According to a story from last year, Brian Ross was already ordered to reveal his sources for that story. Do we know what came of the order of if he complied?

Journalist Ross of ABC Ordered To Disclose Sources

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 28, 2007

A federal judge in New York has ordered a journalist at ABC News, Brian Ross, to disclose the identities of the government sources he relied upon when reporting about the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Mr. Ross is now the sixth reporter to have been ordered to give up sources to assist with a civil lawsuit brought by a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, whom the government named as a "person of interest" in the investigation into the deadly anthrax mailings. Mr. Hatfill, who was never charged with the mailings, is suing the federal government for invading his privacy.

The ruling, signed last week by Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, comes a month after a federal judge in Washington first ordered five reporters from the Washington Post, Newsweek, and other news outlets to name their sources. Since that first order, two of the sources have come forward and identified themselves, according to a letter filed last week by a lawyer for Mr. Hatfill, Charles Kimmett. The letter does not identify the sources beyond saying they are former Justice Department employees, nor does it say to which reporters the sources spoke.

The litigation involving Mr. Ross's sources is proceeding in New York separately because of jurisdictional issues. In the order, Judge Hellerstein, wrote that Mr. Hatfill's interest in learning the sources' identities overcame the First Amendment privilege that protects reporters from testifying about sources.

It is not yet clear whether ABC will appeal the order.

"We believe firmly in honoring promises of confidentiality to our sources, and we are guided by that principle in this case," a spokesman for ABC News, Jeffrey Schneider, said yesterday, declining to comment further.

A lawyer for Mr. Hatfill declined to comment.

I just lack the tools at present to check the status of ABC's compliance with the order (i.e., refused, appealed, stayed pending settlement discussions, etc.)

Maybe we could call it psychological waterboarding.

Step 1) Investigate a suspect in such a way that he feels that is being persecuted, his family threatened, therapist/spies planted, accused of murder.

Step 2) Continue pressure until suspect begins to crack, i.e., paranoia, subtance abuse, etc.

Step 3) Use dumb therapist to document said cracking. Suggest making it public record by having FBI handler file a protective order.

Step 4) After defendant kills self, use evidence created by your investigation techniques to bootstrap claim that suspect was deranged crackpot, without acknowledging your role in cracking said pot.

Step 5) Close case!

Should have read "FBI handler urge therapist to"

Don't drink the Kool-Aid, no matter who happens to be serving it.

That we now have to rely on the Republicans to be the voice of reason in stopping a government run amok. It's the same depression I felt when it seemed like Bob Barr was the only one concerned with our civil liberties.... The worst part about is that our legislators have become so incapable of self-reflection that the Democrats are unlikely to pause and even consider what the republican revolt even means: I.e., some of the republicans are a better republican Opposition team than the Democratic minority is.

No, no, I realize that the Democrats are the Majority. Now please go tell them.

The Post has an article today talking about how they found 1 person in a survey of residents in Prince William County in favor of the bail-out. Just like the telcom immunity issue, this is one where the public is uniformly opposed, and the only people in favor are those who stand to benefit. Just substitute banks and other investment institutions for telcom companies and you have the constituency for this bill.

I'm just sick and tired of the consequences of mistakes never visiting upon those who made them. Iraq war soldiers, Iraqi civilians for that matter, people who bought homes they could afford, and all the other vast categories of people are the people who have paid and are paying the price for the government's mistakes, the banks bad investments, unjustified ars, etc.

I really despise the perception that the biggest problem with the economy is the perceived lack of public confidence in it. The pundits all wring their hands when any event, news item, or statement that might shake the notion that all is well with the economy.

It reminds me too much of the Bush/Petraeus insistence regarding how well things were going in Iraq despite the body count and daily bombing news.

It's an economy, not a religion - it's supposed to run on numbers, not faith. People who are losing faith in the economy are exercising common sense. Telling people to disregard their common sense simply puts off for another day actually dealing with the deficiencies.

Let the problems become manifest. Let the businesses fall. Let the weaknesses in the system become plain, rather than ignoring them and letting future generations deal with the collapse.