But before I go any further, let me say one other thing.  It seems to have turned out that the whole "confession" was basically a hoax perpetrated by McVeigh's lawyer, Steven Jones, in an attempt to get another potential suspect to confess himself.  In addition to that being a stupid scheme the likes of which Matlock wouldn't even touch, it strikes me as wrong.  Granted, we haven't confronted that question in my Ethics class yet (yes, lawyers have ethics), but as a lawyer-in-training, specifically one who may very well defend criminal suspects in the future, I am offended that an attorney would fabricate such "evidence".  So to all those who think this just confirms that lawyers are greedy corrupt shysters who's only intent is to keep dangerous criminals on the street, I apologize.  We ain't all like that! 

Back to the business at hand, namely the tension between various rights.  One of the little problems of the Bill of Rights is that the individual liberties set up by the Founding Fathers seem to exist in a vacuum.  Specifically, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding a problem of conflicting rights.  Just for comparison's sake, the Canadian Charter of Rights^*, written and enacted in the 1980s, contains a provision which recognizes the possibility of conflict between certain rights and sets up a scheme for dealing with that.  Our Constitution is silent on that, and as far as I know the Supreme Court hasn't really laid out any rules either. 

But here in the real world, we know that rights are constantly in conflict, such as they are in the McVeigh fracas.  The question is, how do we decide which right trumps, or do we really need to? 

Undoubtedly, the folks at the Dallas Morning News had a right to do what they did.  And were the circumstances different, I think we'd all agree it would be a good thing.  For example, would anyone really complain if the documents they acquired conclusively proved that Bill Clinton was the lackey of Chinese big money interests?  Probably not, since the consequences would not be criminal, only political (even if the acts were illegal, he would probably not face charges if he resigned).  But the Bill of Rights doesn't give anyone the right to an unblemished political record, no right to a fair trial of public opinion. 

In this case, of course, McVeigh also has a right to a fair trial, and particularly not to incriminate himself against his will.  But should the courts step in to protect that right at the expense of the paper's rights?  I would have to say no.  Firstly, it's not clear that the DMN story will sway people, especially since in the end it appears the paper got it all wrong anyway.  But assuming the confession was genuine, I still think any pre-publication injunction would be dangerous.  After all, almost any sort of secret document leaked to a news organization is bound to deal with possible criminal violations.  And how far do we go to protect subjects?  Taken to a logical extreme, one might see where a local newspaper might not be able to publish a police blotter because of unfair pre-trial publicity. 

Perhaps the solution rests in the ethics of the journalists themselves.  Personally, I think the DMN could have held on to this story until the trial was over and used it as either a "They Got the Right Man, Read This!" sort of piece or a "Justice Sidestepped by Slick Lawyers, Again!" kind of thing.  As big of news as it could have been, it really doesn't contribute to anything now.  It only poisons the trial atmosphere, an atmosphere already tainted by all the press this case has generated in the first place.  Of course, who knows if the story would have moved to another newspaper, or CNN, or wherever would be willing to run the story for ratings/circulation reasons.  Bottom line:  Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should exercise it without thinking of the consequences. 

On a somewhat related note, I'd just like to say that this whole thing would probably be moot if Clinton and Janet Reno had not gone on television right after the Oklahoma City bombing proclaiming their desire to execute the perpetrators.  With that edict hanging over the trial like a vulture, neither of the defendants have a reason to plead guilty, and might as well try their luck with a jury.  A slightly less cavalier attitude on the part of the President and Attorney General may have ended this whole shindig a long time ago with McVeigh and Nichols locked away for a long, long time.  Of course, that's another discussion entirely.