Amnesty International Gains Same Rights on Sources as 'NYT' in Court Ruling

By: Amnesty International, citing a federal court ruling, said Wednesday it has the same protection against revealing sources as journalists do when it reports on human rights abuses around the world.

The human rights organization praised a decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky in Brooklyn, saying he had affirmed its right to protect its confidential sources and investigative research under the federal journalists' privilege.

In his Monday ruling, Pohorelsky decided what The New York Times and Amnesty International must reveal to lawyers for Sept. 11 detainees who sued a Brooklyn federal lockup. The lawsuit said the government had unfairly eavesdropped on their conversations with clients.

Lawyers for government officials responsible for the jail sought testimony and evidence from the Times and Amnesty International to try to prove defense lawyers knew about the surveillance more than three years before they sued, meaning the statute of limitations would have expired.

In his ruling, Pohorelsky did not have to decide whether Amnesty International was protected by the privilege because lawyers in the case agreed that it was. But he did consider what evidence would be turned over using legal factors required by the journalists' privilege.

Amnesty International lawyer Wallace Neel said the decision will set a precedent for human rights groups that must rely on help from victims of abuse. In researching the subject, he said, he found no other court had addressed the issue.

He said the judge's decision is "the seminal ruling on the issue in regard to an entity like Amnesty International."

"This is the first judicial recognition of what they have long believed was their right, the right of any journalist to protect their confidential sources," he said. "With that protection in place, their ability to fulfill their mission is greatly aided."

New York Times lawyer David McCraw said the newspaper had not decided whether to appeal the magistrate judge's finding that a reporter might have to testify regarding whether the term "watchful eye" uttered by a lawyer might indicate the lawyer knew surveillance existed.

Raymond Granger, a lawyer for a former regional director of the federal prisons, said he was pleased that the judge "found that we had overcome the assertions of privilege with respect to some of the information and materials we had sought."

The First Amendment privilege protects journalists in their newsgathering efforts from litigants who the judge said might want to rummage through press files when lawyers think information held by reporters might help their cases.

"The damage caused by the required revelation of confidential information is obvious: If sources fear that their identities will be readily subject to exposure, they will be less likely to provide information to journalists, and the press's ability to perform its constitutionally protected function will be compromised," he wrote.