Did Robert Novak commit a treasonous act(s)?

[eablair3]

From the Wash Post:
...
"Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11208-2003Sep27.html

Everyone seems to be focusing on the "two senior White House officials," as they should, but what of Robert Novak? The criminal act of disclosing the CIA agent's identity to six journalists was done by the White House, but Novak is the only reporter who took it and ran. He ran off and published the disclosure. He had to know that the White House officials had committed an illegal or treasonous act, and he made himself an aider and abetter by willingly going along and publishing and outing the CIA agent. The other five journalists that the White House officials told didn't publish it. Perhaps they knew that what the White House staff had done was illegal, and they wanted no part of it.

Novak, on the other hand, assisted the crimnals in the White House in outing the CIA agent. The Bush officials certainly called reporters to get the CIA agent outed. Novak assisted them.

And, now Novak is hiding the identity of the treasonous criminals serving high in the Bush administration. He's an accessory after the fact, too, isn't he?

The First Amendment doesn't protect criminal acts like this, as far as I know. Novak can't hide behind that. Why isn't Novak's acts being questioned and talked about in this manner?

Sounds like Karl Rove is one of them. If they told six reporters, there should be plenty of witnesses. This story is finally getting some good traction.

edit-typo

[Dookus]

1. No.

It is my understanding that Novak broke no laws by publishing what he knew. I think that's the way it should be. Publishing classified information that is found innocently should NEVER be a crime.

"Treason" is very specifically defined in the Constitution. Novak is not guilty.

HOWEVER... whoever leaked to him certainly IS guilty, not of treason, but of a few other federal felonies.

[eablair3]

4. if not treasonous, criminal?

you put your opinion out there on that, too, i guess. You said not a crime either.

I know treason is defined specifically, and you need so many witnesses. I can't remember the definition off hand.

But, if publishing classified info is always not a crime, I could think of some pretty interesting scenarios. A reporter is illegally given classified info by a disgruntled employee about a secret op to save American lives, and he/she knows the info is classified and illegal to disseminate. He publishes it anyway. The op is blown as the opposition is laying in wait. American's die. The reporter then hides the name of the disgruntled employee. Crimes?

[Dookus]

6. probably not...

That's an extreme case, and any reporter who acted that way would probably lose his/her job. But a crime? No, I doubt it.

Let's look at it the other way: say a journalist gets a call from a senior Senate aide who tells him what's in the "redacted" 9/11 report. Let's pretend it's very harmful to the administration.

The reporter publishes it.

We would hail that reporter as a hero. Yet s/he published classified information.

The press HAS to be free to publish what it knows. It's the government's job to keep classified information away from the press. If the government fucks up, then too bad.

[cliss]

2. Good point.

This story is so exciting, so juicy, that I completely forgot about Novak's role in this. Journalists must have a code of standards that they go by, don't they? Can they be complicit in a leak case such as this one?

On the one hand, I'm sad for Ambassador Wilson's wife. She can't fly & apparently can't leave the country now. So it's probably caused them both tremendous frustration.

On the other hand, what a moment. After 3 years of pushing people to the wall, they pushed one who fought back. Good for Wilson.

[eileen_d]

3. I Love DU!

Look at this cute picture they posted of Novak in 2001:

[JCMach1]

5. OR, did he publish it because he knew the questions that

would be raised. Perhaps he was angered by what they were trying to do...

NOVAKULA may have had deeper reasons...

He's a conservative thug, yes--

Simpleton, no--


He had his reasons for getting this out...

[ClintonTyree]

7. Yes.............

I do believe that Novak could go to jail on this. This information wasn't received "innocently". If he refuses to reveal his source (if this thing goes that far, and I doubt it will) he would be in comtempt and would face some jail time. This will all be conveniently swept under the Bush rug of dirty deeds (they're running out of room under there though).

[Dookus]

8. By innocently, I mean...

he didn't break any laws in getting the information. I presume he simply picked up the phone.

The only way Novak will go to jail will be for contempt of court if he finds himself in front of a judge who orders him to talk.

I also think those people who refuse to give up their sources are heroes. I'd hate to see Novak turned into a hero.