Skip to main content

View Diary: Report: Holder approved search warrant labeling reporter as a co-conspirator (356 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you look at the affidavit, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert, BradyB, deep info

    you can see the whole chain of reasoning. It's laid out particularly clearly on paragraph 39, page 26.

    http://apps.washingtonpost.com/...

    Well, okay, merely for soliciting and publishing the information. And possibly for appealing to Kim's ego (though I doubt that's a big part of the charge). Questions of his intent or his legitimacy as a reporter never enter into it.

    Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
    Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
    Code Monkey like you!

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:06:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, Ha! Three things jump out at me ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tony Situ

      1.The phrase - the Reporter "asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose"  sensitive information, including defense intelligence information.

      2. The nature of the potential criminal charges against the reporter as "a co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor."

      3. The agent's representations (in para. 45) why he believed "voluntary production ... would be futile..." and "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by the warrant." Those are, to me, valid reasons for sealing the warrant.

      As to your concerns, I'm thinking the government is conceding that the Reporter is a member of the media and his intent is to call the government to task in a way that will scoop his competitors, a reasonable journalistic goal. But for me, legitimacy and intent don't protect these efforts in this case.

      According to the agent, the Reporter was actively encouraging breaches of national security. This is knowing and intentional conduct. It is active complicity, whether we characterize it as "co-conspiratorial" or just motivated by the desire for a scoop.

      Some of us might say that's how they want investigative reporters to be able to act and, accordingly, put them beyond the reach of virtually any warrant as was issued in this case. (And, inferentially, beyond any criminal culpability.) But I can't say that. Reporters who "solicit" breaches of security - and the perp was considered a weapons expert, as I recall - should be held responsible for what they do. If it's egregious enough, it can properly be considered criminal behavior.

      Do we really want such an open society that in the name of a search for today's truths, the laws need to encourage journalists to exploit vulnerable government officials? Private Manning comes to mind. And, if we equate bloggers with journalists for "accepted" media, the floodgates are open. The "publisher" will always claim higher purpose; must we always accept it?

      Journalists enjoy a high privilege in society. I don't think it needs to unbounded for them to function as a "free press."

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site