A classic journalistic drama is being played out in front of the US Supreme Court over the sanctity of guarding the identity of a reporter's sources versus a government that does not particularly like an unfettered media.

The case involves two of the most venerated institutions of the American media, The New York Times and Time magazine, on the one side and the government that has invoked national security to force the two to reveal the identity of their sources.

Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine are being hauled over the coals for trying to guard their sources who gave out the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative, Valerie Plame, some two years ago. Both could face possible jail sentence up to 18 months over something that journalists have considered their unimpeachable right - never to reveal the source of their story.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has argued that the two reporters have broken the law of the land by unmasking a CIA operative's identity, something that was first done by a well-known conservative columnist, Robert Novak.

Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court has said unless the two reporters testify about their confidential sources before a grand jury they should prepare to go to jail. The grand jury is looking into the violation of the law in the disclosure of Plame's identity.

There are reports that Novak collaborated with Fitzgerald, a suggestion that the columnist has categorically denied. "If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness," Novak was quoted as saying in the Times.

"The only way we operate in this society, in a democratic society, is by the rule of law and to have people obey court orders," Judge Hogan was quoted as saying in The New York Times.

The case took a dramatic turn Thursday when Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc., decided to hand over Cooper's notes subpoenaed by the authorities.

"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, including the right to gather information of interest to the public and, where necessary, to protect the confidentiality of sources," the magazine said in a statement.

"Time Inc. believes in that guarantee. That is why we have supported from the outset the efforts of Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in resisting the Special Counsel's attempts to obtain information regarding Cooper's confidential sources. Time Inc. and Cooper have fought this case all the way from the district court to the Supreme Court of the United States," Pearlstine said.

"In this particular case, where national security and the role of a grand jury
have been at issue, the Supreme Court chose to let stand the district court's order requiring Time Inc. and Cooper to comply with the Special Counsel's subpoenas. It did so after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed that order," the statement said.

"In declining to review the important issues presented by this case, we believe that the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society. It may also encourage excesses by overzealous prosecutors.

"It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has left uncertain what protections the First Amendment and the federal common law provide journalists and their confidential sources" it said.

"Despite these concerns, Time Inc. shall deliver the subpoenaed records to the Special Counsel in accordance with its duties under the law. The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity. The innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even Presidents have followed orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by the rule of law and that none of us is above it," he said.

"We believe that our decision to provide the Special Prosecutor with the subpoenaed records obviates the need for Matt Cooper to testify and certainly removes any justification for incarceration," he said. Time's decision was said to have been taken over protests from Cooper.

Time's stand has potentially put Miller of the Times in a tight corner although she has said she would prefer a jail term to revealing her sources.