Judge Slams Feds For Its Attempt To Punish Another Whistleblower

from the this-strategy-isn't-working-out-so-well dept

Part of President Obama's campaign promise was more transparency and more encouragement of whistleblowing. And yet, as we've noted, he's gone after more whistleblowers using the Espionage Act than all other former Presidents combined. However, Obama's legal attacks on whistleblowers so far don't have a very good track record. The attack on Thomas Drake -- threatening him with the potential of 35 years in jail for complaining about waste and abuse in the NSA -- fizzled. And now the latest attempt to put reporter James Risen in jail, unless he testified about his sources, has also failed.

A judge has quashed the subpoena by the government to force Risen to reveal his sources. The entire ruling by the court (issued last week, but made public this week) is worth reading as it goes through the full history and details of the case. But the key point is at the end, where the judge basically says that the government is pretty clearly just trying to harass a reporter for reporting on a secret government program. The government doesn't need Risen to make its case, but it's trying to compel him to reveal sources, knowing that this will scare some journalists from reporting but, more importantly, because it will scare off whistleblowers from going to reporters, if they could be compelled to reveal the sources. The judge isn't buying the government's argument:
Rather than explaining why the government's need for Risen's testimony outweighs the qualified reporter's privilege, the government devotes most of its energy to arguing that the reporter's privilege does not exist in criminal proceedings that are brought in good faith. Fourth Circuit precedent does not support that position. Moreover, the government has not summarized the extensive evidence that it already has collected through alternative means. Nor has the government established that Risen's testimony is necessary or critical to proving Sterling's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal trial subpoena is not a free pass for the government to rifle through a reporter's notebook. The government must establish that there is a compelling interest for the journalist's testimony, and that there are no other means for obtaining the equivalent of that testimony.
It isn't a complete victory, in that Risen still can be made to testify, but on very limited subjects that don't break the reporter's confidentiality with his source.

Of course, rather than stop harassing Risen, the government has already announced it intends to appeal. Pretty sad for a President who once said that whistleblowers are "often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government," to now support a campaign that is blatantly designed to scare off whistleblowing.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, james risen, whistleblowing


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Nicedoggy, 5 Aug 2011 @ 9:49am

    That least it recognizes the first amendment unlike some other judges.
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/court-refuses-give-seized-domain-name-back-claims

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 9:54am

    What would be a complete victory?

    It isn't a complete victory, in that Risen still can be made to testify, but on very limited subjects that don't break the reporter's confidentiality with his source.

    You seem to be suggesting that it would be better if reporters never had to testify about anything at all. If the subjects don't have anything to do with confidential sources, why should he be protected from testifying?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 9:58am

      Re: What would be a complete victory?

      You seem to be suggesting that it would be better if reporters never had to testify about anything at all. If the subjects don't have anything to do with confidential sources, why should he be protected from testifying

      That's a fair point. Though my original thinking was that the only reason to get him on the stand was to scare off other reporters (and whistleblowers). But in thinking about it, you may be right that I'm going too far.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 10:36am

        Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

        Actually, it could be interpreted that way but this case is a clear example of one he shouldn't even need to testify but rather Govt should be looking onto what he revealed.

        I wouldn't blame Obama on all this mess. Any1 that thinks the President has the power is simply too naive. The President has part of the power and the US Govt is clearly undermining his slice of the power pie. There are other ppl, powers working in the current political scenario.

        Bush played along with all of these powers to some degree and that's why he managed to put so many atrocities in motion (Patriot Act, Guantanamo comes to mind but they are just the most evident). And while he was working with those power he helped to consolidate them. That's part of the reason Obama is stuck. The other part is his own lack of experience and misplaced priorities.

        Obviously Bush isn't the only one at fault, it's a scenario being built for a while now under a rotten system that was marketed to the world as the American Way. But we can see now how good it is. And the whole world is paying the price for their own greed and myopia. Rising the American debt ceiling is just postponing the inevitable. And the US Govt seems to be unwilling to proceed with the needed reforms and reviews of their own laws, taxes, social and financial systems.

        I was sincerely surprised when I saw an orthodox economist advocating that a general moratorium of all debts would be the not so bad solution. But again, that would only postpone the inevitable. We need reforms. Everywhere. And the whistle-blowers are showing that much to the irritation of the ppl in power whom will resort to this legal bullying to silence those guys. So, the much needed reforms won't probably come peacefully and painlessly.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2011 @ 10:39am

        Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

        Jesus Christ, Mike, what's with the reasonableness?

        I want frothing rage and stubborn indignation!

        (Seriously, I always like seeing how class-act you are with fair and reasonable discourse. Flame away, other AC's.)

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 10:27am

      Re: What would be a complete victory?

      You seem to be suggesting that it would be better if reporters never had to testify about anything at all.

      In general, I'm not a fan of forcing anyone to testify, reporter or not. That's probably just me though.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 1:31pm

        Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

        You might feel differently if you were charged with a crime and needed someone's testimony to demonstrate your innocence.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Chris Rhodes (profile), 6 Aug 2011 @ 7:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

          Threatening someone into testifying when it may be against their best interest runs counter to my entire system of morality.


          And even if, for some reason, I did a complete about-face in a time of great personal stress, my emotional state would still make a poor yardstick for public policy.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 6 Aug 2011 @ 9:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

            Threatening someone into testifying when it may be against their best interest runs counter to my entire system of morality.

            Better to let innocent people go to jail then?

            And even if, for some reason, I did a complete about-face in a time of great personal stress, my emotional state would still make a poor yardstick for public policy.

            Yes, just trying to offer a different perspective.

            link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Chris Rhodes (profile), 7 Aug 2011 @ 10:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

              Better to let innocent people go to jail then?

              Better not to hurt people simply because they don't do what you tell them to.

              Yes, just trying to offer a different perspective.

              I can sympathize, but it's still a very bad argument.

              "I think everyone deserves a trial."
              "If you thought a man raped your daughter, you'd want to see him tortured and killed without a trial!"

              link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 7 Aug 2011 @ 4:07pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                Better not to hurt people simply because they don't do what you tell them to.

                But what about the situation where court is going to hurt someone - either the witness who doesn't want to testify, or the defendant who needs the witness' testimony? Which hurt is worse?

                I can sympathize, but it's still a very bad argument.

                I didn't mean for it to be an actual argument, just to get you to think about the innocent accused who need someone's testimony to prove their innocence. If you think it's OK to send them to jail because they can't get the evidence they need, then OK, I just disagree.

                link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Chris Rhodes (profile), 9 Aug 2011 @ 12:24pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                  But what about the situation where court is going to hurt someone - either the witness who doesn't want to testify, or the defendant who needs the witness' testimony? Which hurt is worse?

                  Hurting an innocent to stop someone else from hurting an innocent seems like a poor way to go about things. I won't violate my code of morality simply to stop someone else from violating theirs.

                  If you think it's OK to send them to jail because they can't get the evidence they need, then OK, I just disagree.

                  And yet you think it's okay to send someone to jail if they don't forfeit their life by testifying against the mafia, for example. So yes, we disagree. :)

                  link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 9 Aug 2011 @ 12:56pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                    And yet you think it's okay to send someone to jail if they don't forfeit their life by testifying against the mafia, for example.

                    I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that.

                    link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Chris Rhodes (profile), 9 Aug 2011 @ 3:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                      So you would only compel witnesses in service of the defense, but not the prosecution? How would that work?

                      link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        nasch (profile), 10 Aug 2011 @ 9:45pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                        No, I would not compel witnesses to testify without making sure they're not going to get killed (or hurt) regardless of who they're testifying for. Presently that's accomplished with the witness protection program. Is that the best solution? I don't know.

                        One problem with optional testimony is there's little incentive to testify ever, unless it's on behalf of someone you actually know. Some people would (secretly) demand payment for testimony, because they know they can refuse to testify. When the state can compel testimony, witnesses can't make such threats/offers.

                        link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Chris Rhodes (profile), 10 Aug 2011 @ 11:53pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                          Presently that's accomplished with the witness protection program.

                          I'd consider moving away from your home and giving up contact with anyone you ever knew to be "forfeiting your life".

                          Giving someone an option between (A) you destroying their life now, and (B) you sending armed men to kidnap them and throw them in a cage until they agree to do what you want, and then you'll destroy their life? That ain't moral by any stretch of the imagination.

                          link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            nasch (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 8:51am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                            Yes, it's definitely problematic. What is the right balancing point between the different interests? I'm not sure. What do you think about what I said regarding the problems of voluntary testimony?

                            link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Chris Rhodes (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 12:17pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                              I agree that there are issues with freedom. Freedom isn't orderly; It's chaotic, and it's outcomes aren't always perfect.

                              I'll still take it over an authoritarian boot to the face, though.

                              link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        nasch (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 7:16am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

                        No, I would not compel witnesses to testify without making sure they're not going to get killed (or hurt) regardless of who they're testifying for. Presently that's accomplished with the witness protection program. Is that the best solution? I don't know.

                        One problem with optional testimony is there's little incentive to testify ever, unless it's on behalf of someone you actually know. Some people would (secretly) demand payment for testimony, because they know they can refuse to testify. When the state can compel testimony, witnesses can't make such threats/offers.

                        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2011 @ 2:00am

          Re: Re: Re: What would be a complete victory?

          Shouldn't the fact that a key witness refuse to testify be considered "reasonable doubt"?

          link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tallbonez (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 10:17am

    Change

    Because Nixon 2.0 is indeed a change.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      william (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 10:55am

      Re: Change

      Obama is such a let down. For a Canadian watching from the north, i am really cringing at his actions over and over again.

      All those news magazines and clipping that I have lying around in the house just adds to the irony.

      Guess either Washington is too deep a pond for our little black friend here or he's just disingenuous to begin with. Personally I think he's probably a bit of both.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2011 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re: Change

        Remember, he's from the same city that spawned Rod Blagojevich.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    hmm (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 1:23pm

    we can change

    As obama said "we CAN change"....

    Apparently the USA *Has* changed...into a nation which harasses journalists that the goverment doesn't like.

    With a government that has basically decided that the entire US constitution including the first amendment doesnt mean shit and if anyone says otherwise then they must be terrorists and can be "disappeared" quite easily......

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Someantimalwareguy, 8 Aug 2011 @ 8:15am

      Same s***, different day

      There has always been a love/hate relationship between journalists and politicians and to suggest that this is something new ignores about 200 years of history here in the US. The only real differences this time around are that the politicians think they have a larger stick to swat at the reporters who don't tow the line and more "reasonable" outlets who serve more as propaganda arms for the two major parties.

      It is just easier for the Government to attack these days, but the game still remains the same...

      JMHO

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    WysiWyg (profile), 7 Aug 2011 @ 2:41am

    The Swedish way...

    I guess Sweden got it right for once. Over here it's illegal for the government (and private actors too if I remember correctly) to even ASK about a reporters sources. And said reporters have a legal OBLIGATION to protect the confidentiality of their sources.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Casey Mahoney, 8 Aug 2011 @ 2:27pm

    Whistleblower

    People should have a right for free speech.If they see something wrong,come forward and state it.Now people are scared to say anything.

    Thanks Casey Mahoney

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.