White House: Reporters shouldn’t be prosecuted

[DonViejo]

Source: AP


BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says President Barack Obama believes journalists shouldn’t be prosecuted for doing their jobs.

White House spokesman Jay Carney says he can’t comment on any specific government investigation into leaks of classified information. But he says Obama believes the questions currently being asked about how to strike the balance between protecting national security and journalists’ freedom are entirely legitimate.

He says Obama believes it’s vital to democracy that investigative reporters can do their jobs freely.

The questions were raised by two leak cases: A recent probe in which prosecutors secretly subpoenaed Associated Press phone records, and an investigation into a State Department adviser accused of leaking information to a Fox News journalist. In that case, investigators declared that a journalist is committing a crime by disclosing leaked information.

####

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/white_house_reporters_shouldnt_be_prosecuted/

[mahannah]

1. Guess Bradley Manning should have been a reporter.

[geek tragedy]

2. Yes, his decision to enlist and violate his oath instead. nt

[sharp_stick]

3. He probably would have been better

served if he wasn't a soldier and sworn under the UCMJ at the time.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

4. No, they shouldn't be. period.

[Trillo]

5. But if you put those reporters on phone surveillance

(warrants, etc.) then, I'm guessing, folks wishing to talk to reporters but not be identified in any published stories, would feel more inhibited in that contact. It seems this would decrease the willingness of folks with information of interest to talk to reporters. Thus, it further seems that reporters may face increased difficulties in "doing their jobs" "reporting", if folks with interesting information are less likely to talk to them.

[Pragdem]

6. Leakers, however, should be. nt

[DallasNE]

7. Investigative Journalists Doing Their Job Is One Thing

But these two cases are a different animal. These cases do not involve some kind of government mess-up like Fast and Furious but actually interfere with legitimate government operations where the reporting has caused actual harm. This doesn't even come under the concept of a fine line between journalists doing their job and the needs of national security. This simply obliterates that line and crosses into criminal territory.

[alp227]

8. So what is the admin going to do to ensure so?

And did anyone see Piers Morgan interviewing Jay Carney?

[OnyxCollie]

9. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[forestpath]

11. I had the same reaction.

[brett_jv]

10. Key word "INVESTIGATORS"

It's investigators job to solve the damn case in front of them. They can (and DO) 'claim' whatever the hell they want when they apply for a warrant.

It's the JUDGES fault for granting the request for the warrants.

Claiming that it's 'The Justice Departments Position' that 'reporters can be indicted for disclosing a leak', just because some INVESTIGATORS used that tact in a warrant application is RIDICULOUS.

Has Rosen had to lawyer up? Grand Jury convened? Charges filed? After all, this stuff all happened YEARS AGO.

If this was really the Justice Dept's formal 'position', then why the hell isn't this guy facing charges/trial?

Reason? ... Because it's NOT their formal position.

The judge that granted the warrant based on the Agent's arguments of 'criminality' is the one who should be held to account, if anyone is to be. S/He is responsible for knowing the law(s).