Tonight on Frontline the job of a reporter is to be the curmudgeon who raises questions that nobody else wants to raise
That's what the best reporters try to do once upon a time they were thought of as heroes
But today the entire news industry is in crisis
the public is a terrific disdain for the press we have a press that is at war with an
Administration for our country is at war against merciless enemies for 30 or more years
There have been an assumption about the government and the press and suddenly in the last couple of years
That's changed in a four-part special series frontline reporter Lowell Bergman looks at the challenges facing journalists today
Would you go to jail to protect your sources?
Absolutely the war between the White House and the press the President of the United States saying if you publish this story you will have
Blood on your hands the explosion of new and emerging media
You don't see anybody between 20 and 30
Getting their news from The Evening News you see them getting it online and the economic realities of today's news business
If you have to make more every year to keep the shareholders happy how do we get here?
Judging journalism by the same standards that we apply to entertainment that may be one of the greatest tragedies in
The history of American journalism, and what is at stake there's a dire?
for
institutions that tell the truth that pursue the truth
And I chase it at all costs tonight part one of news war our frontline special series
On July 6th 2005 outside the DC Federal District Court a media swarm gathered
They were hounding fellow journalists
Reporters who were refusing to testify and the investigation known as the plain affair a
Case that had become the most significant clash between the press and federal government in decades
This case did damage. I think to the First Amendment. I think it did damage to the individual careers of a number of reporters I
Think it did damage to the credibility of the media
There was no more tangled business between the Bush administration and the press than the plain affair
The conflict that would raise profound questions about reporter's ability to protect their confidential sources
Has its roots in the administration's march to war?
Mr.. Speaker the President of the United States
In January of 2003 the Bush administration was riding high
in Afghanistan America had toppled the Taliban
And now the president was preparing the country for a new war a brutal dictator
With a history of reckless aggression
with ties to terrorism
with great potential wealth
Will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States
They were feeling a kind of confidence
They had a kind of hubris
if you had to look at a few months in this administration as to
maybe the perils of
Overconfidence you probably would look at these few months
Saddam has perfected the game of cheat and retreat and is very skilled in the art of
Denial and deception for several months there had been a steady drumbeat to war
What he wants is time and more time to husband his resources
To invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program and to gain possession of nuclear weapons
There was clearly a set pattern of speeches
Two or three times a day to reinforce the WMD thing
Walter Pincus is a longtime national security reporter for The Washington Post
First it was nuclear, and then it was the idea that they had
chemical and biological as we make chemists and
Biologists and nuclear scientists are toiling in weapons labs and underground bunkers working to give the world's most dangerous dictators
Weapons of unprecedented power and lethality, then it was the idea that they would give it
Give it to the terror the man is a threat hutch. I'm telling you I
He's a threat not only with what he has
He's a threat was what he's done. He's a threat because he is dealing with al-qaeda just overwhelming
the advantage the government has
When it wants to sell a point of view and that's what they did
But the Bush administration was also helped by the nation's leading newspapers
It's important to understand that the number of news organizations that actually have a national security
reporter or bureaus overseas and can penetrate
The intelligence community are very limited and the New York Times is at the top of that list
So when the New York Times began to have stories that?
Supported the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq it had an echo effect
It had an echo effect that the administration was conscious of and employed
What specifically has he obtained we now know that you had people talking to key reporters doing these stories for The Times
There's a story the New York Times this morning
This is and I want a tribute to The Times
I don't want to talk about those stories would appear and then they would reference the very material that they'd given them and say
See then this is coming from the New York Times
Not just us the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take
Low-grade uranium, and and enhance it into highly enriched uranium
It was a kind of a loop and it was a conscious loop a lot of people wrote
You know stories that were I think overly credulous
Bill Keller took over as executive editor of the New York Times after the run-up to the Iraq war
it wasn't some kind of sense of over developed patriotism or
An eagerness on the part of reporters to ingratiate themselves with the White House?
What it was was you know reporters want to get on the front page they want scoops. It's a very hard area to write about
I was not alone many other papers made the
Did the same kind of reporting that I did I think because the New York Times is the paper that it is and I had?
Written for so long about it. I was
With the leader you were the expert in this year. I was the alleged expert there were other experts
Judith Miller was one of the times lead reporters on the WMD story. She had covered terrorism for over a decade
You've said that you may have gotten some of the stories wrong because your sources were wrong right they
Gave me information that I believe they believed
It was information that was given to the president the National Intelligence Estimate went to the president well
If the president was being given this information it was the official
Intelligence assessment of the United States government in the intelligence community I
Think I
believed that that they wouldn't give the
president false information, she had the wrong sources
And you can't the excuse can't be I'm only as good as my sources now if you have if you've talked to everyone
and
exhausted
Every possible Avenue, then you can say that but no reporter ever does that so
If you if your sources are wrong you're wrong, and you have to accept responsibility
You believe there was WMD in her I did
You said as much publicly right? Yes, what happens if we go to war against Iraq we get a knock come right up and
We find no weapons of mass destruction. I think the chance of that happening is
about zero
There's just too much there when I say the chances are about zero
That's the way it looked it was totally wrong. I think I dropped the ball here
I should have pushed much much harder harder on the skepticism about the reality of WMD yes
other
Said hey look the evidence is not as
Strong as they're claiming no terrorist state poses a greater or more
immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq a
al-qaeda type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint
He have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
Many in the media got the WMD story wrong
Frontline aired its own report on the possible threats of Saddam's weapons programs
The way that the press was sold and spun and turned around and just fooled
By the White House in the run-up to the war
Represents more than just the miss story
How can one say that we have a watchdog press after a performance like that?
In fact there was some WMD reporting that did get the story, right
What we were doing was following reporting and good solid reporting was telling us one thing and that's what we wrote
Clarke Coit was night readers, Washington editor during the run-up to the war in Iraq
What we were hearing from very good sources was really nothing has changed with Iraq
But as they continued their skeptical reporting Hoyt says they began to feel heat from the government someone in the Defense Department
Called our reporter a communistic Bolshevik
others said
You know all you guys have in this town is your reputation and your credibility and we're gonna get you and we're gonna get that
I
Will say at times it seemed very lonely because you kept looking around saying where's everybody else
The Washington Post had reporters who had also begun hearing doubts about the evidence of WMD in the final days before war I
Started calling people I knew in the Pentagon and finally got somebody who just honestly said we don't know
Where they are we don't know if they are there
And then somebody in the agency did the Potemkin village idea
That Sodom was saying was making believe he had the stuff when he didn't
That led up to the piece two days before the war that it might not be their
Thing cos his story ran on page 13 the
lead headline of a post that day was
president tells Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face invasion
By the beginning of May 2003 Baghdad had fallen
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended
in the Battle of Iraq
The United States and our allies have prevailed
The president landed aboard the USS Lincoln
Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and
boldness
The enemy did not expect
And the world had not seen before
The Pentagon announced the dispatch of a
1300 member search team of senior officers in Iraq are puzzled could have been either taken and buried
They could have been transported or they could have been destroyed enough already. Where are the weapons of mass destruction
By the summer of 2003 the news media were raising questions about Saddam's WMD
17 US troops have been killed in ambushes in Iraq since President Bush declared the news about the war grew more violent by the day
What the American people have been so supportive of going to war absent the weapons of mass destruction argument you believe that the administration?
Oversold the weapons of mass destruction problem
And in the middle of that summer a new critic emerged
in an op-ed in The New York Times
A former ambassador raised doubts about a claim made by the president the British government has learned the Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from
Africa
When you heard the remarks of the president in his State of the Union address were you listening to it when I was yes
What was your reaction when you heard those remarks lie I?
Assume that the countries the country to which the president was referring was not any chair
Joseph Wilson wrote that the vice president's office had raised questions about this alleged Nazaire uranium deal and
That the CIA had asked him to look into it
he said that he found no evidence of a deal a
misstatement of fundamental fact which supported the justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation
Was in the president's State of the Union address?
this administration failed to correct the record
Wilson decided to correct the record himself
first he agreed to talk confidentially to two reporters I
Had not wanted my name used in this and was not to hide my own role from my own government
But rather to make sure that all their attack dogs did not get
An early opportunity to try and trash me, so why did you decide to go public?
Because it became apparent in June that the administration was just going to continue to stonewall
Five days after Wilson's appeared the CIA took responsibility for not removing the faulty claim from Bush's speech
Days later
conservative columnist Robert Novak came out with his own column
Novak contradicted the impression that Cheney had been responsible for Wilson's trip to new share
Writing that to Bush administration officials said Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife CIA operative Valerie Plame
For an administration that came to office Wilson was all over the news senior officials in the White House
Charging the White House with outing his wife an undercover CIA officer. Just virtuous
It is allah - 'it is fair to punish him for his dissent. So this was hardball politics basically, it's something
They're well known for absolutely well since the leak was
A story played as a potentially devastating scandal for the White House
Revealing claims identity to the press may have been a violation of the law the prosecutors and agents who are and will be
Handling this investigation are career
professionals the Justice Department was called on to open a leak investigation errors involving sensitive national security information
Your office got the referral in the Valerie Plame case yes the FBI
Runs leak investigations when those leaks involve classified information how do you conduct these investigation?
I mean we read about them in a paper
But we have no idea where actually what goes on well first of all you have a victim agency the owner of the information
those who classified it what they have to do is file a report which consists of 11 questions and
Those questions go from was the material properly classified
Was the information that was leaked accurate compared to what the actual?
Classified information is the information has to be accurate
Yes, so when the government announces a leak investigation, and it comes to your office
It's confirming that the report in the newspaper for example or on television was true. Yes, indirectly yes
The question was who had leaked to Novak and suspicions reached the highest levels of the white house
Was it Karl Rove the vice president's chief of staff Lewis Scooter Libby?
Chaney himself
Who leaked classified information
If somebody did leak classified information. I'd like to know it and we'll take the appropriate action
Quickly dubbed plane gate the plane affair became a media spectacle
The Bush White House is so secretive and hidden that people thought. Oh, this is gonna be
The issue that will pry it open
People have written that there were the echoes of Watergate mr.. President on another issue CIA leak gate
What do you say to critics of the administration who say that this administration would tally AIDS again its naysayers, No first of all
the real issue in the summer of
2003 was we've been in Iraq for three or four months and hadn't found any weapons of mass destruction that was the real
story
Was the connection to al Qaeda and to their absolute
Certainty that they had some sense that they knew where these weapons were well. I was just pulsing in the background of all of this
Now I see the Justice Department is now starting to investigate now isn't that a sweetheart deal?
Attorney General John Ashcroft
appointed by this president
investigating the president in Congress Democrats demanded a special prosecutor take over the case this investigation as
independent
From the political appointees in the Justice Department as possible and some in the media agreed
the New York Times
editorialized for a special counsel yes and
Eventually attorney general Ashcroft stepped aside yes
It's kind of ironic
Be careful what you wish for be careful what you added toriel eyes for
This is who they got
Known as a tough nonpartisan career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to take over the investigation
As he looked for the leaker
Fitzgerald decided the only way he could determine if a crime had been committed
Was to get the testimony of the journalists involved
It had turned out that Novak wasn't the only one who had been given the information about claim
It is clear that at least four of us were talked to in the same way after Joe Wilson's
Column in The Times and his interview in the post which got buried in the back of the paper
At least four of us were given roughly the same story
the wife
Arranged for the trip to undermine the trip
And that doesn't happen at Huck so I think there was a plan to do that a conspiracy to manipulate the press
Or as I put it it's damage control
They're not the first administration to do it. I don't think they violated the law but
They gave an opening to people to make that allegation
Among those contacted by Fitzgerald was Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper
Cooper had reported on the magazine's website that government officials had told him that Valerie Plame was a CIA official
His primary source Cooper's bosses knew was Karl Rove
the conversations that Matt Cooper was having about Valerie Plame's identity did not strike me as out of the ordinary I
Was frankly trying to figure out
Why a special counsel was needed what the law was that was broken why a grand jury was called and why we were being subpoenaed
Because you just thought this is the way things go and this is how you report it
well first well not only in Washington, and I have leaks and
Use of anonymous sources is very much in the fabric of American journalism today the places where it's most obvious
are in Washington and Hollywood on Wall Street and in sports
It's important in understanding the plane case to understand how anonymous sourcing has changed over the last generation
during Watergate and before that
confidentiality was a tool that journalists would offer to
Reluctant sources to coax them to come forward
That has shifted to the point where
confidentiality and anonymity
Are conditions that the source often?
imposes on the journalist to the public the whistleblower who was deep throat
reluctantly guiding an
Investigative reporter is very different than a high-ranking administration official
Lunching in an elegant, Washington hotel spinning a reporter with the protection of confidentiality
That's the powerful trying to get their message out to other elites
through elite media
And that's what occurred in the plane case
Among the powerful now in the sights of the investigation was scooter libby
fitzgerald subpoenaed the new york times judith miller having learned that libby had spoken to her and
miller refused to cooperate
We can't begin to say i'm only going to issue
pledges of confidentiality when politically I agree with the source or I think the source is and
Isn't politically motivated, I mean almost all leaks of information are politically motivated the law can't and shouldn't
Distinguish and I would say journalists can't and shouldn't distinguish between
What good sources and bad?
Longtime First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams was retained by the New York Times to represent Heller if we're gonna have a
Political litmus test then we're not talking about principle at all
Then we're just talking about you know is this a good way to get the Bush administration
Or is this a good way to help the Bush administration
Nothing to do with with matters of principle
The principle was protecting your source no matter what?
Cooper and Miller said they were prepared to go to jail rather than testify
Once you break the a confidential source relationship
There's every reason for every source in the future to not believe it when you say we will keep you a confidential source
What it's a slippery slope once you once you break that confidentiality once it harms our reporting for from now on
But Fitzgerald was changing the playing field with a novel technique to get reporters to talk
waivers had been distributed to potential sources in the White House
Releasing reporters from their pledge of confidentiality, and then the waivers were presented to the reporters and their publications
Did you feel that the kinds of releases that the special prosecutor got from the White House?
Our lawyers talked to no that would not have been sufficient our lawyers
Talk to lawyers for the individuals involved to satisfy us that the loop that the release was voluntary personal
directly from that individual
Specifically about what it was that we were asked to testify about we were told
The source had come forward had identified himself as the one who
Talked to me about it
And had released me
talked to prosecutor about it if
at the same time I never
Made the same publicly and I never have but you did testify I gave a deposition
You know well, which is testimony. Yes, Warren guard as a grand jury it wasn't as dramatic
Oh, and I was never asked to identify my source and I never did
Because the prosecutor knew who the source was one of the agreements with the prosecutor was I wouldn't be asked
That was to save you from losing your virginity or something. Yeah, it's it's something
I felt very strongly about some of our people have given very limited depositions in which they have not revealed any confidential sources
Nor in any other way violated our ethics very very narrow testimony
But put yourself in the position of someone who sees a newspaper provide
They're reporters to give testimony however smart the negotiation the fact is just negotiations are smart
You're really you're really evading the principle here the principle here. Is that we have not revealed confidential sources
The battle over confidential sources is an old one
It came to a head during another era when the government and the press were at war
One thing was certain major social reforms were needed in
California a young reporter would find himself in the middle of this war I
went to California in the fall of
1968 and
Really my primary job
Almost my entire job for that period national correspondent with the New York Times was to cover the Black Panther parties
There was genuine concern in America that black Americans were headed toward some kind of violent
confrontation with government
And then came this group of very young people in their militaristic
Uniforms black berets black leather jackets, but most of all they were embracing the gun
My job was to get my editors wanted me to get on the inside. Tell us where they going what does this mean?
Open armed war in the streets of California
And a preventing it from sweeping across this nation the Black Panthers posed a real threat
In their time they were as serious as terrorist groups would be today
And that was the law enforcement view that was the fact
There were different members of the Black Panthers that were tried for various crimes convicted of various crimes
They were one of the many subjects of concern at the time
Concerned about the Black Panthers activities the FBI turned to Earl Caldwell
The FBI called me and asked if I would have regular meetings
Informally with agents. They said we know that you're over there all the time
And you're seeing what's happening and you're all around with them
And we like it is to tell us what's going on sort of be our eyes in the ears on the inside
And I told him of course I couldn't do that. I can't it could even have this conversation with you
Eventually the FBI told Caldwell that he might have information about a possible crime
the FBI said that the Panthers had made a threat to the president I
Did have the quotes about that in my story the Panthers were saying and we recognize the government as being
Oppressive, and we have a duty obligation to bear arms against the government
But Caldwell refused to cooperate with the FBI
They persisted in it and then one day. They said tell her I'll call well. We're not playing with him
He doesn't want to talk to us
He can tell it in court this black on a Friday on a Monday they they they have
They had issued came back with a subpoena
Caldwell fought the subpoena up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
My lawyer argued it you're going to destroy this reporter
He talked about how reporters can bring back an answer and tell America
About these questions that were so large at that time
He argued that the First Amendment. This is precisely what it protects not just information, but the process
We want unanimous
Decision from the United States Court of Appeals
The government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court or Caldwell's case was joined by two others and the case became famous
Commonly referred to as Branzburg
We talk about the Branzburg case but to me. It's not the Branzburg. It's my case. It's the Caldwell case but anyway
At the time James Goodell was general counsel for the New York Times
This case became a case of the press standing up to the government
We're the press we're over here this information is ours
You're over there the government and the twain shall never meet the press is not an arm of law enforcement sure the press can't be
The arm of law enforcement because if it is there's no ability for the public for which the press is a surrogate
To criticize the government and look into what the government's done wrong
I don't begrudge him from standing on that principle
But I think that there's on the other side another principle that is equally important
Which is if there is criminal conduct out there that you or I or anybody else knows about
You darn well ought to get that information to the people who are in charge of law enforcement?
William Bradford Reynolds was a government lawyer who argued against the reporters before the supreme court in Branzburg
the reporters mantra is it's the public's right to know I think that the public has a right to know I
I also believe that if the reporter has
Knows the identity of somebody who's committed a crime the public has a right to know that just as much
The court also ruled today the newsman
immune from being summoned before a grand jury and being forced to answer questions in a 5-4 decision the
Supreme Court ruled against the reporter's
Franz Berg answered the question is there a constitutional
Protection here for reporters, and it said no there is not
There is no testimonial privilege that is available to the reporters that protects them from
testifying any more than there is one that would protect me as a private citizen from testifying I
Just wasn't gonna buy that
Buy that argument Lehmann you weren't gonna buy the argument
It's called the Supreme Court for a reason, but there's always a way
there's you know I couldn't on it as a practical matter go back to my pals in the newsroom and
Say, I can't protect you
Because the Supreme Court has taken all your protection you can't do that so
I sent my family away locked myself into a room in my apartment
The air conditioning was turned off, and I sweated out
five pounds and a theory how the Branzburg case actually created a
Reporter's privilege for reporters even though it seemed to have done the exact opposite
The key to good ales argument was justice Lewis Powell
Powell says effectively okay, I'm with you against the press in this case but in other cases
there should be an ability for the press to
deal with the subpoenas
He didn't spell out exactly what he meant so I said well look if this other case is he's won
And I've got four over here
Last time I knew that made five that's more than the four that voted against me so if I get another case
that is
Perhaps a little different than call those case
I will argue that those five votes
Create a reporter's privilege the times it tends to continue fighting for its reporters right to keep their sources
confidential fighting both in the courts and through state or federal legislation
Arthur he was go back and fight this thing out state by state by state by state
Until we end up with enough body of law so there's protection for reporters
As geudael set to work it was a heady time for reporters a
Watergate reporting had helped take down a president and the value of anonymous sources was never more clear
it would have been totally impossible to have done the Watergate reporting and
Identified our sources weren't you subpoenaed during Watergate yes for your sources?
Yes, there was a suit brought for the purpose of getting to us among other things
and so we were subpoenaed and
strategy had been
Gone over with the lawyers our notes my notes
Were transferred to the custody of Catherine Graham the publisher of The Washington Post we called that the grandmother defense
Because if we suddenly gave all our documents
To a woman who was in her 60s then you know instead of Bernstein and Woodward
Katherine Graham was a whole lot better possessor around a
lot more important witness as
Bradley said wouldn't that be something every photographer in town would be down at the courthouse to look at our girl going off to the
Slam and mrs. Graham was ready to go to jail
Because she understood the principle the principle is this
The government has all kinds of ways to get information
It can eavesdrop it can wiretap
illegally
It can offer immunity to criminals in order to get them to testify
What is the essential route to get information?
By the press and that is to offer a confidentiality
So when people say well nobody should be above the law
Spouses are above the law they don't have to give testimony against their spouse lawyers don't have to why?
Because there is a social
Judicial benefit to having
confidence
imbued in certain relationships
the Washington Post
By the mid-1970s
Journalists played as heroes in the popular imagination
You tell me what you know and I'll confirm
What you had was a sea change in?
historical and social terms in terms of the news media people often think that
Judges are born in robes, and they issue their decisions as if from like Moses coming down from the Ten Commandments
but they don't judges operate in a historical and a social context and
the judges all across the country were very much affected by Watergate and
James Goodell was finding new success in his legal battle
we came up with this idea that we
The reporters should have a privilege namely the reporters privilege not to cough up this information
Every time the government won
Across the country reporters went to jail to protect their sources
And over the next decade many states passed legislation and lower courts ruled to protect journalists
today
49 states recognize some degree of a reporter's privilege
some very creative
media lawyers led by Jim Goodell were able to convince many judges and
We had a certain level of success over the years in getting subpoenas knocked out in civil cases and in
criminal trials
Though there's never been a federal law establishing a reporter's privilege
The Justice Department uses a set of guidelines in its decision to subpoena journalists
The guidelines are very clear
immediacy pinna should only be sought when all other avenues of Investigation have been foreclosed and
Only in exigent circumstances and exigent circumstances were explained to me to be grave national security matters
emergencies yeah emergency life and death
Mark Corallo was working in attorney General John Ashcroft Justice Department when the plane investigation began
the lash Croft was never asked to subpoena any reporters in the case Carano says it's unlikely that he would have
He says he never saw Ashcroft approve a subpoena of a reporter for confidential sources in the time
He worked there. We were committed to not issuing one of these subpoenas for the Liberals out there watching
Attorney general Ashcroft always said no attorney general Ashcroft always said no do not subpoena the journalists correct
But in the plain case Patrick Fitzgerald was determined to get reporters to cooperate
He had worked out deals to get for reporters to testify
Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller had refused and
The reporters had another problem
Just as the plain affair had begun in an unrelated case a federal judge in Chicago had dropped a bombshell
Judge Richard Posner who was a very influential judge said
I just wanted to be clear that I've reread the Branzburg case
And all you judges out there who have been saying for the last 30 years that Branzburg provides some sort of privilege are wrong
There is no privilege in Branzburg
period he caused a lot of trouble because
He said look there's another way to look at it other than what all these lawyers have done
Reporters got to testify. Well the other way to look at it is the court ruled five to four there is no privilege
There's no present Powell was just
Saying it'd be nice. If Congress passed a law or somebody did something to pilots
Just blowing smoke right and you had taken the smoke and made it appear to be real right. That's what he's saying
He called your bluff. Yeah. Well. I don't think it's a bluff for this big
Bluff or no Bluff Cooper and Miller were forcing the question would the courts back their decision not to testify
My standard for cooperation was very high it was different from other people's
Everybody has to make that call themselves, but I knew what I could live with and what I couldn't live with
Judy Miller's attitude about this was that it was important for at least someone to stand up and fight
even if she wound up losing
The reporters did lose
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case and the final word was left with a lower court
the
Appellate court in that case
spoke directly spoke
Very very clearly and said Branzburg stands, that's what they said there's no ambiguity at all that there is no protection
the Court of Appeals in Washington said
for journalists and in situations in which a grand jury
Seeks information and good faith
from a journalist period is it possible that given the bad facts in this case and given that the
Decision to to in a sense fight this on principle that in the end what you did was make bad law
It's possible
It's possible you got the appellate court to reaffirm, Branzburg
Which Goodell and your friend Goodell and allies have been trying to avoid a decision like that for decades you know?
It just seems to me that there are some fights
Which have to be fought
and
Sometimes they have to be fought even if chances of winning or a slight
On July 6th 2005 Matthew Cooper headed into the DC District Court where he would agree to testify
Pearlstein and Time magazine had given Fitzgerald Cooper's notes
Your reporter Matt Cooper
He wasn't happy with your giving up his notes. He disagreed with me
He wished that. I hadn't done so he viewed his conversation with Rove as a confidential
exchange that ought to be protected he disagreed with me about it, and I think
He would have been prepared
to go to jail himself it is a
sad time when when two journalists who were simply doing their jobs and trying to keep confidences and
Report important stories faced the prospect of going to prison for keeping those confidences
It's the most difficult decision. I've had to make in more than three decades in journalism
And I say that with the understanding that lots of people whom I respect and admire would disagree with me
It's graceful
Absolutely disgraceful
I've talked about this with Norman. We have a civilized
Disagreement Norman person is in a very difficult political position in real life
Because he has to go to his board of directors
Who are not?
First Amendment Knicks
And maybe not even media people who know a lot about media and tell them that he's going to go in civil contempt
I think as a practical matter that is very difficult for him as usual with Jim a little learning a dangerous thing I
Never went to the board. I made the decision on my own in my capacity as
editor-in-chief of Time Inc in this particular case involving a grand jury
involving a question of national security
involving
White House officials who were not traditional whistleblowers, but if anything were trying to undermine a whistleblower
and a situation where
The name of the source was in our email and available to several dozen people within Time Inc
It seemed to me that as an institution we had no choice, but to turn over
our
notes in this case
Because the New York Times had not been in possession of Miller's notes the government did not pursue a subpoena against The Times
The decision to cooperate or not was up to Miller and the paper stood by her
The underlying principle that we try to protect our sources including against
Subpoenas before grand juries is a good principle, but it's a very very hard one to explain to the general public given
Both the problematic nature of the reporter and the problematic nature of the leak
I think everybody wished that it was a cleaner case
But do you ever really get to choose. No, which is why we ended up you know fighting this one as best. We could
When Miller refused to testify she was shackled and taken out the rear of the courtroom
Into a waiting police van where she was driven to the Alexandria detention center in Virginia
Here's a reporter who's not well-liked generally by the press establishment
Who suddenly takes a position that is?
heroic to the press establishment
Arianna Huffington you wrote that Miller doesn't want to reveal her source at the White House because she is the source what it was so
Complicated that there were even
wags inside the New York Times
Who speculated that Judith Miller never had any sources?
Miller's no fool
She understood the lesson of the Martha Stewart case when you find yourself covered with mud
There's nothing like a brief stint in a minimum-security prison to restore your old luster
There's definitely a group of people who felt that you were
Becoming a martyr that you were doing this to make up for
the problems with the WMD coverage I didn't feel that I had anything to apologize for
With my WMD coverage. I knew I was in jail and I knew that I was in jail for
A cause that I thought was essential to our profession so I was very comfortable with the decision but was it painful
Yes was it disappointing?
Yes
Was it infuriating sometimes yes?
On September 29th 2005 after 85 days in jail
Judith Miller finally made a deal to provide limited testimony and was freed I
Heard directly from my source that I should testify before the grand jury
soon after she in the New York Times would part ways
when we
Finally ended up
Relenting and Judy ended up testifying at felt like we may have been a little too quick to charge out on the on the limb
And kind of Pasiphae defend the principle
I mean, there's you know part of me that wonders whether
We might have gotten a deal at the beginning
Comparable to the one that we got at the end. It sounds like something you regretted
The whole well, there's certainly aspects of it, I regret
I'm you know the principle is the principle and and I'm I'm I would rather work at a place
You know that stands up for that principle than one that doesn't
In July 2003 the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified
Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the Intelligence Committee on October 28th 2005
Almost two years after taking over the case
special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald faced the media
cover was blown in July 2003
In the end no one was charged with outing Valerie Plame mr.
Novak was not the first reporter instead
The vice president's chief of staff scooter libby was indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice mr.
Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson
But it would turn out there was still more to the story
the plain investigation had one last twist
when
Fitzgerald said that Judy Miller was the first to learn about this
from
Scooter libby the vice president's chief of staff. I realized I was the first to learn about it
Woodward's leaker was also the primary source for Novak's column the administration official who blew claims cover in the first place
Novak wrote he learned of it from somebody was not a partisan gunslinger. It was an offhand remark
That's exactly the way. I learned it the
Leak had not come from Bush's inner circle
But from a dissenter who had questioned the administration's march to war then Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage
it was a classic case of doing a long interview and
Armitage
gossiping at the end
there was a lot of
Energy and airtime, and he spent over something that
Really didn't amount to a violation of the law
There is no echo of Watergate
Jury selection got underway today and the criminal trial
Jurors were shown that Cheney talking points, which with the Libby trial back in the news
Details are emerging about the extent to which the vice president's office directed the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson
We're discussing the wilson's almost every day for two weeks
What are we to make of Joe Wilson and his complaint that the government of the United States?
Retaliated against him do you believe that the White House was out to get him?
yeah, and guess what Joe Wilson move over the White House is out to get a lot of people and every White House is it's
Part of the tug of war of policy that you try to advance your interests and undermine your opponents if you're going to start
Criminalizing those kind of leaks which is what the nation's capital is based on
You're gonna be throwing an awful lot of reporters in jail and maybe some an awful lot of government officials
The British government has learned the Saddam Hussein recently sought what started as a campaign to spin the press on the road to war
Became a muddled story about official leaks
political hardball and
questions about a cover-up at the highest level of the White House
But in the end the lasting effect of what was called claim gate, maybe what it means for the institution of the press I
think the Bush administration saw that a top reporter for the number one newspaper in this country could go to jail for weeks and
Nothing would happen in essence
And I think that emboldened them to go after the press
In other cases as they have threatened other reporters with jail as they have
Because they saw this as a green light. They saw this that they could get away with it, and now it's Katie bar the door
Next time on Frontline the battle continues so you're ready to go to prison already as a
perhaps not the appropriate word for 30 or more years there have been a certain assumption about the government and the press and
Suddenly in the last couple of years that's changed
How did you first find out that the FBI was interested in what you may have shot?
government secrets exposed
used to be that you could depend upon the moral character of news media and the
commitment and loyalty to the United States there can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it and
No excuse for any newspaper to print it on the White House fights back
It's the president of the United States saying if you publish this story
You will have blood on your hands next time on Frontline part 2 of news war
Tonight on Frontline the job of a reporter is to be the curmudgeon who raises questions that nobody else wants to raise
That's what the best reporters try to do once upon a time they were thought of as heroes
But today the entire news industry is in crisis
the public is a terrific disdain for the press we have a press that is at war with an
Administration for our country is at war against merciless enemies for 30 or more years
There have been an assumption about the government and the press and suddenly in the last couple of years
That's changed in a four-part special series frontline reporter Lowell Bergman looks at the challenges facing journalists today
Would you go to jail to protect your sources?
absolutely
The war between the White House and the press the President of the United States saying if you publish this story you will have blood
On your hands the explosion of new and emerging media
You don't see anybody between 20 and 30
Getting their news from The Evening News you see them getting it online and the economic realities of today's news business
Do you have to make more every year to keep the shareholders happy how do we get here the judging?
journalism by the same standards that we apply to entertainment that may be one of the greatest tragedies in
The history of American journalism, and what is at stake there's a dire need?
Institutions that tell the truth that pursue the truth and that chase it at all cost tonight
part tune of news war our frontline special series
You
Early last July a group of protesters gathered outside the New York Times office building in midtown, Manhattan
They were protesting the papers
Revelation that the government was secretly monitoring the worldwide money transfer network known as Swift to track terrorist financing
Fallout from The Times story had been roiling through the media for weeks
This is a US government secret program at its heart of war willfully expose for no good reason by the New York Times
And get some terror members and have them say they saved immensely pettersson
Thanks to the new duct tapes pinched, Saul's burger and Bill Keller ought to be frog-marched out of the New York Times building
Clearly when we talked about the Swift story we
anticipated that they would come after us I
Don't know that we anticipated. They come out after as quite as
Noisily as they did, but we expected that it would be controversial
we're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America and
For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America
It may seem odd to ordinary Americans
that somebody like me has the power to defy the
President of the United States if you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing you try to follow their money
And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed. It makes it harder to win this war on terror
But in fact that's the way the inventors of the country set things up because the alternative was to let the government be the final
arbiter of its own
flow of information
It's the battle over who controls that flow of information which is at the heart of the struggle between the Bush?
Administration and the press you brought it up. You said how do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday is precisely?
What the enemy understands is possible to do they're capable of blowing up innocent life, so it ends up on your TV show?
Against the backdrop of the war on terror the
Press has clashed repeatedly with an administration that had arrived in Washington determined to change the rules
There was a feeling early on in this administration that the previous administration
Due to you know scandal after scandal gave up a lot of executive power, and I think that this administration said you know what?
No way
Mark Carrano worked in John Ashcroft Justice Department there was a definite feeling that we have got to recapture
the authority that was lost
We've got to bring this back into balance
And that's where it's gone
Ashcroft had been among the first to signal a break from the past when he sent out a memo reversing his predecessors policy on openness
What Ashcroft said is that the prior policy?
Which encouraged disclosure of information unless?
Some foreseeable harm would result was being overturned in favor of
withholding information
Whenever there was a legal basis to do so
this administration has a track record of
Resistance to disclosure
in the earliest days of the Bush administration
Vice President Cheney had his famous energy task force
In which people said we want to know more about what's going on here and the vice president said
absolutely not
It would have a chilling effect on
the quality of the advice that I receive if the names of the people that I talk to
were publicly disclosed a
few months later President Bush issued an executive order
tightening restrictions on public access to records of past presidents
the papers of the Reagan administration were supposed to become public in
2001 this executive order said wait a minute those records are not going to be automatically made public
the secrecy
Predated 9/11 and is rooted in the president's own personality and in his government governing philosophy
The president and his team had also brought with them new ideas about the press
Every president complaints about the press Cheryl
But what I think is different about this administration from previous administrations
Is that the Bush administration does not accept that the press has a legitimate public interest role?
Ken Auletta has covered media for The New Yorker magazine for over a decade
They view us as a special interest and so when I asked Andrew card his vencie fost AB
I said do you accept that the press s legitimate check and balance function? He said absolutely not?
He said Congress has a check and balance function the judiciary does but not the press
You know I think secretary card was right I mean
I think the true checks and balances serve the judiciary and the Congress the the you know the press is not elected
Mark McKinnon is a former top media adviser and close confidant of the president
The press is gonna make its determinations, but it you know who's gonna
judge
Which press outlet is the proper check and balance?
This administration had a lot of discipline in terms of the way in which it controlled its message
Yeah, but every administration has said that at the beginning. Yes one really was very successful
Keeping people if you were on message on in line that's right. How um you
Have a guy at the top of the news knows what he knows who he is and what he stands for if we get off
Message he lets us know
And we have a team of people that work together a long time. We know what works. We know. What doesn't I?
Remember 2004 at one point people you two stood up and said you know there's no way you can get reelected
Certainly the relationship between this administration and the media is not a good one and certainly we believe that the secrecy has been excessive
quite excessive
and there
But at the same time you know their job is to do their job and our job is to find out what's going on
Leonard Downey is the executive editor of the Washington Post?
This always happens with administration's after they've been around in Washington for a while if personnel begins to change
The schisms occur within the administration itself its control over the message begins to fray we're finding out more and more all the time
By 2005 with the war on terror in its fourth year more secrets were beginning to leak from the government
One of Downey's national security reporters Danna priest was learning details about a top-secret CIA program
Dan is very very deeply sourced throughout the military and throughout the intelligence services and a number of these sources who are concerned about
Some of the policies that the administration was carrying out in the war against terrorism
These are people who as Donna describes them are very much
Very strong proponents of the war against terrorism they're active in the war against terrorism, but they're concerned that some of these methods were counterproductive
So for these reasons they would cooperate with her when she'd asked questions about things that added up to some of these stories
The stories were about a system of prisons being run by the CIA
Some of which priests would learn were housed in countries in Eastern Europe
the existence of the prisons in the places that they're in are
illegal in the places
Where they are it wasn't just detention in these?
Democracies in Eastern Europe who was also?
interrogations the whole reason for having the detentions and the black sites was so that the CIA could interrogate
The people in them and nobody else not the host nation. No playing a gun not the Pentagon not the FBI
Nobody just the CIA their little their
little prison system
At a certain point the administration knew what you were doing right on these detention facility, right?
I told them you called him up. I called them up whenever there is something that the reporters obviously see is a
potentially sensitive piece of information
We will I will tell them what it is before I publish it and ask for a comment
but also give them a chance if they want to
Or if they feel that it's necessary to say you know that piece of information
Would really be damaging to whatever an ongoing operation people's lives
Things like that there came a time when very senior officials in the administration
Asked to talk to me along with Donna and her editors about their questions about whether or not some of the things she knows
Within their minds harmed national security if we publish them
Who called you I can't tell you that because I agreed to ground rules in which they they would not be named and these
As people were asked to talk to me. They're senior officials of the government very senior officials to the government
As the Bush administration met with a post about the CIA prison story it was also having similar discussions with another paper
over an even more explosive story
President Bush soon after 9/11 had signed a secret executive order allowing the NSA
to conduct wiretaps on Americans international communication of their emails and phone calls if the NSA
Thought these communications might be tied to terrorism or al-qaeda
With his colleague James risin
New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau had been reporting on this secret eavesdropping story for over a year
There was a legal procedure
setting in place
It's been in place for 30 years for them to conduct. This kind of surveillance it was
Widely understood that if the government want to listen to your phone calls or read your emails
And you're within the United States. They needed a court order to do that
the reporters had uncovered that the president's executive order had allowed the NSA the National Security Agency to
wiretap without any court oversight
What I tried to struggle with in writing this story on the NSA was how do we?
As a country really faced up to the bounds between
What is a realistic fight against?
terrorism versus
The cost of that fight in terms of giving up our civil liberties are we destroying the village in order to save it, right?
By December of 2005 The Times was ready to go with the story and as it had with the Washington Post
the White House asked for a meeting
the ground rules of the meeting which we agreed to were that it would be off the record because
The president wanted to present us with what he said were classified details
About the effectiveness of the program that he thought would persuade us not to publish the article. I'm obviously gonna honor our
obligation not to talk about anything classified, but the basic fact that the meeting took place the White House has already talked about
Keller arrived at the white house with Arthur Salzburger The Times publisher and Philip Taubman then the papers, Washington bureau chief
we were
escorted into the Oval Office
That's my first visit probably my last visit to the bush Oval Office
the president
said quite forcefully that this
Program was something he regarded as part of the crown jewels of our national security and that if we exposed it
We should feel ourselves responsible, if there was another attack on the US
I think what he said was you know when we were called up to explain to Congress why?
There was another attack you should be sitting aside beside us at the table. Did you and mr.?
Salzburg err and fill tab and look at each other
Did you gulp look you take a warning like that very seriously indeed?
I mean it's the president of the United States saying that if you publish this story
You will have blood on your hands the president said
Nothing like that the President did stress the importance of this program remaining secret
This has been one of the most effective tools and preventing attacks on our country
It's when those vital tools that we've had in our Arsenal to defend America
And I the president felt obligated if he felt that strongly about it
That he ought to tell the person who was in charge of that paper
how we felt but the reporters
involved and the editors involved say all they reported on was the question of the legality of the program and that the
Terrorists if you will know we're listening well
They don't know all the aspects of how we're doing it and for you to get into a conversation about
Whether it's legal there are strong insinuations about how the program works and the disclosure of such a program is
like putting up a big billboard to the enemy saying this is how they're
Defending their country, and we think it's wrong
The president and wrapped it up by reiterating that he thought what we were about to do was
Was a mistake would give aid and comfort to our enemies would give aid and comfort to our enemies
Yes, that was the gist of what he said
We walked down to the
corner to catch our taxis in various directions
And I said that the publisher that I wanted to obviously sleep on it and think about what we just heard
But I hadn't my first impression was I hadn't heard anything there that had changed my mind, and he said he hadn't either
There are things that I know that
Were reported as long ago by our reporters as several decades ago that we've never published in the newspaper
And I've never uttered a word about because it's clear to me
It would be harmful to national security
But at the same time many times that claim is made by the government simply because they want to avoid embarrassment
We're at war the president says were at war yes. He does so who are you to decide?
What's in the interests of the country what's national security?
And what isn't?
Well decisions about whether something would be harmful to national security or not is just another one of those many decisions
We make about what we're going to publish or not going to publish under our constitutional system those decisions cannot be made by the government
That's that's unconstitutional
And it also would be dangerous to our democracy it has to be left to editors and television producers to make these decisions
The debate over the right to publish state secrets goes back to another era when an unpopular war raged
Never have so many of our people manifested opposition to this country's involvement in a war
And the government and press were at odds
We had an agenda we wanted to implement
And the principal impediment to that objective in Vietnam was the mass
demonstrations given aid and comfort and support
by the liberal media
They were standing on our windpipe
in 1969 Patrick Buchanan was a speech writer in the Nixon White House
The battle between the White House and the national media is the battle over who controls the national agenda?
In 1971 the battle moved to the front page of the New York Times when the paper began running a leaked copy of a secret
Defense Department study
Known as the Pentagon Papers the report revealed the deliberate deceptions that led the country to war in Vietnam
It came out on a Sunday and on Monday
we're doing well, and then I think it was a Tuesday afternoon guide checked in is everything okay, and
My boss who was opposed to the publication
Said well you better come on over?
James Goodell was general counsel for the New York Times and had urged the paper to publish the secret documents
So I ran out hopped in a cab
Shot into the New York Times went up to the executive floor, which is the 14th floor and I walked into a room
Where there was a huge screaming match going on?
the government had sent a telegram to
the New York Times saying stop publication, or we're gonna sue you in court the next day I
Thought did publishing the Pentagon Papers was quasi treasonous in war time young to me
He was a clear effort to sabotage the war effort number these newspapers. You know cheer us into war
And then they Americans go into battle, and they get killed in great numbers, and in these folks tend to undermine
In his telegram Nixon's attorney general cited a 1917 law called the Espionage Act
Which forbids the publication of national defense secrets?
He said that the publication the ongoing
publication by them of portions of the so-called Pentagon Papers
Violated the Espionage Act classified material classified material relating to the National Defense
Where national security would be gravely imperiled
Floyd Abrams was hired by geudael to help represent the times after the papers corporate counsel refused to take the case
They had been told by their lawyers that they was likely loose and most of all from some sort of moral point of view
That they were acting unpatriotic Lee in publishing the Pentagon Papers so the issue was do we obey the government?
or do we mate the government come after us and
That was the subject of this terrific argument
Geudael joined in and then was called to the phone to talk to the publisher arthur punch Salzburger who was on vacation in europe
Punch Jim. What do you think we ought to do? I said, I think you're gonna publish. He said well
What about I think you should publish? What about the criminal liability? I said, I think that's a that's a risk
I think that's a risk you. Can you can take?
And if they stop us I think we can win that too. He said okay
Go with it
as
It had threatened the Nixon administration went to court and got an order barring the newspaper from continuing to publish
The paper appealed the decision and the case moved quickly through the courts
Constitutes laws interesting theme reflects the politics of the moment Vietnam War terrific public
Antipathy toward the administration and a lot of popular support for the New York Times when I went into the courtroom
People hissed shouted they were crowded
It was like the Scopes Scopes trial and none in favor of the government for two and a half weeks two
Constitutional principles have clashed the government's view of our national security
Versus the newspapers view of their freedom to print and the newspapers want
the Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Times and The Washington Post which had also published portions of the Pentagon Papers
well my reaction was very simply one of delight and one of
Now will go back to business as normal
Betty had The Times The
Times in post resumed publishing the Pentagon Papers the next day it was a very important case to resist
If they hadn't been willing to really risk lots things would be very different
Both legally and almost culturally in terms of the relationship between the press and the government
Again yes sir, but I tie my vacation to your exciting yeah
We won a near absolute ban on prior restraints injunctions
Against speech that still stands today that that still stands
I mean if the government had gone to court to try to prevent publication of
Some of the recent controversial pieces by The Times I believe we would have won because of the Pentagon Papers case
But the overhanging question is all right. They can't stop you in advance
Can they put you in jail?
Can they punish you after the fact?
Four years later, that's exactly what the Ford White House wondered
New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh had exposed details of highly classified Navy missions being used to spy on the Soviet Union
Ford's chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and his young deputy Dick Cheney began deliberating on what to do
In a handwritten memo obtained by frontline Cheney asked what action?
they should take to enforce the law which prohibits such disclosure I
Was told about at the time I didn't think it was serious. It was more serious
You were told I was told at the time somebody justice warned me that they were they were you know they were looking at me
And what people who go into my house he called him my apartment, but I had a house
In notes from a meeting with the Attorney General
They discussed alternatives for action from getting a search warrant to go after Hersh's papers
to seeking immediate indictments of the New York Times and Hirsch
When Cheney and Rumsfeld were looking at me the Attorney General said get out of here?
The political cost of moving against me or people
I don't mean that arrogantly not about moving against somebody who's prominent in terms of being a critic. It's too high
Prosecuting the reporter the Justice Department warned would become a cause celeb for the press
You can't trample the Constitution, and if they do I'm gonna scream and moan
And you know be a hero you know and given more trouble than they would if they just left me alone
Which is the thing they did in this case?
In the end no action was taken against Hirsch
This situation today 35 years later. It just seems like deja vu all over again. I mean the New York Times
national security-related
Stories the government reacting right, but there are some differences
One difference is that the press is not in as good stead with the American public
Now as it was in
1971 you know nowadays
It's not easy to find sort of full-throated
supporter of the press
Indeed last year when The Times and Post published their NSA and CIA stories the reaction was venomous I
Can't tell you how upset I am by this the fact that an entire CIA
Program is outed by somebody that doesn't like that program
Cable talk shows lit up with condemnation of the papers stories it seems like once again the anti-bush
New York Times wants to create a conspiracy well there is none
the Bush administration also took to the airwaves
It is really a serious matter when we get the disclosure of a program like this because after all what we must do
Is protect from those who are trying to hurt us one of the problems? We have as a government is
our inability to keep secrets
We do think it was a fairly egregious act it was a very. I'm sure a difficult decision for the New York Times
To make I think they made the wrong decision and it harmed the national security interests of our country. It was a shameful act
For someone to disclose this very important program in time of war
my first reaction in reading the NSA story was
boy, there's an
Excruciating amount of detail in here not just about the program's existence
but about the actual mechanics of how it works, and what makes it work and
Why it functions well in one case and not in another case?
John Miller has been on both sides of the divide between the press and government
As a reporter at ABC News
He was one of the last journalists to interview a sama bin Laden bin Laden Khan was one of his
He is now an assistant director of the FBI
So you didn't think it was a responsible story
The standard I used to weigh things on is is this gonna be a good story
Clearly the NSA was gonna be a good story is it going to hurt
the government's ability to keep people safe and
You know that is where the debate is in that story
To some in the intelligence community it was that time's follow up NSA story that caused the most concern
there was an article that revealed that there were switches and phone companies in the United States that handled all the traffic right and
What I had heard was people were very upset about the second course of course more so than the first of course because the second
Are the second of the two articles revealed?
Techniques that were being used to monitor traffic
Everyone's always talking about connecting the dots. These are the dots and
The number of dots we have to work with has increased exponentially since 9/11 as a result of programs like this
You might get from one of these programs
Nothing more than the name of an individual you then go to other programs you go to a detainee
You work the system, and that's what you get from these programs you get fragments
Shards of things that ultimately form a picture and the to the degree that terrorists tighten up in
their transactions their communication and their security
You will get fewer of those things
The follow up story in which the New York Times publishes that the way in which this
eavesdropping is being done is a data mining operation going on through access to the switches that the
Telecommunications companies have here in the United States. That's something that well
It wasn't classified is something that terrorists were not aware of well
I don't know whether terrorists were aware of that or not. I think you know my my hunch is the terrorists tend to assume
extraordinary powers including
extraordinary technological prowess on the part of the Americans
And I think they tend to assume that the American government uses that power in any way
It can
But the leadership of the intelligence community doesn't agree the consequences of these leaks are
Happy to have your question to respond
And I'm sorry to tell you that the damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission
Leaking is a serious issue to see the the frustration and the outrage of people
expressed after certain things are leaked which of
severely
Damaged operations or collection efforts or put sources in jeopardy or in danger?
it's been very very serious over the years you go into a highly confidential briefing on a classified level and
a few hours later or the next morning the phone rings and somebody reads it all back to you and maybe a little more than
That and you hang up the phone and say how did this get out who takes this oath, so casually?
That they hand this stuff out the people and the sources of information that Eric glushko, and I got for our story
Were people who in some cases were tortured by their knowledge of this information
They felt compelled to tell this information to make the public aware of it because they believed it was either
unconstitutional or illegal
And I think they were classic whistleblowers
You know there's a leak investigation going on they're collecting the names of reporters who have talked
To officials who had access to this program
Is apparently over a score of agents working out of the Washington field office?
Is it drying up your sources?
Well, I'd rather not get into that in any detail
I can just say that you know continuing to report and work you got interviewed, right yes
If you were briefed into a certain program that was leaked then there's a possibility that
You could be the leaker have they interviewed you I've been interviewed
What did they ask you they just you know they wanted to know?
You know why these kinds of leaks happen
Today I talked with a source of mine who said he just got polygraphed yeah, that's going on all around town
There are investigations of sort of sources going on all around town
And it's very very worrying
It's not good
It's not good for the free flow of information to the public and it's not good to criminalize sources and reporters who are merely engaged
In trying to keep the American public properly informed
So far none of the reporters involved in these national
Security stories have been asked to reveal their sources on the external side. I've called in the FBI
but the threat remains
It is my aim, and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation
With reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information
I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve. Nothing less, and I thank you for your question
I don't think anybody's special prosecutor
FBI Department of Justice really relishes the idea of using a grand jury or or a
Subpoena to go and have a reporter talk
But I think it also goes through the issue that these are serious matters at times and that decisions have to be made
About whether or not?
the need to protect
sources methods operations intelligence
gathering for the country is his paramount
In June
2006 after the New York Times published its swift banking story the rhetoric grew more heated still I say
Some anti-bush media in America is putting us all in danger by exposing
Criticizing and undermining just about everything the administration does in the war on terror there can be no excuse for
anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it and no excuse for any newspaper to print it I
don't mean to be too cynical about the motivations of
You know the president and the Attorney General, but some of it clearly is political
I mean it's not an accident that a certain number of these
speeches decrying the New York Times happen to be at the microphones of Republican fundraising events some of the press in
Particular the New York Times have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing
Detailed information about vital national security programs the New York Times is
red-meat to a certain slice of the conservative base
And New York Times is putting its own arrogant elitist
Left-wing agenda before the interests the American people and I'm but in the days following the Times banking story
Representative Peter King went beyond mere rhetoric
He wrote a letter to the Attorney General
Formally requesting that the times be investigated for possible criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act
The same law the Nixon administration had used in trying to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers
This week attorney general, Alberto
Gonzalez a month earlier attorney general Gonzales had spoken to the issue of prosecuting journalists
So you believe journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information?
Well again, Georgia depends on the circumstances
There are some statutes on the book
Which if you if you read the language carefully would seem to indicate that that is a possibility
That's a policy when he says their laws on the books well
People who no, no, they're not many laws there other than the Espionage Act
So he effectively was saying the Espionage Act can be used
You know what the Espionage Act is right?
I'm not a lawyer, but I I know what it is the New York Times was threatened
35 years ago mm-hmm. Do you think they're more serious this time oh?
I don't know. I don't I don't know how serious. They are about the Espionage Act. Honestly. I don't but my
Instinct is that at this point. They're largely brandishing the Espionage Act in hopes that that will make us nervous and intimidate us
Maybe intimidate some of our sources
Should they be prosecuted I'm not going to get into prosecutorial decisions made by the Justice Department
I'm not a lawyer nor would I try to be?
but it's an important debate for the country to have for the media and government officials and others to
watch this issue closely because
We are in a new paradigm
Where the enemy of our country enemies of our country use the very?
Technology and comforts of our lifestyle against us and this is the healthy debate for our country
There used to be if you will a de facto truce between
Reporters and forgets the Justice Department mm-hmm around confidential sources particularly in Washington about being able to talk
without
fear of retribution
It's all broken down hasn't it it has all broken down little by little because I think at first
Even the the Valerie Plame leak investigation. I think we still we understood that the ground was shifting, but didn't really
Couldn't really judge. How much?
But as time marches on and they're now potentially looking at the Espionage Act
To use against people who gather information rather than people who give information the various leak
investigations and the effort by the administration
to intimidate
I really do think the major media into just leaving this area for
30 or more years there had been a certain assumption about the government and the press and
Suddenly in the last couple of years that's changed the government has been much more aggressive in going after the press
Phil Bronstein is the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle?
two of his reporters have recently found themselves in the news a
Showdown lawyers representing two reporters who won't reveal their sources and in legal jeopardy
But this time the subject is not the war on terror
It's baseball
In 2003 authorities raided a sports nutrition lab called BALCO
Which was suspected of distributing steroids to athletes?
When you went to the website for balke you saw all these famous
athletes that were part of the company or there were at least doing business with the company Barry Bonds was most prominent, but
Marion Jones Tim Montgomery bill Romanowski
mark Fenner owada and Lance Williams reported on the BALCO investigation for the Chronicle as
some of the biggest names in sports began testifying
very early on mark, and I heard that bonds had used steroids that that was at the heart of the investigation I
Assumed that that would all come out when indictments were issued good afternoon
But it did not after an 18-month investigation
The indictments did not name any athletes dozens of athletes, but by the end of 2004 The Chronicle had the names
one of baseball's biggest stars reportedly admits to taking banned a
Confidential source had leaked the athletes grand jury testimony to the reporters
There's new information tonight about San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds the stories dominated the news
reports that in grand jury testimony ponds had said he used BALCO products, but never thought they were steroids and
Yankee slugger Jason Giambi had admitted he used steroids
We have a very distinguished panel here in the wake of the Chronicle reports Congress investigated steroid use in baseball
The reporters were honored for their work at a White House Correspondents Dinner
We met the president in 2005
He knew who we were and he knew the stories and he's a former baseball and Ernie said you've done a service
But not everyone in the government was pleased with the chronicles reporting
We heard from the government almost immediately upon publishing our first story that had grand jury testimony in it
What did they say to you? Oh?
they said
We understand you have this information and we'd like it back and we'd like to know how you got it the government wanted to know
Who our sources were they wanted all the related information they wanted the packaging it came in and so forth
Anything that would identify the sources we you know we thought talked about it all of us, and of course. You know respectfully declined I
Respect the court system, and I'll you know comply with their wishes in every way possible
But I am being asked to
My to ask told to betray not only sources, but ideals that I've held for thirty years as a reporter
And I'm also being asked to give up my career because don't kid yourself if if they bully me into
Betraying my sources. I can't work anymore. I think it's an interesting notion in journalism that the professional ethics and standards
Require them to violate the law
Randal Eliason is a former federal prosecutor who has studied the legal standing of the privilege that reporters assert to protect their sources
No one has a right to decide for themselves what the law requires
I know journalists feel very strongly that they need this privilege in order to do their jobs
Congress hasn't agreed and the Supreme Court hasn't agreed and
So journalists have no more right than any other witness to say. I'm just not going to testify no matter what you say
With the journalists refusing to cooperate
Last May the Justice Department authorized subpoenas to the Chronicle and it's to reporters
Requiring that they reveal the source of the leaked grand jury testimony
The Justice Department was way out of line here. This was an abuse of power
Mark Corallo, who was involved in approving media subpoenas under attorney general Ashcroft filed an affidavit in support of the reporters
the government just did not meet the standards set by their own guidelines the guidelines are very clear a
media subpoena should only be sought when all other avenues of Investigation have been foreclosed and
Only in exigent circumstances and exigent circumstances were explained to me to be grave national security matters
Emergencies yeah emergency fans and death what's the problem here your successor is not a baseball fan. I don't know
I you know. I don't know what's happened here. It seems that there has been a policy shift
It seems that you know what the way we operated under attorney general Ashcroft
Where we were absolutely
Committed to not issuing one of these subpoenas
That seems to have changed
You know mr.. Carala was no longer at the Justice Department, and so I think he's not aware of all the facts and and
You know perhaps surrounding these cases
Tasya Scully knows is Mark Carrano successor at the Justice Department and helped review the media subpoenas in the BALCO case
There's no legal requirement that the department put special guidelines in place when it comes to subpoena
members of the media those are self-imposed guidelines we feel that we have a very serious obligation on behalf of the taxpayers to
prosecute
Cases to the fullest extent of the law what's the national security or?
Exigent circumstances in a case where the President of the United States has commended their reporting mm-hmm well
I mean if you notice the guidelines the guidelines don't specifically say it has to be a national security understood the guidelines
I believe say that there needs to be exigent exigent circumstances and that can take a lot of different forms
The reporters fought the subpoenas through the courts facing up to 18 months in jail if they lost you know we are choosing
Prison here by any means we feel the choices that
Been made by the prosecutors and their demands are just impossible
The administration has a discretion through the Justice Department whether or not to bring certain cases
And I guess in this particular case the question is what's the rationale you're gonna shut down
reporting on something which everyone says has been to the
Interests of our public health and to our youth who are involved in sports well
I think that's subjective to say that it would shut down
There these are tough calls we put very seasoned and experienced prosecutors in these US Attorney positions to make the tough calls
But ultimately that's why there's the checks and balances of a court system the courts will ultimately vet that out
So we cannot expect the administration to back down in that case to back off
As I speak only for the personally for the president? We would not interject from the White House into a criminal prosecution the
US Attorney's involved in this have broad discretion to use
To pursue these cases they see fit
You're ready to go to prison
already is a
Perhaps not the appropriate word, but I prepared I guess although
I don't even know if I'm prepared, but we'll we're gonna
You know if we have to go to prison for this thing then that's I guess what's gonna happen
I don't say that lightly at all and neither of us want to go to jail
But it's not an option for us to provide information about confidential sources
But in the end the reporters did not have to do either
In an unexpected twist just last week a BALCO lawyer admitted to leaking the grand jury testimony
The government has agreed to abandon its effort to put the two reporters in prison
But thirty miles east of San Francisco a reporter has gone to jail
last fall freelance journalist and blogger Josh wolf turned himself in to the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California
Wolf was jailed for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury and to turn over video footage that the FBI had demanded
No cameras have been allowed to film with wolf while he's been in jail
But frontline sat down with him days before his imprisonment
How did you first find out that the FBI was interested in what you may have shot?
I was sitting in my room on the phone with my mother and
Hear the doorbell ring
Come to get the door, and there's a guy in Bermuda shorts and like maybe a Hawaiian button-down shirt
And one of those accordion briefcase things and my first thought was like this has to be a reporter
He was like are you Josh? Yeah, can I talk to you sure?
At this point he flashes the FBI badge. Just like in the movies opens it up and you're like oh
It's outtakes of this video that the FBI wants it's of an anarchist protest in San Francisco
Wolf shot it and posted portions of it on his blog which covers political protests
What was the protest about what were you doing here the protest was facilitated by a group called anarchist action in
Solidarity with those that were marching in Gleneagle Scotland against the g8 summit that was going on at the time
As wolf filmed the demonstration grew violent a
Police officer was seriously injured
And the police would later claim that some of the protesters tried to set a police car on fire
Wolf has made part of his footage available to local news and to frontline
But it's footage that he has not released that the FBI wanted
Claiming that his tape could reveal who allegedly tried to burn the police car
my concern is that this isn't about the SFPD police car at all I
Feel that if I were to open the floodgates by providing them a tape to prove that this subject isn't on it
that I would then be subject to questions of who is this person who is this person who is this person and
Basically at that point all those people would be subpoenaed and it'd be a never-ending witch-hunt to try to make a database of
Civil dissent and people engaged in civil dissidents and people engaged in civil dissent
It's not really his decision as to what's important, and what isn't in a federal grand jury investigation
We don't really know what exactly the government is looking at in this case
And unless you're involved in the actual grand jury investigation you can't know
It's whether there's some broader set of allegations. That's being investigated or some broader kind of conspiracy
Only people involved in the actual investigation know that if I were to give those tapes to them then I stop being an independent
Journalist and become as some of the briefs a de facto
investigator for the government there was a
Trust established between people involved in the organization that I was covering and myself into
The fact that what I chose to release was what I chose to release and that I wasn't an investigator for the state
turning over piles of tape for
Fishing expeditions
Wolf has already been in jail for six months
The judge sentenced him to remain in custody for the duration of the grand jury term which is due to expire this July
He has already served longer for defying a court order than any journalist in American history
Taking live now to the Justice Department as alternate general Alberto Gonzalez briefed reporters on terror
Related indictments Iraqis leadership reportedly agreed to develop a timetable
Defensive detention and questioning of terror suspects by the CIA and the urges Congress to granting legal authority to try suspects
The debate around the national security programs revealed by The Times and post has continued
It was possibly the worst kept secret around today President Bush finally admitted
It was true last September the posts CIA prison story was back in the news
When the president confirmed the detention sites for the first time this program has helped us to take potential mass murders off the streets
Before they were able to kill
The media has a
hugely important role during this time to
Bring out the things that are worth debating and I think one of the reasons the government's reacted in the way that it has
Is that it?
it's not allowed that to happen the feds are trying to kill a
Lawsuit over the NSA program to wiretap without warrants the NSA eavesdropping story has continued as well
In August 2006 a federal judge ruled that the program was unconstitutional and the Bush administration is appealing that decision
But last month the administration agreed to put the program under court oversight
The only thing we're saying is this is something the American people should know about they then can decide
Whether it's something they want to continue or not
That's our role our role is not to say to the American to the government
Don't do this our role is this is happening you decide who do you want or trust to protect you against terrorists?
Bush administration or the committed left media back by anonymously
There's merit in the United States deciding at this point. Where does it want to be on this spectrum from security to privacy?
At the end of this whole debate
perhaps
We will know better as a country
Where we want to be so you are saying that there is some public interest benefit that has taken place
Despite the fact that you would have stopped these leagues if you could have there's some public interest benefit. That's taken place
But the counterterrorism effort has also been set back
Life isn't simple
Not in a democracy not in a democracy
You
For more infomation >> Hannity 03/27/18 9PM | March 27, 2018 Breaking News - Duration: 38:36. 
For more infomation >> North Korean Mystery Train May Have Brought Kim Jong Un To Beijing | NBC Nightly News - Duration: 1:27. 
For more infomation >> 코미디언 박미선 이봉원 이혼? 진실은 무엇입니까? | KRVBA News - Duration: 2:45. 
For more infomation >> Baton Rouge Officers Will Not Be Charged In Alton Sterling Death | NBC Nightly News - Duration: 1:54. 
For more infomation >> 김진아 병명은 면역력 약화로 알려지기도 했습니다 -Tistory Korea News - Duration: 5:09. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét