MSNBC: Appeals Court rules Journalists must testify in CIA leak case

[Pirate Smile]

edit to add link:

Court: Reporters Must Testify in Plame Case
Compiled From Staff and Wire Reports
Tuesday, February 15, 2005; 10:22 AM


A U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that two journalists must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in an investigation into a leak that exposed the identity of a covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The three-judge panel ruled that New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine must comply with a subpoena from a grand jury investigating whether the Bush administration illegally leaked the agent's name to the news media.

"There is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought," Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion that went against the two journalists. The decision upheld a ruling by a federal judge that Miller and Cooper were in contempt of court and should be jailed for refusing to testify about their confidential sources.

Plame's name was published by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25744-2005Feb15.html

[H2O Man]

2. Yes!

I had just posted this on GD!

[Pirate Smile]

4. Pete Williams was bringing up the question about Novak which is what

I want to know.

Why haven't they subpoenaed him or have they and we just don't know.

[Eloriel]

21. They haven't and I suspect that's because

they (well, the prosecutor) wants to build a nice, big, fat case all around him based on others' testimony and THEN bring him in. ( Some might consider this a perjury trap.)

This victory is a nice aid as well.

I want to emphasize that what I've said is pure speculation on my part. Okay, and part wishful thinking too. :evilgrin:

[hezekkia]

78. this is such an important constitutional issue...

don't be surprised if the Supreme Ct. takes a crack at it. especially since this area of the law is murky at best.

[Skittles]

95. there's nothing "murky" about OUTING CIA AGENTS

and there's nothing "murky" either about the Supreme Court who can be counted on to whore for bush since THEY are the ones who made the thieving bastard "president"

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

Wow.!!! What are the real effects of this?

[paineinthearse]

3. Excellent! The house of cards begins to fall! nt

[napi21]

5. I don't know if I like this or not!

On one hand, I want the source of the Plame info punished, but the other side is that there will be much lesss information on all other things leaked to any reporter because the source won't want to take the chance of being found out. I think the furtherr tightening of an already closed mouth administration is worse than not knowing about the Plame leaker.

[rucky]

10. This is a unique situation where words endangered lives.

and everybody who leaked, wrote, printed and published it were aware of that.

[Pirate Smile]

11. That is what is so warped about this situation. We want whistle blowers

from inside the government to leak information the government is trying to hide from the public.

Instead this is a case of a government leak to try to smear their political enemies.

I want to encourage the whistle blower leaks also.

Generally, I don't want journalists to have to reveal their sources so, you are right, this case causes a lot of conflicted feelings. Of course, it does have its own special circumstances.

F@#king Novak!

[Me.]

14. Exactly

But in addition it is about crimes being committed and then being "leaked" to journalists as a means of destroying someone's (Wilson) credibility and as a method of covering their asses. This admin has been really good at misdirecting the eye and making black seem white. This is not in any sense a whistleblowers case. It was a deliberate act of treason as defined by *ush I.

[Pirate Smile]

22. Any court decisions will need to be very narrowly tailored so they

wont be used by the Government to stifle the good whistle blowers.

[Me.]

26. Apparently

The decision was reached using previous decisions by the SC. As for whistle blowers, this admin has already endangered them, using claims of national security (Sibel Edmonds) as the reason, and/or employing a system of draconian payback for everyone who tries to tell the truth. Look at the smear jobs (or work-ups as they call them) that have been done on Paul O'Neil, Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson, to name a few.

[lostnfound]

19. If applied this week to Judith Miller, next week might be Seymour Hersh.

It's darn hard to celebrate any victory when these guys have the power to keep turning them against the people.

[Pirate Smile]

24. Right and the ruling was not limited in any way. The Appeals Court said

there is no special exception for journalists regardless of the circumstances - ANY journalists. They have to turn over evidence just like anyone else.

This current Administration has NO checks and balances on it so the only way we find ANYTHING out that they don't want us to know is through leaks.

[cestpaspossible]

48. Only if you ignore the facts.

Hersh works to expose the truth, Miller is working to hide and obscure it. Miller is protecting a criminal. Hersh exposes criminals.

[lostnfound]

70. This administration consistently ignores facts

and so do their appointed judges

[cestpaspossible]

74. And the earth is round. So what.

I don't understand your point.... the administration ignores the facts... therefore we should ignore the facts? wtf? you've lost me.

[shadowknows69]

Im with you napi

normally I would never want a reporter to be made to reveal a source, but in this case the only way to get to the real criminals behind this is to reveal that source. This source isn't deep throat, he's not aiding the public trust by exposing a corrupt politician. It was a politically motivated leak that endangered lives. I think the court made the right call as long as they can make the distinction between the two situations.

[KansDem]

65. In this case, the "journalists" are PART of the crime...

They are not using confidential sources to report on a crime already committed or corruption goings-on, but rather, they are part of the crime for without them, the crime would not have been committed (in it's entirety).

I think this is where this particular situation differs from the general run-of-the-mill First Amendment cases...

But then, I'm neither a lawyer nor Constitutional scholar, so what the Hell do I know? :shrug:

[merh]

67. Wrong, this has been the law since 1972.

A journalisth cannot hide behind the 1st amendment if he/she is an accessory or accomplice to a crime.

The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665

If a guy calls the journalist and says "hey, I can give you an exclusive on the bank robberies that have been occurring lately. Come pick me up and I will take you to a place where you can view one in progress." Then the journalist picks up the guy, drives him to the bank and the guy robs it. The journalist gets his exclusive and his driving the guy to the bank makes him an accessory before fact. If he drives him away from the bank, he is an accomplice or an accessory after the fact.

Can the journalist hide behind the 1st amendment because he was able to report an exclusive on the robbery? No, of course not.

This is not new, does not set any scary precedents. This has been the law since 1972. Folks, stop talking silliness. The Plame leak was a crime - the revealing and outing of a covert CIA operative, it was not a whistleblower in the government telling of corruption. Stop mixing the issues, stop confusing the facts!

[lyonn]

68. As far as I know only Novak revealed the leak story

So the MSM needs to find out why he hasn't been before the g/jury. I figure Novak has already squealed. Maybe they are squeezing others to cover for Novak. Can't figure out how this would help the Bush bunch/leaker? Once again things seem to be going in circles. Nothing makes sense.

[merh]

71. The others that were subpoenaed were supplied the information,

I believe they chose not to go with it until Novak leaked it. IMHO, Novak is a target of the investigation and prosecution will not be calling him since federal practice requires that prosecutors advise targets that they are subjects of the investigation. As a target, he would probably plead the 5th. Nothing is going in circles, there are rules to follow and precedents to observe when investigating such a matter. The wheels of justice may be turning slowly, but we know they are still turning.

[cestpaspossible]

120. I think Novak is one of the targets of the investigation.

He actually committed a crime by knowingly revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative. So he is not in the same class as these other journalists, whose testimony is being sought in order to gather evidence to be used in charging Novak and his source.

[jazzjunkysue]

130. Because the people who leaked it know who decided to out her

and that's treason. We're hoping one of Bush's top people decided to take revenge for telling the truth on the yellow cake. I vote for Cheney, or maybe Rove. Someone made the decision, and we want a name. Now, we're going to get it.

Let's see who's willing to die to cover up for the smirkmonkey, now.

[applegrove]

6. They need to use MRI as lie detectors too!

:toast: :party: :bounce: :beer: :kick: :bounce: :toast: :party:

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

7. I will supply the MRI.

[applegrove]

32. They really can do lie detector tests where they 'calibrate' the

person's ability to lie by looking inside their brain. They can also tell who sociopaths are using MRI (or whatever) exams too. I for one will jump for joy when the science is improved enough to be acceptable in court.

Not happy that these creeps used the idea of 'the press & their sources' to hide behind a leak. But I guess you have to go after all the tools the monsters use, or all the ways that monsters will warp things to suit their needs, if you want to make the world a better place. I still worry. But I think they said somewhere than Plame's colleagues may have been all jeopardized. And I think the issue is so important, that it has to be addressed so it doesn't happen again. Otherwise there really isn't anything stopping them.

[HereSince1628]

8. But they may become martyrs by clamming up and going to jail

Now, jail is exactly where I would like some of them to be, so this might be a win win situation.

I can imagine nothing more "righteous" then a guilty reporter appealing to first amendment privileges

[Kber]

20. Yeah but the fucked up thing is that the two reporters in question

did NOT publish Plame's identity, at least not until after Novak did. I don't understand why they are being punished while Novak is free?!

[TahitiNut]

23. That makes them 'material witnesses' ...

... without even the specious protection of confidentiality for the source of a story - since there was no 'story'.

[jayctravis]

92. Ironically, jail might be the safest place for them at the moment.

If they are witnesses, we don't want them flying on planes.

[HootieMcBoob]

9. I'm assuming this includes Novak

If so this is very good news in my opinion.

[Pirate Smile]

12. No, only Miller and Cooper. Pete Williams wondered if Fitzgerald

would now subpoena Novak (who he said Fitzgerald has been circling).

[HootieMcBoob]

77. I can't figure out why he hasn't yet

unless he's collecting information from the others before he calls on the big fish.

[susu369]

13. Judge David Sentelle - ????????????

Something's wrong with this picture.

[lostnfound]

16. You're right -- Sentelle named daughter after Reagan..

"Protégé of Lauch Faircloth and Jesse Helms, formerly GOP senators from the great tobacco-growing state of North Carolina? The Sentelle who loyally named his daughter “Reagan” after the president who appointed him to the federal bench? The impartial jurist handpicked by Rehnquist to drive Bill Clinton from office"

[susu369]

18. Thanks for the backup

Sentelle has never been on "our side" before.

[lyonn]

69. Ah ha

Was going to search him out but thanks to you I don't have to. Knew there had to be a connection.

[lancdem]

36. Yeah, he's one of the judges

who gave us Ken Starr as a "special" prosecutor. :eyes:

He's as RW as they come.

[madrchsod]

15. these two "reporters" are

involved in a case fitz was working in chicago. he was going after the saudi charity funding of terrorists in the chicago area. during the investagation of these two ,he ran across phone records of these two calling the saudi`s in chicago day or two before the feds raided the buildings. somehow all the records they wanted were gone and fitz lost important evidence and his case fell apart.
all this sounds like someone in the whitehouse wants to protect the saudi`s and purge the cia and they did a pretty good job of it so far.
one of the reporters have ties to the saudi`s...

[E-Z-B]

17. Here's another link

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20050215/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc&printer=1

[underpants]

25. Seriously can anyone explain why Novak isn't named in this?

Is this just the discovery of who may have leaked it (Cooper and Miller were doing research but never published on it) TO Novak and charges against him may follow from the grand jury investigation?

:shrug:

[Me.]

30. Yes, In One Sense

It is a matter of elimination, and as things stand, Fitz cannot go before a judge and demand Vacula testify until every avenue for obtaining the information has been explored and come up dry. Only until there is no other way to get the answer can he be compelled to testify. As for charges, he can't be charged for the act of the leak, but there has been an ongoing debate here at DU, if obstruction charges, could in any way be brought to bear.

[txaslftist]

100. Sure...Novak isn't a target because he already cooperated...

He's undoubtedly already told the authorities his source for the information, along with his excuse "I didn't know she was a SECRET agent."

They're going after the other reporters to whom the story was leaked to corroborate the info. he's already spilled.

Please don't assume that some stooge like Novak is going to risk going to jail to protect anyone. He's a typical ambitious talking head, and he's not going to take the fall for anyone.

[jazzjunkysue]

131. Maybe they'll name Novak, and he'll have to spill where he got it.

[ArnoldLayne]

27. Maybe now when they talk to Novak and Jeff Gannon

they will finally implicate Karl Rove and many others in the Bush Administration.:bounce:

[me b zola]

31. I'm thinking that Gannon will disappear

eom

[Me.]

34. I Think So Too

I think he was out there as a means of misdirecting the eye. Also. it is important to remember that Vacula, Miller and Cooper etc., were not the whistle blowers in this case. Joseph Wilson was when he said the premise for going to war based on a purchase of yellow cake, was false. The journalists in question were part of the hit squad sent out to punish him.

[Dinger]

122. Yup, "Suicided," Just Like Hatfield, Baxter, etc., etc.

You know the lies . . . He got more and more depressed, blah blah blah

[Zan_of_Texas]

45. Gannon was previously subpoenaed by the Chicago US attorney

according to an article I saw yesterday.

Don't know if he testified.

[txaslftist]

101. of COURSE he testified.

An obvious bottom like that isn't going to refuse to testify on the basis of journalistic ethics. He's not a journalist. He's trying to cut whatever deal he can get.

[Daphne08]

28. I do not see this as a good thing. If a journalist cannot

protect his sources in the matter of 'whistle-blower' information, he will soon have NO sources and we the public will be the losers!

What if this had been the case in the early '70's? Watergate may never have gone further than the break-in.

Sources must be protected by anonymity.

Just my 2 cents.

[loritooker]

50. The Plame outers are not whistleblowers. nt

[Rockerdem]

29. This brings journalists under the same laws as the rest of us

Its about time. Why should these whore asshats have a set of rights different from the rest of us? Im so tired of the whore media and their little special setup. Maybe this will end the despicable use of anonymous sources too. Make whomever wants to fink on you put their names out into the public arena, and stand upright instead of slithering to creeps like Novak. Its beyond the point where people should be held accountable for their own actions.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. No.

