4 August 2006

Out with the thieves, in with the journalists

Today’s L’Espresso contains an interview with myself entitled: “Out with the thieves, in with the journalists” I am talking about my views on the measures relating to telephone tapping.

ADP: …. It was necessary to take action in relation to the publication of wiretaps of people that have nothing to do with crimes to put a stop to this sort of justice-system gossip.
Instead, with the excuse of protecting privacy, a draft law has been issued that on the one hand is an obstacle to the work of the prosecutors and on the other hand makes the work of journalists ever more risky.

Espresso: What will the consequences be?
ADP: It will be more difficult to carry out investigations. The draft law in its initial version imposed a maximum time frame of 3 months. I opposed this with all my strength. Further phone taps can be allowed only if new elements are discovered by means of different sources of evidence.
As an example: If on the last day of a 3 month period, the prosecutor hears a criminal announcing the consignment of drugs for the following day, in theory he should not be able to intercept him while it is being carried out because he discovered the crime by listening to the telephone. This is nonsense.
There are kidnappings that last a year and are only uncovered by means of wire-tapping. This law starts off a mechanism of recourse that will get in the way of the wiretaps.

Espresso: The Mastella project even forbids the publication of the contents of all the acts, not only the wire taps, before the investigations have finished. If it were already a law, for example, we would know nothing about the Unipol case. Does that seem like a step forward?
ADP: This norm is too restrictive. It’s good that while the investigations are going on there is no publication of the whole text or the quotes in the acts. On the other hand, it’s not possible to keep public opinion in the dark for so long. It’s good that the contents of the case, or the actual facts are known straight away.
However the measures are too permissive once the proceedings are over, if the case is put on file or there’s no conviction.

Espresso: A journalist who reads a secret document, according to Mastella’s draft law, must go to prison. Doesn’t this seem to you like a norm of a Police State?
ADP: It’s a ridiculous law. Before, a journalist who published secret documents was punished with a fine. Now there’s punishment with imprisonment for simply having a look at a document. Even if nothing is published.
Technically the punishment is brought forward to the state of simple danger (the simple viewing of the papers) without waiting for the damage, which is the publication. It is a mistaken choice aimed at silencing the press.
You can’t punish a journalist for doing his job. The public official who hands him the document should be punished. But can you imagine a journalist who faced with a secret document, closes his eyes and says: “I don’t even want to see it!” ?

Espresso: La Procura di Milano {Milan prosecutors’ office} is investigating illegal wire tapping of journalists. The draft law is not concerned with this. Doesn’t that seem strange to you?
ADP: In this draft law there’s a whole chapter missing. This is relating to illegal wire-tapping. Abuses that are carried out without the control of the judicial authorities.
If the intention were really to protect privacy, it would have been necessary to include an appropriate chapter. But the aim of this draft law is another: to make wire tapping much more difficult for magistrates and to criminalize information. That is not acceptable.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice