Forgive us our understatement, but when the man who was chief spokesman for former Attorney General John Ashcroft criticizes the Bush administration for a “reckless abuse of power,” you know there is reason to be concerned about the anti-press offensive now being waged by Ashcroft’s successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Mark Corralo, Ashcroft’s former spokesman, Tuesday said subpoenas issued to two San Fancisco Chronicle reporters by Gonzales were so legally baseless that the administration “should be ashamed of themselves.”
Gonzales sought the subpoenas as part of his effort to find the sources for the Chronicle’s 2004 series detailing the use of performance-enhancing drugs by Barry Bonds and other star athletes. The articles were based in part on grand jury testimony. The Chronicle Wednesday filed a legal motion to quash the subpoenas calling on reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams to identify their source or sources. If the subpoenas stand, the reporters could go to jail unless they reveal the sources.
The Chronicle case was one of five incidents cited in this month’s New York Law Journal by James C. Goodale in an article titled: “Bush’s war against the press.” The others are:
Gonzales has suggested he is seriously considering indicting The New York Times for publishing its Pulitzer Prize-winning story on the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program.
The FBI has been reported to have been taping reporters’ phones.
The FBI is seeking 20-year-old classified documents from the estate of the late investigative reporter Jack Anderson.
The administration is seeking to turn the 1917 Espionage Act into an equivalent of Great Britain’s Official Secrets Act, effectively end-running the First Amendment.
Goodale is the former general counsel and vice chairman of The New York Times who led the paper to victory in the Pentagon Papers case. Because of his background, conservatives might be tempted to dismiss his carefully researched criticism as reflecting a liberal bias against the Republican administration.
But when Goodale’s views are echoed by Corralo, even conservatives have to consider where this administration is heading. Corallo left the Justice Department in 2005, and his public relations firm now represents, among others, White House adviser Karl Rove.
In an affidavit filed in federal court, Corallo said Gonzales had acted improperly in issuing the subpoenas against the Chronicle. In Ashcroft’s era, Corralo said, the standard for seeking a subpoena was, “It has to be a matter of grave national security or impending physical harm to innocent people, not just, ‘Well, this is the only way we’re going to be able to get this information.”‘
Corallo isn’t alone questioning Gonzales’ reckless course. Stephen Spruiell, media critic for National Review Online, wrote: “I think I agree with Mark on this one, although we might draw the line in different places. I wouldn’t oppose a subpoena on, say, the NYT’s NSA story. But steroids in baseball? On the list of threats to our country, I think the Shambino ranks pretty low.”
We, in turn, can’t agree with Spruiell that a subpoena might be justified in The New York Times case. But in any event, Gonzales, on ABC’s “This Week” May 21, said he is considering going far beyond a subpoena and actually indicting the newspaper for publishing the important wiretapping story. To seek such a draconian recourse, Gonzales would have to show that the Times story resulted in “direct, and irreparable damage to our nation and its people.”
To the contrary, damage to the nation was caused by the decision to conduct an eavesdropping program without proper court warrants. Gonzales’ threat of criminal prosecution of The Times is just further proof of how far off the deep end the Justice Department has now gone.
