Reporter Risen Argues Against Subpoena in Sterling Leak Case
A government “motion for clarification and reconsideration” of a court order that limited the obligation of reporter James Risen to testify at the upcoming trial of former CIA officer and accused leaker Jeffrey Sterling should be rejected, Risen’s attorneys argued (pdf) yesterday.
There is no need for “clarification” of the court’s July 29 order (pdf), they said, since it is perfectly clear. Mr. Risen does not need to do more than to authenticate his authorship of a book he wrote, the court said, and to attest to its accuracy.
And there is no legitimate basis for “reconsideration,” they argued, since there has been no intervening change in the law and no evidence of judicial error.
“The Government says nothing… beyond a rehash of the Government’s prior arguments and offers nothing sufficient to alter the balancing of interests already performed by this Court,” Mr. Risen’s attorneys wrote.
Similar arguments against a subpoena were also offered yesterday by Mr. Sterling’s attorneys, who added: “Every time the Government appeals to this Court to admit some new or additional subject matter of Mr. Risen’s proposed testimony, the Court should be reminded how little evidence the Government really has in this case.”
The prosecution has “a compelling interest in Mr. Risen’s eyewitness testimony” which is “critical to the case,” the government has argued (pdf). (“Leak Prosecutors Press Again for Subpoena of Risen,” Secrecy News, September 6, 2011).
The latest edition of “The News Media & The Law,” the quarterly publication of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, includes several articles on the theme of “Journalists, Whistleblowers and National Security.”
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.