What happened to pleading the 5th??

[Keith7]

Why are those San Fransico reporters going to jail for refusing to testify?? I thought that was a right we all had??

[kaorder1999]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

[kaorder1999]

got that from:

5th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/)

Grand Jury is the key word there

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
got that from:

5th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/)

Grand Jury is the key word there

:thumbsup:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
got that from:

5th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/)

Ya i just looked that up myself.. thanks for the answer though..

I respect these guys.. they used there info they obtained to inform the american people of corrupt athletes in this world.. people risked their jobs and practically their lifes to help the authors obtain information to write this book, and now the authors are showing their gratitude by not "narcing" on the sources and are willing to go to jail for it.. I applaud them :clap: :clap: :clap:

Game of Shadows is a great book by the way.. shows a side of sports nobody has ever seen

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by Keith7
Ya i just looked that up myself.. thanks for the answer though..

I respect these guys.. they used there info they obtained to inform the american people of corrupt athletes in this world.. people risked their jobs and practically their lifes to help the authors obtain information to write this book, and now the authors are showing their gratitude by not "narcing" on the sources and are willing to go to jail for it.. I applaud them :clap: :clap: :clap:

Game of Shadows is a great book by the way.. shows a side of sports nobody has ever seen

Those that provided them the information BROKE THE LAW!!! Leaking Grand Jury testimony is ILLEGAL!!!

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Those that provided them the information BROKE THE LAW!!! Leaking Grand Jury testimony is ILLEGAL!!!

YEPPERS

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Those that provided them the information BROKE THE LAW!!! Leaking Grand Jury testimony is ILLEGAL!!!

The people deserved to know!

[raider red 2000]

why do we need to know?

is it right to have someone break the law to have people make money off of the deal?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by raider red 2000

is it right to have someone break the law to have people make money off of the deal?

oh no, this could turn into another anti-bush thread real quick..

but

thats not what i'm saying.. i'm saying that the american people have been lied to for years now about the whole steriod thing and nothing was said about it until these guys broke the story with proof..

if not for these guys we would all be mis-lead into thinking Barry Bonds is the greatest player ever, and Mark McGwire is a close 2nd..

We would have kids growing up in a society where the only way to get ahead is to use steriods.. Is that right??

[District303aPastPlayer]

i dont think they should have to reveal their sources. its common practice to get information from a source and not have to reveal it. If by placing them in front of a grand jury and sayin "hey, we need to know, because we want to prosecute them" would only undermind the entire privelidge sources that reporters can attain. Illegal or not, they are protecting their sources, which is applauded by, im assuming, every reporter in America.

[STANG RED]

The Power To Compel Testimony and Disclosure

Immunity .--''Immunity statutes, which have historical roots deep in Anglo-American jurisprudence, are not incompatible [with the values of the self-incrimination clause]. Rather they seek a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify. The existence of these statutes reflects the importance of testimony, and the fact that many offenses are of such a character that the only persons capable of giving useful testimony are those implicated in the crime.''

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by STANG RED
The Power To Compel Testimony and Disclosure

Immunity .--''Immunity statutes, which have historical roots deep in Anglo-American jurisprudence, are not incompatible [with the values of the self-incrimination clause]. Rather they seek a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify. The existence of these statutes reflects the importance of testimony, and the fact that many offenses are of such a character that the only persons capable of giving useful testimony are those implicated in the crime.''


all I read was blah, blah, blah compel citizens...yadda, yadda, yadda :D


(can you tell it is Friday and I refuse to think today?);) :)

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by raider red 2000
why do we need to know?

is it right to have someone break the law to have people make money off of the deal?

We don't need to know. It doesn't impact the way we live our lives. I could have cared less if MLB players were on steroids. Heck, it was more entertaining when it was a rumor...kinda like people's beliefs that the NBA fixes playoff games with officiating. If we knew the truth...then it would take away the curiousity and the intrigue. That and it would make a lot of talk come playoff time very boring! ;)

[44INAROW]

never mind.. dangit.. I always to that

[Aesculus gilmus]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
We don't need to know. It doesn't impact the way we live our lives. I could have cared less if MLB players were on steroids. Heck, it was more entertaining when it was a rumor...kinda like people's beliefs that the NBA fixes playoff games with officiating. If we knew the truth...then it would take away the curiousity and the intrigue. That and it would make a lot of talk come playoff time very boring! ;)

http://www.jahozafat.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=MP3S&type=Movies&movie=Few_Good_Men&quote=truth.txt&file=truth.mp3

[Underwater Basketweaver]

Originally posted by Keith7
The people deserved to know!

The people don't need to know. The grand jury is put into place to protect the people. There are many cases that are brought before the grand jury that are thrown out because of a lack of supporting evidence. This protects the innocent from false accusations. If you were accused of rape, and you were innocent, would you want your name smeared in the headlines and news stories just because someone accused you. That is why grand jury testimony is considered priveledged. Even if you didn't rape the person, your name would still be associated with it.

[injuredinmelee]

Rickadamus says this:

The authors did not break a law. The person who leaked information to the authors broke the law. This is simply a strong arm tactic by the judge and prosecutors to save face and intimidate. IT is a shame that California does not have a shield law as some states dothat protect reporters and the such. Over all I feel that reporters are slime buckets that are not forced to stand behind the pieces that they write. These guys are slime buckets too and have simply been out from the beginning to make a dollar. Barry Bonds... another slime bucket. I could care less if he juiced I could care less if the authors sit in jail. I sleep every night either way.

[Underwater Basketweaver]

Also, these guys deserved to go to jail unless they reveal their sources. there is no protection in the law for reporter and source priveledge. That is for lawyer and client, or doctor patient. The media has far too much freedom as it is. They shouldn't be allowed to break the law for the purpose of getting a story or making money off of a book.

[Aesculus gilmus]

Originally posted by Underwater Basketweaver
The media has far too much freedom as it is. They shouldn't be allowed to break the law for the purpose of getting a story or making money off of a book.

You're right. And nowadays the law is whatever the executive branch says it is anyhow. We have seen this demonstrated clearly in recent times.

We ought to go ahead and reinstate royalty here. It is very convenient that the current head of the executive branch has the same first name as the one the Founding Fathers so unwisely threw out.

Thomas Jefferson once said if he had to decide "whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

But what did he know? Today he'd no doubt be hauled away to Gitmo for such a seditious statement.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Aesculus gilmus
You're right. And nowadays the law is whatever the executive branch says it is anyhow. We have seen this demonstrated clearly in recent times.

We ought to go ahead and reinstate royalty here. It is very convenient that the current head of the executive branch has the same first name as the one the Founding Fathers so unwisely threw out.

Thomas Jefferson once said if he had to decide "whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

But what did he know? Today he'd no doubt be hauled away to Gitmo for such a seditious statement.
.
Do you scream everytime you see your own shadow? Stop your politically-motivated rantings for goodness sake. With you it's anti-Bush this and anti-Bush that and blah blah blah... Fix the broken record for crying out loud?!!:hand:

[shankbear]

what does that name mean anyway?? a.g.?