NOVAK: WHY he must be: a) Fired with prejudice. b) Arrested.

[nostamj]

NOVAK: WHY he must be: a) Fired with prejudice. b) Arrested.

I have followed with interest a number of threads and posts regarding Novak’s legal culpability in the TreasonGate scandal.

I understand--and agree with--the issues regarding journalists revealing sources and do not suggest that Novak be forced to reveal the source of the treasonous Plame disclosure.

(Note: It was NOT a ‘leak’ and anyone who uses that term to characterize this issue is playing into BushCo spin designed to minimize and marginalize the issue.)

In fact, I believe the ‘source’ issue is a pathetic red herring.

When the din of spin dies down, the FACTS remain:

1. Novak published the name of a covert CIA operative directly involved with the issue of WMD threat against the America.

2. Novak called the CIA to confrim Ms. Plame’s association with the CIA and was told NOT to publish the name.

3. Novak published the name.

If CNN is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of BushCo, they MUST fire Novak immediately and issue the strongest statement possible that his illegal actions do not represent the policy or practices of CNN or its parent companies.

Since Novak has publically admitted to a federal offense, he should arrested and taken into custody immediately.

If then, permanently removed from any respect in the ‘Fourth Estate,’ he decides to reveal sources in a plea bargain, fine.

No source would ever speak to him again. No damage. And, remember, this 'source' is a fellow-felon.

Would any other journalist argue that they had a right to commit federal crimes in the pursuit of a story?

CNN? You gonna stand behind a criminal??

P.S. Can you begin to IMAGINE what would happen if CONASON, KRUGMAN, IVINS.... committed a similar CRIME???

[bloom]

1. I agree there should be accountability

But I think whoever leaked should be held to a higher accountability.

[nostamj]

5. no argument!

but that is not a reason to let this POS off and retain his job and position in the 'media'

that needs to END, or, as we've suspected, we're totally SCREWED

[Lefty48197]

2. Is this a death penalty crime?

I mean, I'd really hate to see Bob go THAT way, but I understand that Ashcroft has ordered prosecutors to push for the MAXIMUM penalty in all federal criminal cases. Sorry Bob. You lose. I'm gonna miss you.

[rucky]

8. 10 year max in Club Fed

but a felony. he'd be finished & couldn't profit off a book (Son of Sam laws)

[tjdee]

3. They need to drag his ass to jail, for sure.

If for no other reason than he is way too smug about this.

This happens to journalists--he wouldn't be the first, and this may be one of the instances where it is wholly deserved.

He wants to protect the administration, he should work for it. He should go to jail for a night for sure.

[Nlighten1]

4. The law is the law regardless of if you are a journalist or garbage man...

Is Novak above the law?

[tjdee]

6. He apparently believes so.

That's one thing that really irritates me about this whole situation.

Bush is out raising money, Novak's sitting pretty, employed, on television.... acting like not a thing is wrong in the world.

They really do think they're above it. They need to be knocked down a peg or two.

[candy331]

13. He was

was an arrogant SOB on CNN today. Even Blitzer was having a hard time reconciling what he was saying but of course he wouldn't tell him to his face he was lying but behind his back he will talk it. He has been told that he will be protected so he has this smug attitude that you can't touch me. As far as he knows he could have been set up, bet he hasn't taken that into consideration. "A dog that brings a bone will carry one" meaning whoever stooled to him may stool on him.

[lumpy]

33. I watched the unflappable Noval squirm on Blitzer's

gab yesterday. He did a lot of Novak stutter, sputtering, salivating and 'but but buts'. Clearly he is worried about his image.

[montanacowboy]

7. How 'Bout a Night in the DC Jail

for bobby? egad, he'd be crying for his Mama!!! or he'd say "Don't you know who I am?"

[ignatius]

28. Oooh, what a pretty little mouth, would be heard a lot. Of course

since he's been blowing this administration for a long time, it'd be no biggie.

[nostamj]

9. arrogance and

ENTITLEMENT

these pigs think they ARE above it all.

"who cares what you think"

[scottxyz]

10. Check out WillPitt's defense of Journalists (including Novak)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=444519

[nostamj]

12. read it!

my point is to REMOVE Novak from ANY pretensions towards being "in the media" first.

FIRE Novak. CNN and ANY news outlet that syndicates his column.

then, ARREST Novak.

this is a CRIME, not a first amendment issue.

[screembloodymurder]

11. I couldn't agree more.

Novak deserves to be fired.

[nostamj]

15. the SPIN is so furious

the story becomes the story about the story.

it is not about 'leaks'

it is about CRIMES

[RC]

14. You have said nothing about how & from where novak

received his information. Why are you ignoring the source and helping the White House? Besides this being a distraction from the real truth, if novak is prosecuted, which other news person/journalist would dare come out with any wrong doing from the government? You are playing into their hands.

Put the blame where it belongs. With whoever in the White House the let this information out about Wilson's wife in the first place.

[nostamj]

16. nonsense

you are playing into WH spin.

Novak has NOT come out with any WH wrong-doing. what would his firing and arrest signal other than committing FEDERAL CRIMES is not protected???

