上海千花网坊1001

NY Times Journalist Subpoenaed But Won’t Have To ID Source

first_imgSign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York Facing stiff pressure from press freedom groups concerned that an American journalist could be jailed for essentially doing his job, the Justice Department has declined to force James Risen, a veteran New York Times reporter, to reveal the identity of a source who allegedly leaked him classified information.In court documents filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that Risen would never reveal the source’s identity. The Justice Department’s case stems from a section of Risen’s book State of War, in which he describes a failed CIA attempt at sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program.“Under no circumstances would he provide such testimony,” Holder said.Risen, a Pulitzer Prize winner, has repeatedly said he would go to jail instead of revealing the name of his source, even if compelled by a federal court to do so. Yet his legal battle with the government will continue, even despite Holder’s apparent concession. Included in the court filing was authorization from Holder to federal prosecutors to subpoena Risen in the trial of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who court documents from Risen’s federal appeals hearing identify as a former CIA officer once assigned to a “highly classified program intended to impede Iran’s efforts to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”Sterling was reassigned in May 2000, and three months later filed a complaint alleging that he was discriminated against by the agency. A year later he also filed a federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination, which was dismissed in 2004. The day after Sterling filed the latter, the government alleges he met with two staff members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and expressed concerns about the CIA’s handling of the Iran program, as well as his discrimination complaint. The government alleges Sterling “threatened to go to the press,” according to court documents, and spoke with Risen over the phone and through email less than a month before the reporter contacted the CIA and the National Security Council about the classified program.Prosecutors will be allowed to seek testimony from Risen about the fact he has a confidentiality agreement with his source for Chapter 9 of his book, the section pertaining to an alleged US government plot to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program, and “that he will not breach the agreement,” according to court documents.Risen can also be asked to confirm that he authored the chapter in question, as well as two articles published in the Times in 2001 and 2002, the latter relating to Sterling’s discrimination accusations against the CIA, and that all three “accurately reflect information provided to him by the source.” Prosecutors may also seek acknowledgment from Risen stating he had a prior non-confidential relationship with Sterling.It’s unclear if Holder’s decision not to force Risen to identify his source will improve an already tenuous relationship with press freedom groups, which have been critical of Holder’s pursuit of Risen’s testimony and its unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers.Facing pressure from the US government, the Times agreed not to publish information about the classified program, so Risen included it in his book instead.Risen had exhausted all his legal avenues after the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear his appeal.Risen has had the backing of some of the most influential press freedom groups in the country. In August, the Committee to Protect Journalists delivered to the DOJ a petition containing 100,000 signatures in support of Risen.The reporter has not been silent on the matter. He has repeatedly called President Obama “the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”Risen was also the subject of a 60 Minutes segment in October, called “War on Leaks.” When asked if he would divulge his source, Risen responded: “Never, no. Basically, the choice the government’s given me is: Give up everything I believe or go to jail. So I’m not going to talk.”last_img read more

Maersk’s Fuel Costs Set to Rise by USD 2 Bn from 2020 Sulphur Cap

first_imgThe annual fuel bill of Danish shipping giant A.P.Moller Maersk is set to increase by USD 2 billion a year, at least, amid rising costs from the implementation of the 0.5 percent sulfur cap in 2020.Simon Bergulf, director for regulatory affairs at A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, told Bloomberg that the issues stemming from the new regulations have almost created a perfect storm, taking into account the expected tight availability of compliant fuels and required investments in infrastructure and research.As informed, the company spent USD 3.37 billion on fuel last year, meaning the new regulations are likely to almost double these expanses.Maersk plans to comply with the new rules by using low sulphur fuel. The company said earlier that it was not investing in scrubbers taking into account various operational concerns.As part of its efforts to ensure availability of compliant fuel, earlier this month Maersk tamed up with Royal Vopak, an independent tank storage operator, on a project aimed at launching 0.5 percent sulphur fuel bunkering facility in Rotterdam.Under the project, Maersk will be able to supply its ships with compliant fuel at Vopak’s modified facilities at Vopak Terminal Europoort.The 2020 sulphur regulation, which will ban ships from using any marine fuel with a sulphur content above 0.5 pct as of January 1, 2020, is expected to impose a heavy burden on owners as the annual fuel costs for the shipping industry are likely to jump by up to USD 60 billion, including by USD 10 billion for the containership sector alone.Fears have been raised that some owners might opt to dodge the regulations and not invest in compliant fuels as paying a fine for non-compliance would be much cheaper. Maersk CEO Soren Skou said earlier this year that the only way for creating a level playing field with the new regulation would be strong enforcement, including banning of non-compliant ships.World Maritime News Stafflast_img read more