>Why should these whore asshats have a set of
>rights different from the rest of us?

First of all, I'm not even sure I'd qualify this as a "right." Many a journalist has been sent to jail for refusing to reveal sources. This isn't exactly a new thing, you know?

Now, that said, a free press serves a special and important function in a democracy. That is an idea older than our form of government, and it was certainly on the minds of the founding fathers when they wrote the 1st amendment.

You are aware that in many cases, the willingness of the reporter to go to jail is the only thing that gets us inside information on how our government operates? You seem to think this is the first case of this happening. There have been literally hundreds of whistle-blowers who've come forward in the past fifty years who wouldn't have done so had the journalists using them as sources been unwilling to go to bat, and go to jail, to protect their identity. It's difficult to express how important a function this is to having an open, accountable government. However, like anything else, it can be abused. This is a case where it's been horribly abused. However, to tar every journalist, and every leaker, with the brush of the Valerie Plame scandal is completely nonsensical. You would have us throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Domitan]

33. Court: Reporters Must Testify in CIA Leak Case

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050215/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc_7

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that two journalists must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in an investigation into a leak that exposed the identity of a covert CIA (news - web sites) operative.


The three-judge panel ruled that New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine must comply with a subpoena from a grand jury investigating whether the Bush administration illegally leaked the officer's name to the news media.


The decision upheld a ruling by a federal judge that Miller and Cooper were in contempt of court and should be jailed for refusing to testify about their confidential sources. Miller and Cooper each face as much as 18 months in prison.

[sonias]

1. Ok we move one step closer.. maybe

(snip)
Floyd Abrams, the lawyer for both reporters, said he would ask the full appeals court to reverse Tuesday's ruling. "Today's decision strikes a heavy blow against the public's right to be informed about its government," Abrams said in a statement.
(/snip)

Sonia

[keopeli]

37. kick

[SW FL Dem]

38. Court Upholds Contempt Rulings in Plame Case, Sulzberger Responds

WASHINGTON (AP) A federal appeals court today upheld a ruling against two reporters who could go to jail for refusing to divulge their sources to investigators probing the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name to the media.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with prosecutors in their attempt to compel The New York Times' Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper to testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources.

"We agree with the District Court that there is no First Amendment privilege protecting the information sought," Judge David B. Sentelle said in the ruling, which was unanimous.

Floyd Abrams, the lawyer for both reporters, said he would ask the full appeals court to reverse this ruling. "Today's decision strikes a heavy blow against the public's right to be informed about its government," Abrams said in a statement.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000800311

[hickman1937]

39. Is Floyd Abrams trying to make a joke?

When in recent times has the media informed us of anything resembling the truth about the bush government? This guy should do stand-up.

[Norquist Nemesis]

40. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Abrams is a laugh riot!

Sorry, it's just an hilarious statement, IMO. I'm aware that many are concerned about this ruling and I can understand the reservations.

But, it seems to me that matters of treason are in a category all their own. Besides, the testimony need not be aired live on network TV.

[MO_Dem]

41. I find it incredible

that these journalists would go to jail to protect the likes of this Guckert/Gannon fake journalist!

[Kagemusha]

42. A right meant to be used to expose wrongdoing

ought not to be used in the service of wrongdoing.

[cestpaspossible]

43. Floyd Abrams' motto: "Ignorance is strength"

"Today's decision strikes a heavy blow against the public's right to be informed about its government," Abrams said in a statement.

I would like to be informed about my government, I would like to know who in my government committed the criminal act of exposing a clandestine CIA operative for political gain.

[Kagemusha]

44. I'm wondering if they really believe that Wilson's wife was

engaging in nepotism on his behalf and that exposing that story was so important that the people who pushed the story have to be protected at all costs.

Or if it's just some grand stand on misguided principle.

[imenja]

79. Next time this decision will apply to a story you do want to hear

and then you'll complain about the authoritarian state censoring the press. The same laws apply, regardless of the content of an article or the nature of the leak or source in question. This ruling makes clear journalists nave NO First Amendment protection to shield sources. The text of the decision is available through the NYT home page.

http://www.nytimes.com/

[cestpaspossible]

82. I disagree with your assertion about me.

You made the following assertion about me: "Next time this decision will apply to a story you do want to hear and then you'll complain about the authoritarian state censoring the press."

I take issue with your ability to know future events and how I will react to them; I don't think you have any such ability.



But leaving your comment about me aside, what is your substantive disagreement with the reasoning contained in the ruling. You are correct when you say This ruling makes clear journalists nave NO First Amendment protection to shield sources.

That's not the ruling I hoped for; but it is indeed what it says. Would you care to say where they went wrong? If you were representing the NY Times, what would your argument be on appeal?

[imenja]

83. the comment was about the law,not you

or perhaps it was in part about you, and myself. I assume you do want some stories reported. We all do. Perhaps I was wrong to assume you care about freedom of the press, but I certainly do. My point is that while everyone is gleefully celebrating this decision, they are also, perhaps without realizing it, heralding restrictions on a free press. I want the identity of the Plame leaker revealed as well, but this decision is concerning. It is based on a 1972 Supreme Court case. Most of us, I would imagine, are surprised to learn journalists have no First Amendment right to conceal sources.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer an alternative argument. I am hardly about to criticize a lawyer as renowned as Floyd Abrams. He evidently argued that journalists enjoy First Amendment protections as well as privileges under DC law. The court clearly recognizes so such freedom.

Your contention that Abrams is committed to ignorance is simply wrong. He's defended many First Amendment cases. He represented the NYT in the Pentagon Papers case. He has also represented _The Nation_ and many other publications. (Here is a site that summarizes some of his cases. http://www.du.edu/~jkehm/anvil/floyd.htm ) His primary professional goal seems to be protecting freedom of speech. That is a life's work I very much admire.

The law and the constitution are not meant to protect only those with whom you happen to agree. I find the ruling troubling when we consider it's broader implications beyond this case. This means that if a White House official disclosed plans about the war in Iraq, an impending war in Iran, or anything about the Bush Administration, journalists would be compelled to reveal his identity if there was an argument that the source had violated some law. In the long run, that hurts all of us.

[cestpaspossible]

84. Actually

Your contention that Abrams is committed to ignorance is simply wrong.

Well I'm sorry I expressed myself so poorly. I didn't mean to make any such contention; I alluded to the Orwellian expression "Ignorance is strength" to highlight what I saw as the irony of using "the public's right to know" as an excuse to cover up official wrongdoing and keep the facts from the public.

