АНУ-ын Холбооны прокурорын газраас “New York Times” сонины таван сэтгүүлчийг аюулгүй байдлын нууцтай холбоотой мэдээлэл нийтэлснийх нь төлөө шүүхэд гэрчээр дуудсан байна.
Катар улсаас хандивласан, L3Harris Technologies компанид шинэчлэн тоноглосон Boeing 747 онгоцны аюулгүй байдлын сул талын талаарх сурвалжилгыг тус сонин нийтэлсний дараа Манхэттений Холбооны прокурор Жэй Клэйтон энэхүү алхмыг хийжээ. Уг агаарын хөлгийн аюулгүй байдалтай холбоотой асуудлаас үүдэн АНУ-ын ерөнхийлөгч Дональд Трамп сүүлийн үеийн гадаад айлчлалууддаа уг онгоцыг ашиглахаас татгалзсан гэх мэдээлэл байна.
“New York Times” сонины зүгээс уг шаардлагыг хэвлэлийн эрх чөлөөнд халдсан үйлдэл хэмээн эсэргүүцэж, хуулийн хүрээнд тэмцэхээ мэдэгдэв. АНУ-ын Хууль зүйн яам сэтгүүлчдийг мөрдөн мөшгих зорилгогүй, харин төрийн нууц задарсан асуудлыг шалгаж байгаа гэсэн байр суурийг илэрхийлжээ.
АНУ-ын хуулиар сэтгүүлчид шүүхэд гэрчээр оролцохоос татгалзах бүрэн эрх байдаггүй бөгөөд холбооны түвшинд сэтгүүлчийн эх сурвалжийг хамгаалах тусгай хууль байдаггүй юм. Хэрэв сэтгүүлчид прокурорын шаардлагыг биелүүлэхээс татгалзвал шүүхийг үл хүндэтгэсэн хэрэгт тооцогдож, торгууль эсвэл баривчлагдах эрсдэлтэй байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
Five New York Times journalists have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury this week after reporting on alleged security vulnerabilities involving a Qatari-donated Air Force One aircraft that reportedly prompted President Donald Trump to abandon the jet for recent overseas trips.
The subpoenas, issued Friday by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, order the reporters to appear Wednesday “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law.”
According to an internal email from Executive Editor Joe Kahn, reviewed by Reuters, the reporters were targeted after publishing stories detailing what the newspaper described as security shortcomings involving the modified Boeing 747, which was donated by Qatar and refitted by defense contractor L3Harris Technologies.
The Times blasted the move as an attack on press freedom.
Its chief lawyer called the subpoenas “a brazen attempt to intimidate journalists” and said the newspaper will fight them in court.
The Justice Department declined to confirm or deny the subpoenas but told Reuters it is focused on investigating leaks of classified information, not prosecuting journalists.
The clash highlights the limited legal protections available to reporters facing federal subpoenas.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not confer on journalists a blanket right to refuse to testify before a grand jury. Federal courts have recognized a limited privilege for reporters, but those protections are significantly weaker in criminal investigations than in civil cases. While many states, including New York, have shield laws protecting journalists’ sources, no federal shield law exists.
Justice Department rules require senior-level approval before reporters can be subpoenaed and direct prosecutors to consider whether the information is essential, available elsewhere and whether negotiations with the news organization should occur first.
Both Republican and Democratic administrations have pursued reporters’ testimony in leak investigations. But press freedom advocates argue that the Trump administration has relied too heavily on subpoenas and search warrants targeting journalists, citing past cases involving reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. The administration has consistently said it is targeting leakers, not members of the press.
The Times is expected to ask a judge to throw out the subpoenas, arguing they are overly broad, violate First Amendment protections, or fail to comply with Justice Department policy. While those internal guidelines are not legally binding, courts can weigh them when deciding whether subpoenas should stand.
The Justice Department has previously withdrawn grand jury subpoenas issued to Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters after those organizations challenged them in court. Earlier this year, press freedom groups also criticized the FBI after agents searched the home of a Washington Post reporter as part of a leak investigation.
If prosecutors grant the reporters immunity, they would lose their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Refusing to testify after that could result in contempt of court, exposing them to fines or jail until they comply, though the Times could separately challenge any contempt order.
