On Monday, the US Supreme Court has declined to intervention in the case of a New York Times reporter who has been forced to identify his source that provided controversial information for his book.
James Risen, who could face jail time if he does not name his source who had provided details to a plan of the Central Intelligence agency to sabotage Iran's nuclear program for his 2006 book "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration", has been summoned multiple times by prosecutors since his book has been published, the Washington Post said. Former CIA operative Jeffrey Sterling has already been charged with leaking classified information, and he has been pinpointed by prosecutors as Risen's source regarding the Iran nuclear program.
Although Risen was able to secure a legal victory thanks to the decision by Judge Leonie Brinkema in 2011, the decision to quash the subpoena to force the Pulitzer Prize winner to testify at Sterling's trial has been reversed last year by a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. According to the appeals court, the First Amendment rights Risen has been invoking could not protect him from criminal conduct that he himself has participated in or personally witnessed.
The US Supreme Court is Risen's last resort, and perhaps all US reporters and news organizations who fear of compromising the confidentiality of their sources or their future inability to promise confidentiality to sources. However, the Supreme Court rejected the reporter's appeal with no explanation, which would mean that it is contending for Risen to testify at Sterling's trial.
In an email to the Post on Monday, Risen said that he will continue to fight and will rather go to prison than revealing his sources. New York Times Executive Director Dean Baquet, called the Supreme Court decision troubling in a statement on the same day.
He said, "Jim Risen is a groundbreaking national security reporter who continues to do powerful work. Journalists like Jim depend on confidential sources to get information the public needs to know. The court's failure to protect journalists' right to protect their sources is deeply troubling."