[imenja]

85. that really is not his goal

It seems clear to me he has a heartfelt concern for protecting the First Amendment. I am certain, however, that the White House maintains such a view. That, I guess, is stating the obvious.

[cestpaspossible]

86. He's a lawyer. His goal is to win his case.

That is his role. I am not attacking him, I am ridiculing his specious argument. This is not a case of a reporter bravely informing the public, it is a case, at the least, of a reporter covering up wrongdoing on the part of a public official, or at the worst, aiding and abetting a crime.

[imenja]

87. the legal issue

is freedom of speech. As the ruling makes clear, it is whether or not reporters have a First Amendment right to shield their sources. On a legal level, in terms of precedent, the rest is circumstance. I share your outrage at the Plame leak, but it is not worth forsaking freedom of press for the rest of our nation's history, long beyond the Bush administration. I should also point out that only a government official can be prosecuted under the law prohibiting disclosure of the identity of a covert operative. That law does not regulate reporters or ordinary citizens. The law Miller and Cooper may violate is refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena, and it is now clear they will go to jail if they continue that refusal.

Abrams is a Constitutional and civil rights attorney. He does not hire himself out to the highest bidder. You disagree with him on this case, but he has served our country in important ways. An analogy might be the lawyers who represent Muslims charged with terrorism. In do so, they are not defending mass murder of civilians. Rather, they defend due process and the constitutional right to a fair trial. In doing so, they defend all of our rights. Abrams is doing the same thing.

Law has lasting implications beyond the circumstances of any individual case. If you support the ruling in this case, you must be prepared to support its applications in other contexts, in regard to stories you would like to see released. You may wish the legal issue were something other than freedom of the press and the First Amendment, but it is not. The text of today's ruling makes that clear.

[cestpaspossible]

88. BTW

I didn't even criticize his argument before the court. It is this public statement that I criticized:

"Today's decision strikes a heavy blow against the public's right to be informed about its government,"

Mr. Abrams is being dishonest. Because while he may believe, as you obviously do, that that is the long-range effect of the decision, he is committing a lie of omission by overlooking the fact that in the case at issue, his client is attempting to subvert the public's right to be informed about it's government. So I would characterize Mr. Abrams as a liar. If this were simply about defending the First Amendment, he wouldn't have to make this dishonest and deceptive public statement, he could just make his case in court. No, the only reason for him to lie in public like that is a self-serving desire to assuage his own guilt at defending Judith Miller.

[imenja]

90. He's not lying

Their argument is this: the court is compelling the reporters to disclose their sources. The reporters don't want to do that, because if they do, other sources will not trust them and that will influence their ability to report news in the future.

My thinking on this issue has changed a good deal over the months. At first, I didn't see how the informer even was a journalistic source, since the information had been neither solicited nor published. Before the decision today, I felt ambivalent about the issue. I wanted to know the identity of the administration informant, but I understood some of the freedom of press issues. Once I looked through the ruling today, it became clear to me that this was a very bad thing.

Abrams does believe this influences the public's right to know. I laid out a very crude representation of his argument above, but the legal decision summarizes it far more completely. The legal and public arguments are the same. One is couched in legal language, the other a brief statement for the public. Abrams is not a liar. You disagree with him on this issue, which is certainly your right. But you are mistaken to conclude he is lying because his views differ from your own. This case is entirely consistent with his earlier work, such as the Pentagon Papers. For him, the legal issue is central. Ten to twenty years from now, few people will remember Valerie Plame. But this legal decision will stand, unless overruled by the Supreme Court in the meantime. It will be used to keep us from knowing what this or future administrations are up to.

[cestpaspossible]

91. I didn't say

that he is a liar because I disagree with him on some issue. I don't even know what issue is is that you think I disagree with him about or what view of that issue you imagine I hold.

What I did say was than in saying "Today's decision strikes a heavy blow against the public's right to be informed about its government,"
he is committing a lie of omission by overlooking the fact that in the case at issue, his client is attempting to subvert the public's right to be informed about it's government.

That's not an "issue" that I "disagree" with him about. It's Mr. Abrams attempting to deceive the public. Whether his motives are guilt, ego, misplaced professional zeal, self-delusion or some twisted belief that the ends justify the means is of no concern to me.

[imenja]

116. I realize that isn't how you see it

and your outrage about the Plame leak is well placed. I believe, however, you are mistaken to direct that anger toward the attorney. The Bush White House are the culprits here, and it is they who must be help accountable.

For Abrams, and also in objective terms, this decision does limit the public's right to be informed about it's own government. Informants will be far less likely to talk to reporters now, because they know the reporters have no legal right to protect their identity. While every one of us realizes the leak about Plame's identity was unjustifiable, this decision will have the effect of limiting future revelations about the activities of our government, incidents like Abu Ghraib. I realize you see the incidents in very different terms, but from the court's perspective, in terms of legal protections for journalists, they are identical. I cannot stand Judith Miller. I have trouble understanding why the Times has not fired her. But sadly this decision does not simply cover her and Matt Cooper. I can't help but think about Sy Hersch. He is an exemplary reporter who benefits from many government informants. When they speak to him, they violate federal law. Any revelation of classified information is illegal. Reporters like Hersch can find themselves forced to reveal sources under this decision.

The point I'm trying to impress is that this decision does not exist outside of it's future consequences. In the case of Plame, the effect of the ruling is that we may learn more rather than less. But in it's implications beyond this case, the decision limits the public's right to know. That was the point of Abrams statement. He asked the court to specify under what circumstances journalists could legitimately be compelled to reveal sources. It seems, according to this ruling, reporters are protected in no circumstances. That is indeed troubling.

[cestpaspossible]

117. So why did Abrams lie? Was it ego? Misplaced zeal? Guilt?

Floyd Abrams is a liar. The only question is why is he trying to deceive the public.


By the way, you clearly don't like the decision because of what you see as its effect. However, that doesn't address the issue of whether it was a legally correct decision.

[imenja]

123. this really is a lost cause

Every time someone conceives of a thought that is different from your own does not make it a lie. That you see it as such demonstrates a deliberate refusal to try to consider various sides of an issue. I don't know why you refuse to understand the issues in the case, other than you must welcome an end to reporting on classified activities. Apparently you prefer not to know about incidents like Abu Ghraib and operations in Iran. If that's the case, you've won. I thought based on your earlier posts you might really care about the public right to know. Evidently I was mistaken. I would not have bother engaging in this discussion with you had I realized that was the case.

[cestpaspossible]

125. You've misrepresented my comments again.

Every time someone conceives of a thought that is different from your own does not make it a lie.

NO FUCKING KIDDING.

However, it is a lie when someone intentionally omits the relevant facts from a public statements in order to mislead the public.


