information from journalists if it was needed to protect national security or to prevent imminent or actual harm.
"Ever since 9/11, they have used the incident to take things away from us.... We're supposed to be afraid of terrorists," Conyers said in an interview after Thursday's hearing.
"I mean, who would believe that Hamas would be allowed in federal court to claim that they had the use of the shield to protect them? It's totally absurd and without any basis whatsoever."
Other lawmakers also raised questions about the claim. Freshman Rep. Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat and the first Muslim elected to Congress, pressed Brand, saying he doubted a federal judge would allow a terrorist group to hide behind the protections of a media shield law.
"Is it legitimate to say, 'The terrorists are going to get us so we shouldn't have this law'?" Ellison asked. "That strikes me as kind of hyperbole."
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who is closely tracking the legislation, said she believes the administration is less concerned about Hamas or Hezbollah than about Arab newspapers and TV networks that have news bureaus in the West.
"What they're really worried about is Al-Jazeera," she said, referring to the Qatar-based news network, which recently started an English-language channel with a bureau in Washington. U.S. officials have often criticized the network's coverage. "They use the examples of the really extreme groups, but I think what they're really concerned about is Al-Jazeera."
The hearing Thursday was dominated by the presence of veteran New York Times columnist William Safire, a former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon. Safire said the Justice Department, federal prosecutors and judges were coercing journalists to reveal their sources - with subpoenas, fines and the threat of jail time - at an unprecedented rate.
"The movement to force journalists to reveal their sources is an attempt to turn the press into an arm of the law," Safire said. "Believe me, when a journalist is threatened with jail ... he or she feels a coercive chill."
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former conservative talk show host and a chief sponsor of the bill, warned that prosecutors' efforts to force reporters to name their sources was scaring government whistle-blowers from coming forward.
"We face the real danger that there may never be another 'Deep Throat,'" Pence said, referring to Mark Felt, the former FBI official who was the Washington Post's key source in exposing the illegal activities of the Nixon administration.
Much of Thursday's debate centered on whether the bill's definition of journalists was too broad. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks (Los Angeles County), warned the bill might cover anyone who posts information online, including every member of Congress. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the panel's ranking Republican, asked if anyone who blogs, podcasts or sends an instant message would be covered.
"Are they really in the category of journalists?" he asked.
Lee Levine, who has represented many reporters subpoenaed by the government, said shield laws in 33 states and court rulings in 16 others have helped establish who qualifies for a reporter's privilege.
"The courts haven't had a whole lot of difficulty figuring out who is really engaged in something that looks and smells like journalism, as opposed to people who are using it as a scam," Levine said.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment