Time magazine warned of ”chilling” new limits on US press freedoms as it reluctantly agreed on Thursday to hand over a reporter’s notes to a grand jury probing the leak of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative’s identity.
The move was partly aimed at protecting Time journalist Matt Cooper, who has been ordered to testify before the grand jury or face prison.
”We believe that our decision to provide the Special Prosecutor with the subpoenaed records obviates the need for Matt Cooper to testify and certainly removes any justification for incarceration,” Time editor in chief Norman Pearlstine said in a statement.
Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have both indicated they would rather go to jail than reveal their sources to the grand jury investigating how CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name was leaked to the media.
On Wednesday, District Court Judge Thomas Hogan gave both journalists one week to testify or face up to 18 months in prison.
The pair had argued that press freedom guarantees in the US Constitution shielded them from having to testify. But an appeals court rejected the argument, and the US Supreme Court Monday refused to hear the case.
”In declining to review the important issues presented by this case, we believe that the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society,” Pearlstine said.
The case involving Miller and Cooper stems from a grand jury investigation into who leaked the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame to conservative columnist Bob Novak. Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column, citing two unnamed senior administration officials as his sources.
Under public and media pressure sparked by reports that administration officials had disclosed Plame’s name to several journalists, President George W Bush in December 2003 ordered an investigation into the leak and named Patrick Fitzgerald, US attorney in Chicago, as special counsel.
The case is one of several in the United States that have recently revived the issue of whether reporters should be forced to testify in court about information they learn while doing their jobs. -Sapa-AFP