No matter how many times your repeat the falsehood that I think anyone who disagrees with me is lying, it remains a falsehood - something that I never said, or implied, and something that I have specifically denied. Again, I don't even know where you think I disagree with Abrams or what issue it is that you think is the basis for that disagreement.


Abrams is fighting to hide the truth from the public, and in the process he is actively trying to deceive the public. Abrams is a liar, plain and simple,

[cestpaspossible]

46. The essence of disingenuity:

Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of The New York Times, issued this statement: "We are deeply dismayed at the U.S. Court of Appeals decision to affirm holding Judith Miller in contempt, and at what it means for the American public's right to know. If Judy is sent to jail for not revealing her confidential sources for an article that was never published, it would create a dangerous precedent that would erode the freedom of the press.

"The protection of confidential sources was critically important to many groundbreaking stories, such as Watergate, the health-threatening practices of the tobacco industry and police corruption. The Times will continue to fight for the ability of journalists to provide the people of this nation with the essential information they need to evaluate issues affecting our country and the world. And we will challenge today's decision and advocate for a federal shield law that will enable the public to continue to learn about matters that directly affect their lives."

But Miller DID NOT help the public 'know' anything. First of all, the underlying scandal - who committed the crime - is what Miller is attempting to hide, and let's not forget that she did not publish an article on the topic -- she did not "provide the people of this nation with the essential information" -- she participated in a coverup of the essential information.

This Orwellian argument that uses the public's "right to know" as a reason to keep the public from knowing important information reveals the utter moral bankruptcy of Mr. Sulzberger.

[mmonk]

49. The press was not acting in the public's interest,

they were working in the President's interest which means it in no way endangers the public's right to know for them to be forced to answer.

[txaslftist]

102. Whoa...whoa...whoa...

Miller didn't run a story in the first place because for whatever reason she was uncomfortable with it. She was uncomfortable outing Valerie Plame, or she didn't consider her source reliable.

Her source is the person who gave her Plame's name as a CIA agent under condition of anonymity. By not giving up his (the source's) name, she's upholding a promise she made to that source.

The question is really rather narrow. She made a promise the law says she cannot make, that is, to keep someone's name a secret. Her choices are stark and simple. Keep her promise and go to jail for violating the law, or betray her word and avoid jail by outing her source.

She's not part of any cover-up or political hit. She never ran a story.

She knows if she outs her source, all of her inside info will dry up and she won't have any more sources, and her career is over.

She has a choice of going to jail or ending her career. Not an enviable position to be in, but that's one of the hazards of being a journalist.

[cestpaspossible]

118. You are substituting speculation for fact.

Miller didn't run a story in the first place because for whatever reason she was uncomfortable with it. She was uncomfortable outing Valerie Plame, or she didn't consider her source reliable.

All of that is simply speculation on your part.


Her source is the person who gave her Plame's name as a CIA agent under condition of anonymity. By not giving up his (the source's) name, she's upholding a promise she made to that source.

That is also speculation. We simply don't know if any of the things you are asserting are true.

She's not part of any cover-up or political hit.

That is simply untrue. She is covering up what she knows about the leaking of Valerie Plame's name and job.

She knows if she outs her source, all of her inside info will dry up and she won't have any more sources, and her career is over.


Also speculation, plus, I don't consider her career to be more important that the security of the United States or the administration of justice.

She has a choice of going to jail or ending her career. Not an enviable position to be in, but that's one of the hazards of being a journalist.

Hopefully, she will go to jail, and her career will be ended.

BTW I dispute the idea that she is a journalist. Journalists follow an ethical standard, Miller follows a political agenda.

[mmonk]

47. All Righty Then!!!

The heartbeat of truth is faint but beating.

[imenja]

51. Appeals Court Says Reporters Must Testify or Go to Jail (Plame Case) NYT

Appeals Court Says Reporters Must Testify or Go to Jail
By ADAM LIPTAK New York Times

Published: February 15, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/national/15cnd-leak.html?hp&ex=1108530000&en=a92aaf2677f94137&ei=5094&partner=homepage


"Two reporters who have refused to name their sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent should be jailed on contempt charges, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington ruled unanimously today.

Citing a 1972 decision of the United States Supreme Court, the panel held that the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, have no First Amendment protection from a grand jury subpoena seeking to learn the identity of their sources. Under a 1982 law, it can be a crime for government officials to divulge the identities of covert agents.

The 1972 decision, Branzburg v. Hayes, considered four consolidated grand jury cases, including one in which a reporter witnessed illegal drugs being made. In today's opinion, the panel said the Supreme Court's "transparent and forceful" reasoning in that case applied to the two reporters before the appeals court now.

"In language as relevant to the alleged illegal disclosure of the identity of covert agents as it was to the alleged illegal processing of hashish," the panel wrote, "the court stated that it could not 'seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects the newsman's agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about a crime than to do something about it.' "

[Coventina]

52. Whoo-hoo!!

But why isn't Robert Novak in the dock?

[txaslftist]

103. Novak already spilled his guts.

Come on, you think a walking dick like Novak would refuse to name his confidential source when faced with arrest?

You give him too much credit for moral courage.

[Salviati]

53. Why isn't Novak in prison then?

[mom cat]

54. He has friends... just like kenny-boy

[asjr]

56. Novak is the one who outed Plame. Why should 2 reporters

who did not use the information be subjected to jail time? Are they going to let Novak walk? That POS still gets air time!

[imenja]

59. we don't know if he has been subpoenaed yet

The prosecutor may be waiting to collect all available evidence before approaching Novak. Or it is possible that Novak has cooperated with the investigation but not revealed that fact to the public. He has refused to say whether or not he has been subpoenaed. We know Tim Russert has testified. I imagine others have as well.

[happyslug]

64. He is the target of the Grand Jury

As the target he can claim the Right NOT to incriminate himself, what the other reporters are claiming is while what they know will NOT incriminate them, it will hamper their ability to get news story. The Right not to incriminate yourself is in the bill of Rights, the Right to get a news story is NOT. Remember the Freedom of the Press is the Right to PRINT, TELEVISE or otherwise pass on news stories NOT the right to a News Story.

Thus the situation looks like the Federal prosecutor is trying to show who passed on the information to the reporters (in violation of the law) and once that is shown indict both that person and Novak. Thus the prosecutor needs the testimony of these two reporters who were also given details on Plame but did not print it till after Novak did his damage.

[txaslftist]

115. Baloney...

He's not the target. He was subpoenaed, he squealed like a stuck pig, and he's done.

They're going after the others because they DECLINED to testify, citing reporter/source privilege.

He wouldn't have a right not to testify because he's not the SOURCE of the leak, he's just the leak. The person who leaked to him is the target of the GJ.

[cestpaspossible]

126. Your speculation is no substitute for fact.

Where is your evidence that Novak was subpoenaed? Where is your evidence that he testified. Where is your evidence that he is not a target?

[pnutchuck]

55. But isn't this how reporters are able to uncover corruption and make it

public? Without this ability, corruption can go unchecked and the public blind to these acts. Yes, Novak is a piece of shit, but when reporters run the risk of jail time for reporting corrupt politicians and illegal activities, they are essentially silenced and the country becomes a police state. Granted, our media is already a prostitute of the right, but if we shut all of them out in the cold, without any sources, then it will include the few liberal journalists remaining as well.

[imenja]

57. true

The glee with which many respond to this is related only to fact that Republicans have leaked the information. If this was a leak by a Democratic White House or government official, I guarantee you there would be great cries about the tyrannical nature of our court system.
I want to see the person who leaked Plame's identify prosecuted, and I feel somewhat ambivalent about this legal decision. I am, however, cogent enough to realize the legal implications of this might be quite dangerous for other efforts by journalists to promote the people's right to know.

[shraby]

58. This doesn't affect shielding

a whistleblower because they aren't protecting a whistleblower. What they are trying to do is shield a source who committed a crime when they should have reported who and what the crime was to the authorities. In fact, not telling the authorities about a crime and who did it, is in itself a crime. That makes them accessories to a criminal act.
Shielding a whistleblower is a cat of a whole different stripe.

[imenja]

60. no, this is a case about the reporter's right to protect sources

and whether that is covered under the First Amendment. This decision says it isn't. It will be appealed to the Supreme Court, because it is a very important legal issue. Miller's attorney is Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment attorney.
Whistle blower statutes protect whistle blowers, not the press.

[moobu2]

89. Reporters don't have a privilege to protect criminal's on the federal

level.

This is about reporters protecting federal criminals who've committed a crime equivalent to treason. The reporters have been all over the talk shows whinning about whistleblowers for public relations purposes. This has nothing to do with whistelblowers, although I'm sure the 2 reporters would like the court to think that. . In the end, this decision is in line with other federal courts decisions and when reporters have evidence of a federal crime, they have to testify if asked, and they cant protect the source.

Some states do have statutes that do protect reporters for state issues, but there is no such privelage on the federal level.

[imenja]

93. read the decision

It is argued on the question of whether the First Amendment protects reporters from revealing their sources. The appellate ruling emphatically states that no such protection exists.

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/plame/inregjmiller21505opn.pdf

Your own interpretation of the case is not that used by the courts. This case has affirmed a Supreme Court ruling that says journalists have no constitutional right to protect sources. You might approve of it's application in this particular case, but in the future it will certainly be used against reporters seeking to disclose information you do want to here. This ruling does not protect the public's right to know. In fact it undermines it. The precedent will extend far beyond this particular case. Unless overturned by the Supreme Court, it will be used long after most people even remember the name Valerie Plame.

[moobu2]

94. There is no precedent in this case,

Reporters cant protect federal criminals. If you know of any cases where reporters were allowed to protect evidence of a federal crime in the passed 3 decades, post a link to that information please.

[imenja]

96. you are missing the point

Every appellate and Supreme Court case sets legal precedent and can be invoked as such in future litigation.

This appellate decision says that the First Amendment does not give the press the right to protect sources. Without an ability to protect their sources, journalists say they are unable to report the news.

You want to interpret this case very narrowly, but the law is not written narrowly. This case sites a 1972 Supreme Court case, and affirms a ruling that reporters have no first amendment protection of their sources. If you like this decision, you need to realize that it will also be used to prosecute reporters who publish other kinds of stories: possible leaks on a war with Iran or North Korea, some essential information about the Bush administration or government malfeasance 50 years from now. Celebrate the ruling if you like, but you must realize you are welcoming further restrictions on the freedom of the press. Legal decisions are not limited to the narrow circumstances of one particular case. The implications of this ruling are far reaching.

You might recall that Daniel Ellsberg also violated federal law when he released the Pentagon Papers. The court chose to throw out his conviction. The New York Times was able to publish the papers anyway and survived their own legal challenges. It seems that would not happen today. Perhaps the Bush White House will invoke this ruling to go after Sy Hersch for his reporting on their malfeasance.

Legal precedents pay no attention to left or right political issues. The law restricts everything. I would bet money you will not be happy about the next situation to which this legal ruling is applied.

[cestpaspossible]

119. Yeah, read the decision

and get back to us on WHY you think it is wrong. In what way did the court misinterpret the constitution, statutes, or precedents? You made it clear that you are unhappy with the possible effects of the decision, but you haven't said why you think the court was wrong. Remeber, the courts duty is to interpret the law, not make it.

[imenja]

121. so you want further restrictions on the press?

You want courts to be able to force reporters to reveal government sources? This extends far beyond Judith Miller. Reporters like Sy Hersh can be forced to reveal sources under this ruling. Any leak of classified information violates federal law. So if you want to make sure all such reporting stops, this ruling is great for you.

[cestpaspossible]

124. Please read the decision

and get back to us on WHY you think it is wrong. In what way did the court misinterpret the constitution, statutes, or precedents? You made it clear that you are unhappy with the possible effects of the decision, but you haven't said why you think the court was wrong. Remeber, the courts duty is to interpret the law, not make it.


You are simply ascribing viewpoints to me that I do not hold, and ignoring my request to tell me where you disagree with the decision.

It isn't a question of what I want, it is a question of what the Constitution, relevant statutes and relevant precedents say. My desires are not a factor.

For the record, I think the power of grand juries to compell testimony is overly broad, not just for reporters, but for everyone, but, again, the law doesn't change just because I don't like it.

[loritooker]

61. If I secretly murder somebody and then confess to a reporter, should my

identity be protected by the First Amendmnet because I am the reporter's source?

Or, if the ACT of giving certain information to a reporter is the crime itself, should I be protected by the First Amendment because I am the reporter's source? Hmmm I don't think this is as black and white as the press would like us to believe.

[imenja]

62. this appellate decision makes clear it isn't

but reporters have typically shielded such information and gone to jail in order to protect sources, even if the case of violent crimes.

[intheflow]

63. Tho not mentioned in this story, can someone explain to me how Gannon fits

into this Plame case?

[Selteri]

72. Gannon is one of the people who 'took up the cause'

to destroy our CIA operatives with Valerie Plame by making multiple accusations.

[wrate]

66. When the leak itself is the crime, then the leaker is not a whistle blower,

he's a criminal and deserves no protection. This is wonderful news.

[eek]

73. i fear sleight-of-hand shenanigans

These journos were given the Plame leak.

Someone else leaked names of the journos that'd had been given the Plame leak.

The push to get these journos to spill gets much more MSM press than the act of treason itself.

Result:
Accomplishes the Wilson/Plame fcukover
and

Serves as warning to all would-be Deep Throats and Whistleblowers that they can no longer expect anonymity if they talk to the press.

[wrate]

76. You could be right. Still, with the sell-out press the U.S. has this days,

it would not matter if any whistle blowing is reported to the press, they (the press) in turn will keep shut if it is damning to the WH itself or its interests.

[LanternWaste]

75. Dammit! Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!

Before you get in a snip about my reaction, realize that I want an investigation as badly as anyone else and I (with some un-educated reservation) agree with the judges ruling ("There is no First Amendment priviliedge...")

But realize how this plays out when we get one of our Dem's back into the WH. Understand what the GOP is capable of doing and how far they take things. The GOP tried to impeach a sitting Pres for having sex for God's sake! What petulant machinations will they do if they believe that they can manipulate Fist Amendment precedents?

They stonewalled *everything* Clinton did for no other reason than he was on the "other" side. Taggants to track explosives used by terrorists? Nope, said Sen Hatch. He called it a "phony issue" to distract us from Monica 24/7/365. Arms Control? No way, Jose; said DeLay. "It's bogus government spending... a shell game"

What would the Republicans do if they believe they could use reporters as informants? Anything they damn well think they could get away with and a few degrees more.

So let's pretend that this ruling happened during Clinton's terms... imagine if you will what off-the-record statements suddenly becoming fair game would do to energize the GOP base. Imagine if you will what the ammunition given to Rush, Hannity, Gannon (oops, forget Gannon) to instill even more petulant bitterness, petty divisiveness and useful hate to their Walking Dead.

Yeah... it helps us in the *short* run-- but don't think for a minute anyone of substance is going down on this... the best we'll see is some no-named, brillo-headed, mid-level staffer named as the fall-guy (Chief Deputy Assistant to the Mail Room Clerk, most likely)

Yet we've seen over the past 20 years that the GOP have better eyes for the long run game and although this is a bullet for our chamber, it's a weapons-forge for the behind-the-scenes GOP operators.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. However, the GOP are cool cats when playing duck and cover. We actually try (gasp) a Reasoned Defense. That doesn't seem to work anymore...

(Hmmm... spell check doesn't recognize "brillo-head". Is that an oversight? hehe)

[Clark2008]

80. Kickin'

:kick:

[David Zephyr]

81. Here's a good article with good questions regarding Bob Novak

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/ethics_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000727500

[suigeneris]

97. I have some opinions about this...

I'm not a lawyer but interested in this kind of stuff. It looks to me like the decision is consistent with the previous SC ruling so will withstand appeal.

I don't think these two will give up their sources so I think they will take their sentences and won't help the prosecutor.

As much as I want to see Novak discredited and the jagoff or two in the White House go to jail I don't think it is in the country's best interest that reporters are not immune in a case such as this.

The idea behind the prosecutor's case is that the journalists have a right to expose government wrongdoing but in this case they are covering it up. That's completely true but I don't think the next person weighing whether to become a confidential source to a reporter will be interested in the nuances. I can't imagine that if theses reporters give up their sources that it won't diminish people's willingness to trust reporters with what amounts to their lives.

Thirty-one states have reporter shield laws. Apparently they operate something like the privilege of a spouse, a pastor, a social worker or a doctor, although several are very close to air tight. Here is the Pennsylvania law:

No person engaged in, connected with, or employed by any newspaper of general circulation or any press association or any radio or television station, or any magazine of general circulation, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing or publishing news, shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit. Note: This statute also applies to radio and television stations as long as they maintain and keep recordings or transcripts of the actual broadcast or telecast available for inspection.

There are almost no exceptions.
http://www.pa-newspaper.org/legal/Legal%20Handbook/confidential_sources.htm

Several congressmen and senators are interested in a federal shield law for journalists. I think that is a very good idea.

It's my belief that the assurance of confidentiality will smoke out much more governmental wrongdoing than the shield law will allow reporters to cover up, over time.

[Arkana]

98. Court Rules Against Reporters In CIA Leak

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050216/REPORTER16/TPInternational/Americas

By JAMES VICINI
Reuters News Agency
Wednesday, February 16, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Two journalists must disclose conversations with their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating a leak that exposed the identity of a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative, a U.S. appeals court ruled yesterday.

The three-judge panel upheld a ruling that found The New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper in contempt for refusing to testify. They each could be jailed for up to 18 months.

The panel ruled that the two journalists must comply with a subpoena from a grand jury investigating whether President George W. Bush's administration illegally leaked the CIA officer's name to the news media....

More Plame fun!

[grumpy old fart]

99. At least two scary aspects to this story....

1. The persons being persecuted and threatened with jail did not publish the information..it was Novak, and no one is threatening him with anything. The information this alleged "investigation" is seeking to "uncover" is known to Novak, but no one is after him.

2. More chilling, is the fact that the "prosecutor" Fitzgerald submitted "secret evidence" to the appeals court that the defendants and their lawyers were not permitted to see, and the court's opinion has eight redacted pages. I'm no fan of Ms. Miller, but her quote is chilling: "I risk going to jail for a story I didn't write, for reasons the court won't explain."

This is the face of fascism. Secret trials, secret courts, all to protect the State...

[msanthrope]

104. No, it's not "secret evidence".....

It's the grand jury proceedings, and in the case of a criminal prosecution, the hearings are not available to defendants unless and until they are brought to trial. Then the proceedings are published and made available to the defendants, who can then cross-examine people who have appeared in front of the grand jury regarding their testimony.

This was not a trial. This is a series of motions that sprang from a Motion to Quash the grand jury subpeonas of Miller and Cooper--and they don't get discovery of the grand jury process.

That's the way it works. They knew that going in.

To say "the court won't explain" is disengenuous, and Miller knows it. It's a criminal investigation, and the government does not have to reveal everything to Miller and Cooper, who are not targets. They are witnesses, and thuse, their rights of discovery are curtailed, for obvious reasons.

[grumpy old fart]

111. Good explanation, thanks....

The redacted part of the court's opinion would be referencing the Grand Jury testimony, I assume.

[msanthrope]

114. Most probably, it is specific grand jury testimony that

formed part of Fitzgerald's argument to the court.

Miller and Cooper, as collateral witnesses, really have no right to discover this material-it is entirely for the court to review.

On the other hand, if they were targets, they would eventually have right to the material--as we all have the right to confront our accusers.

What irritates the snot out of me is that Judy Miller knows all this--and is just pretending to be a victim.

[txaslftist]

105. "Secret evidence" is Novak's testimony or statement ...

