Wouldn't Novak be guilty of this...

[Renew Deal]

"knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

[JasonBerry]

1. That would be a tough go - IMO

These statutes are never upheld by the courts against journalists. The Freedom Of The Press is paramount to any law. If Novak was told something deemed as newsworthy; and in fact was encouraged to report it, he was merely used by the true passer of the information. That's what I think. Others might have a different take, but I base my thoughts on the history of the courts in press vs. laws made to protect, hide, etc. For better or worse.

[Renew Deal]

4. You would have a better view than I would...

I don;t know what precedence there is on this.

[unblock]

7. that's overstating novak's case a tad

press freedom is important, and to a point you are correct; but it's hardly 'paramount' to any law.

all constitutional provisions are in balance of other considerations. freedom from search and seizure is in balance to the executive branch's duty to provide domestic security, etc.

freedom of the press is a part of the 1st amendment, and we all know how much freedom of speech and redress and grievance can be curtailed.

the press is not free to libel, for instance, and it is certainly not free to commit treason or comparable acts damaging to national security, nor can it print something knowing it would lead to specific deaths (the exposed agent and/or contacts).

[JasonBerry]

11. The courts RARELY rule against the press....

Several examples come to mind....

One ruling a few years back relates to a juvenile who had his name called out on the evening news after a suit was filed against a priest for sexual abuse. The child's family sued the TV station as there are laws covering naming juveniles. However, this is really held together by glue as the media tried to keep an ethical lid on naming juveniles. When a member of the press steps outside and does name a juvenile in a report - they are rarely prosecuted under local or state laws. However, in this case they were. The courts ruled -- as expected -- that the freedom of the press was PARAMOUNT to the state law.

I wasn't defending Novak. I think it was a horrible mistake. However, I don't think it would stick for the reasons given in my first post and cases like the one mentioned above.

[unblock]

13. i don't know that case

but it sounds like the press was aware of the morals and the legality and tried to do the right thing, if the offender published a name more out of negligence, oversight, or just plain accident, then the prosecutors case would certainly be weaker. i could understand the courts ruling that freedom of the press protects papers from prosecution for mere carelessness.

in novak's case, however, the entire intent of publishing the leak was to deliberately expose obviously classified information that would obviously cause severe damage to national security, our intelligence gathering efforts, and to the lives of the contacts involved.

again, i agree that freedom of the press is a strong protection for novak, but it is not quite as strong as you suggest.

the occassional libel suits won by celebrities show this. the standard of proof for celebrities is even higher than for us mere mortals, and yet even they sometimes win.

[Supply Side Jesus]

9. Rove leaked the info to 6 other WP journalists

and none of them would touch it, except Novak.
He knew what he was doing. Hope he joins Rove on the perp walk.

[The Lone Liberal]

14. He could be forced to reveal his source

Or be held in contempt of court. That has happened in the past to reporters and is upheld in the courts.

[arwalden]

16. Things Like This Are Sometimes Theoretically Tested With Extreme Examples

... let's say... for example...

Would a reporter who had alerted the Nazis because he "reported" the actual date and time of the invasion at Normandy be no less guilty? Would the reporter's (claimed) belief that he was merely reporting something newsworthy be sufficient as a defense?

Yes... the reporter here is not the SOURCE of the information, but he is the megaphone and the deliverer of the information. Also the reporter here knows the consequences of making the information public.

I think that pretty much makes him culpable.

Legally, I'm probably way off base and none of this would hold up in court. But ethically... well... THAT's a different story now isn't it. And we ARE talking about Robert Novak. So there you go.

-- Allen

[Dookus]

2. it's dangerous to only quote...

one section of the law.


I can't cite the particular law, but I've read and heard on MANY occasions that journalists have a particular exemption from these disclosure laws. I'll see if I can find something on it.

And even if they don't, the courts would likely rule that the first amendment supercedes these stipulations. It would be unconstitutional for the government to punish a journalist for publishing information he received from the government.

[Renew Deal]

3. But what about knowing that it is wrong.

"knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States"

Novak had to know this person was an agent before he said it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have used it. I understand your argument, but there has to be some limitation.

[Dookus]

5. I don't want there to be ANY limitation

on what the press can report. Believe me, such a limitation would HURT us a lot more than it would help us.

Yes, a crime was evidently committed. That crime occurred when a white house official (read Rove) told Novak that Plame was a CIA agent. End of story.

What Novak then did with that information was his prerogative as a journalist.

[Renew Deal]

6. Makes sense.

Your argument is very good.

[unblock]

8. no way, no how

way too idealistic.

a malicious journalist could easily search for, or possibly even invent, an unnamed official willing to say just about anything not for attribution.

the journalist could then print just about anything. if you had your way, they would have carte blanche to defame anyone, blackmail anyone, or get just about anyone killed, not to mention expose national security secrets.

just because an unnamed official told you something does not make it legitimate public information. ALL officials, especially unnamed ones, have agendas, and it is a responsibility of the press to ensure that those agendas are, at least, not criminal.

novak should have known that exposing a spy was criminal, and he should have had no part in it. put it this way: he could have prevented rove's (or whoever's) crime by simply doing nothing. this is far worse than the cameramen that stand by and film people dying instead of trying to help them.

[juajen]

10. I agree

Notice the other journalists did not publish this story. They must have known it would be, or border, on a criminal/treasonous act.

[Gore1FL]

12. I don't have an issue with Novak writing it

I have a problem with him not telling the source.

Now, under normal circumstances, I support journalists who don't betray their source. This however, is not protecting a source, but protecting "the most insidious, of traitors" (to quote G.H.W. Bush.)

[NNN0LHI]

15. Not that part of the law. There are 3 parts. Part 2 covers Novak

http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive
classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)

more

[remfan]

17. No it doesn't

b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information:

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

This section covers the person, or persons, within the WH that had authorized access to the CIA's personnel records and then disclosed such to Novak. The crime is within the WH, not the press. Novak didn't have authorized access, the person in the WH did, and the moment that info left the WH was the moment the crime was committed.

Section (c) might pertain to Novak if it could be found that he has engaged in similar behavior in the past, but I don't think that's going to happen.

I think Novak is a jerk, and I think he knew exactly what he was doing and enjoyed doing it, but I also think the media is focusing on the aspect of the case that most involves THEM (Novak revealing a source), and if they are allowed to keep this angle in public view, the DOJ will try to sweep the real crime under the rug.

My gut feeling is someone within the NSC who had authorized access to the info gave it to someone in the communications staff (VPs office is my guess), and they in turn passed it on to the media.