I think it's necessary to point out that journalists should not be compelled to reveal their sources by any government functionary such as the courts.

But would you agree that a court should compel a reporter to reveal a source whose testimony was (to quote from federal and NY law on the matter) "1) highly material, 2) critical to the litigant's claim, and 3) not otherwise available"?

Put another way: if you were on trial for a serious crime you didn't commit, and the only person who could exonerate you was a reporter's anonymous source, and that reporter was refusing to identify the source, do you think you'd feel the same way?

I also wanted to address your phrase "government functionary such as the courts" which I think belies a misunderstanding of the proper role of the courts. While the judiciary is of course one branch of the government, the courts are not intended to be "functionaries" of the government--that is, a functionary of the other two branches, executive and legislative.

The courts are intended to adjudicate cases between the government and citizens, and between citizens and other citizens, in a fair and impartial manner. Judges are human and fallible and sometimes political and often do things that piss us off and all that, but a core founding principal conceived of a "neutral, detached magistrate."

while it is true that you cannot compel a suspect to take a lie detector, i believe the government can and has compelled employees to take one as a condition of continuing to maintain secret clearances and continuing work on highly classified subjects.

Of course you are right about that, but I believe some scientists were investigated after leaving their positions with the government - certainly this was true of Hatfill.

i have read a lot about the anthrax investigation, and i do not recall reading that all scientists with access to government researched anthrax took lie detector tests.

I could have sworn I read it as part of the NYT series of pieces on the story in Saturday's edition. If I find it I'll let you know. I could not find it just now with Google News. The only mention I could find of someone taking a polygraph was Ken Alibek, originally reported by...Brian Ross.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9730 or click my sig.

if ivins was the primary suspect in the anthrax terrorist attack...why was he not declared an enemy non-combatant and taken into detention where he could have questioned in detail and protected from suicide?

That's a pretty good question.

were they even forced to take lie detector tests?

I believe I read somewhere that one of Ivins' colleagues (possibly it was Hatfill?) said that they all took lie detector tests.

A suspect cannot be compelled to take a lie detector test. Well, at least in jurisdictions like mine where the fifth amendment is still good law. I'm not really sure what the feds are up to these days.

Glenn, I believe there is a much higher imperative that Brian Ross be compelled to reveal his four Bentonite sources than you or Kevin Drum discuss.

In federal law, there is no journalistic privilege shielding a reporter from revealing a source who is a material witness in a criminal investigation, especially a capital murder case. For that reason, it's immaterial whether the sources appear to have provided false imformation. For that reason, Judy Miller was held in contempt, spent months in prison, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear her case.

If I understand correctly, the government's theory is that the anthrax came from the same lab that tested the samples recovered from the letters. The natural inference is Ross's four sources either worked at that lab or received their (mis)information from someone at the lab. Assuming the goverment's theory, the Bentonite story appears designed - at very least - to direct suspicion away from the true source of the anthrax.

That is prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice and a strong inference that Ross's sources are material witnesses, basis for a subpoena for him to reveal their identities.

Although grand jury proceedings are sealed, I think we have to assume Ross has not provided his sources to DoJ, otherwise I think ABC would have relied on that as their basis for denying your requests to reveal the sources.

While I agree with the rest of your well-reasoned article, I would suggest that the "material witness" case is the more compelling argument regarding Brian Ross's sources.