Court rejects reporter appeals in leak probe

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Mondayrejected an appeal by two journalists who argued that theyshould not have to reveal their confidential sources to a grandjury investigating the leak by government officials of a covertCIA operative’s name to the news media.

Without any comment or recorded dissent, the justices letstand a U.S. appeals court’s ruling that New York Timescorrespondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter MatthewCooper should be jailed and held in contempt for refusing totestify.

The two cases involved an important test of the rights ofreporters to refuse to identify their confidential sources aspart of a federal criminal investigation.

Attorneys for the two journalists said courts around thenation have been divided on the issue since the Supreme Courtlast addressed it in 1972, when it ruled that a reporter whowitnesses a crime can be called to testify before a grand jury.

A federal grand jury in Washington has been investigatingwho leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 tosyndicated columnist Robert Novak, who revealed her identity ina column.

Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a diplomat in the Clintonadministration, accused the White House of being responsiblefor the leak. He said officials did so because Wilson hadpublicly disputed a claim by President Bush about Iraq’sattempts to buy nuclear weapons parts.

NO CHARGES SO FAR

Disclosing the identity of a clandestine intelligenceofficer is a crime. No charges have been brought so far inconnection with the grand jury’s investigation, which began inJanuary of 2004.

A federal judge ordered that Cooper, who covers the WhiteHouse, be imprisoned for up to 18 months and that Time Inc., aunit of Time Warner Inc., be fined $1,000 a day until theycomplied with grand jury subpoenas seeking to force them toreveal the identity of confidential sources.

Miller, who covers national security issues, also faces upto 18 months in prison. The two journalists have remained freewhile their cases have been pending before the Supreme Court.

Although Miller and Cooper talked to sources about thePlame story, neither had anything to do with leaking heridentity.

Attorneys for Cooper and Time argued that reporters havethe right to keep sources confidential, under the law and underthe First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.

“Confidential sources are critical to reporting on mattersof public importance. This case, for example, involves a newsstory about the validity of the government’s justification forwar in Iraq and alleged misconduct by senior officials aimed atdiscrediting critics of the war,” they said.

Floyd Abrams, an attorney representing Miller, made asimilar argument.

“Throughout our country’s history, much significantreporting about serious national issues would have beenimpossible but for information provided by (confidential)sources,” he said, citing the Watergate scandal and thePentagon Papers, the secret history of the Vietnam War.

The two journalists were supported in their appeal by anumber of news media companies and by 34 states, which said thelack of federal protection for journalists undermined statelaws that shield them from naming confidential sources.

Justice Department special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald urgedthe high court to reject the appeals “so that the investigationcan be brought to a close.”

By the autumn of 2004, the investigation “was for allpractical purposes complete except for the testimony of Millerand Cooper,” he said.