...betcha dollars to donuts.

He already outed his source, that's why he's not under investigation. People keep asking, "Why isn't Novak being subpoenaed... isn't he the guy who ran the story?"

The obvious answer is because he already cooperated and gave up the name of the source, probably with some lame explanation, like "I didn't know she was a SECRET operative, my source didn't tell me that..."

The reason the other reporters who DIDN'T run a story are being subpoenaed is because they also heard from the same source. The prosecutor needs them to verify that the info was also leaked to them to establish that the leak was a deliberate, premeditated act.

[grumpy old fart]

110. Prosecuter may WANT them, but doesn't NEED them......

I think there is more to this than that. This is a deliberate attempt to chill the press.

[emad]

106. Court rules against reporters in CIA leak

By JAMES VICINI
Reuters News Agency
Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - Page A14

WASHINGTON -- Two journalists must disclose conversations with their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating a leak that exposed the identity of a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative, a U.S. appeals court ruled yesterday.

The three-judge panel upheld a ruling that found The New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper in contempt for refusing to testify. They each could be jailed for up to 18 months.

The panel ruled that the two journalists must comply with a subpoena from a grand jury investigating whether President George W. Bush's administration illegally leaked the CIA officer's name to the news media.

"There is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought," Judge David Sentelle wrote in the main opinion for the court.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050216/REPORTER16/TPInternational/Americas

[The Backlash Cometh]

107. kick

[Stand and Fight]

108. Kick...

Will this outrage actually become an OUTRAGE? When are the American people going to wake up and stop the madness that has taken hold in Washington?

[txaslftist]

109. Compare and Contrast: Judith Miller and Robert Novak

(December 01, 2004) -- "Robert Novak is a prominent presence on the Op-Ed pages of The Washington Post and some 300 other newspapers where he rages against government secrecy. But while Novak spouts off...he keeps a secret he would not permit any politician to get away with."

"Novak refuses to say whether he was subpoenaed or if he testified before a grand jury attempting to discover who leaked the name of a CIA agent he identified in his column 15 months ago."

..."Novak has an obligation to own up. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine was found in contempt of court and threatened with a jail term until he agreed to give a sworn deposition. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, the same judge who found Cooper in contempt, has sentenced Judith Miller of The New York Times to an 18-month prison term unless she tells the court who her sources were in the case, even though she never wrote a story about the CIA saga. She faces jail this month..."

"...Miller and the New York Times understand the situation very well. Miller has said that she is ready to begin serving her sentence if and when her appeal is denied, which seems very likely given Hogan's previous decisions..."

"...Meanwhile, Novak continues to live a charmed life in journalism, writing his column and appearing regularly on CNN, where he is never challenged."...

..."This whole thing is really strange," said Jack Nelson, a retired bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times and a founding member of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Novak was the guy who wrote the column that exposed the CIA agent, and yet they don't seem to be going after him."...

So let's don't bash Judith Miller for keeping faith with her confidential source. She made a promise to keep his/her identity secret, and she's keeping her promise, despite the fact that she will probably go to jail for it.

On the other hand, Novak undoubtedly squealed like a stuck pig, betrayed his source, and continues to "live a charmed life".

I know we would all like to see the source revealed and the administration with egg on its face, but don't slam Judith Miller for the tough choice she's making. She, at least, is remaining true to her word, despite a tremendous personal cost.

[grumpy old fart]

112. oughta put a link on that if you're gonna quote from source.....eom

[txaslftist]

113. Try this one:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/ethics_...


Did that work? If not, I pulled it from an above post, number 81 above.

[DrCorday]

127. HEY! Can I get some fairly knucklehead questions answered?

Okay, I've been getting a lot of crap from the NeoCons on this subject (Valerie Plame and crew.) So I wonder if I could clear up some crap I've been running into with the Repukes.

1. Leaking Plame's identity was not illegal.

Setting aside the obvious moral problems here, many Neocons seem to believe that there is no law saying that leaking the identity of a spy is illegal.... What does the law say about this?

2. Plame was not undercover.

Some conservatives say that: even if leaking a spies identity were illegal, it doesn't count because Plame was not undercover. Is this true? Most articles describle Plame as a "covert CIA agent," and Novak argues that she wasn't, or that if she was, he didn't know. Very confusing. Was she undercover or not? What difference does it make?

3. Leaking a spy's name is not treason.

This provides that the previous two statements are false and that no moral obligations to the national security apply. Many argue that revealing Plame's identity served a legitimate purpose in explaining the discrepancy between Wilson and the Bushie's ideas going to war. They also argue that the law does not make this crime punishable as an act of treason.

4. The Grand Jury was convened to determine if a law had been broken.

Often, I point out that if there was no law here, there would most likely be no Grand Jury investigation. Repukes say that there could be simply to determine whether or not a law was broken. Aside from the logical flaw of such an assertion confirming the existance of a so-stated law, this gets in the way of the argument that someone is looking for a criminal here. What does the law have to say about this? Is it true that they could be convening the Grand Jury for no reason? I thought not, but I have no proof.

5. Plame has been undercover for 5 years; so it's okay to "out" her.

Some Repuke somewhere has dug up some obscure statute of limitations. I don't know anything about it, but many are arguing that even if 1-3 are false, it doesn't matter because the law says that you're allowed to out a spy who's been undercover for more than 5 years. Absurd, but I have no proof to dispute it.

6. Joe Wilson outed Plame.

No idea why he would do that, but it does suggest that Wilson could have a reason to out his wife. I doubt it, but what does this mean legally. Who besides Wilson and the Administration knew about Plame?

7. Rove's previous links to Novak.

I know we have threads on this, so I'll be brief: Where are they? Has this sort of thing happened before?

8. Time for me to make a new thread.
This got out of hand... will add link when new thread is posted.

[DrCorday]

129. THE Link about The Leak

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1610132#1610916

Please join us. Thanks!!

[ausiedownunderground]

128. You've lost Plame's sources - So what i ask!!

The outing of Plame, who was arguably your "best" resource in the world of "Black" market Nuclear weapons is a huge blow to you!!! To the "Rest of the world" we ask "So What"? You can have "Nuclear" weapons and we can't. In your dreams America!!! We're actually as "smart " as you. In fact here in Oz we have a very supposedly secret program, funded by guess who - The DOD - which everybody knows about including our MSM, and involves a company called SILEX at Lucas Heights, involving developing the required material for a "BOMB" using Laser technology rather than a "Centrifuge" . The consequences of this is that any government, including, the US government, wouldn't have the evidence at all of convicting any government of producing "The Bomb" that seems to frighten all Americans nowadays. Worry about those "old" Russian Suitcase bombs! first!