6 'journalists' were approached with the story, ONE printed it *after* being told by the CIA NOT to do it.

you really want the WH insider? TAKE out the mouthpiece. REMOVE him from any claim to legitimacy. he'll squeal and we can move on while Novak's career is, appropriately, ELIMINATED.

[RC]

18. You sound like a WH spinner

Here is the real problem--- Read it. Take it to heart. novak is just a tool. He was used.

"Quotes

"There's a cancer somewhere in the Bush administration. Two officials revealed national security information to embarrass or scare critics of the administration's mishandling of Iraqi intelligence...
It's illegal for government officials to reveal the identities of CIA operatives who have worked overseas within the preceding five years...The White House has said it doesn't condone leaking an agent's identity. But the administration must try to identify, fire and, possibly, prosecute those responsible. Abuse of national security for political aims is wrong.
--Seattle-Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board, "

http://www.bartcop.com/

[nostamj]

24. i don't think we really disagree that much

of course it must extend into the WH.

all the more reason to take Novak OUT. Now.

while he's in the story, the story is deflected from the real criminals in the WH.

Novak lost any and all credibility PLUS *any* professional protections when he ignored the CIA and PUBLISHED the name.

excusing his crime take focus off the WH.

SERIOUS consequences for HIS crime will put MUCH more heat on the WH.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. I agree with you 98%, nost

The other 2% is the notion that once Novak is removed as a journalist, he's fair game . Not so, or at least I don't think so. The actions he committed, as felonious as they may well be, were committed while he was a (cough, gag) working journalist and therefore he's justified in protecting his sources.

In the case of Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein's still-unidentified leaker, the information leaked led to the uncovering of a crime. In the case of Novak's source, the leaked information IS the crime. Big difference, huge difference.

Novak behaved literally unconscionably -- without a conscience. He did what he did without caring what the potential consequences might be. Regardless what his motive was, if he had been acting as a responsible journalist solely seeking to give the public information, he did not need to reveal Ms. Plame's identity. That was gratuitous and it was wrong.

Go to jail, Bob. You've already admitted you did it, and it's a crime. Go to jail, Bob.

[brook]

22. I agree with you.

I don't see this as an issue of *protecting* one's sources. I see it as trying to protect a traitor - along with his own sorry butt.

The person who fed this to Novak was not a *whistleblower*, but rather some 'person or persons unknown', who felt comfortable committing treason in order to neutralize someone who dared to point out just how naked the Emperor was/is. Novak's no different than the guy who drives the car in a bank heist...liable for the death penalty if his buddy in the bank happens to kill someone.

At the very least, Novak should be removed from any opportunity to mispractise journalism for the rest of his miserable life.

[Spirochete]

17. I'm still hoping the CIA

decides to play "this little piggy went to market" with his fingernails and a pair of vise-grips. He's a real prick.

[BeachBuckeye]

20. Right on the money, as usual!

Great analysis of the situation Jeff.

[nostamj]

26. thanks guy!

if NoFacts still has a job on saturday.... I'll have a talking point! ;-)

[Jacobin]

21. Remember, we have the Patriot Act

Mr. Novak is clearly an enemy combatant. How could you do more damage than to reveal a CIA operative's identity, whose specialty for decades has been WMD, the major bugaboo we are all concerned about.

Why not arrest him, send him to Gitmo and keep him there indefinitely.

I know his name is "bob" and not "abdul".....that should make no difference.

I suspect that at Gitmo he would be "encouraged" to reveal the sources.

[DoNotRefill]

23. Uh huh....Just remember this when it comes back to bite us on the ass...

Since when does the CIA's telling somebody not to publish information mean jack shit? Ever hear of prior restraint?

You say this is about crimes, not the First Amendment, and advocate his imprisonment. Novak's "crime" was revealing the identity of a CIA operative in the media. Let's say that the courts see this as that, instead of a First Amendment issue. What kind of precedent would that set? I have no problem with his getting fired, he behaved irresponsibly. But imprisonment? :wtf:

I understand that you are THRILLED to have something to smack the current administration about with, but think this through... Remember when the courts ruled against the abortion protesters and created "First Amendment Zones"? Sounds good, right? I mean, hey, it kept the Operation Rescue Freaks away from the clinics, so it's a good thing, right? Wrong. We found out when we were put in "First Amendment Zones" of our own for protesting Shrub.

I oppose Bush as much as ANYBODY. But I'd rather keep the First Amendment as intact as possible than damage it further in an attempt to "get" the administration. No matter what happens, Bush is out by 2008. The damage we may end up doing to the First Amendment will last FOREVER. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Before you scream for blood, just remember....eventually it's YOUR blood that you're screaming for.

[nostamj]

25. i don't think it has anything to do with 1st A issues

but, I can certainly see BushCo *using* it to defend themselves.

and again, Novak needs to be REMOVED from 'the media' and, by default, from any 1st A protections.

the 1st A does not allow you to yell FIRE in the auditorium and it does NOT allow you to commit federal crimes.

(Novak should NOT have needed the CIA to tell him that exposing the identity of a covert operative was a bad idea)

[DoNotRefill]

29. Sorry....3 points:

First, First Amendment protections don't just apply to members of the media. Firing Novak will NOT remove his First Amendment rights. Secondly, your "fire in a crowded theater" analogy doesn't hold water. First off, the quote is actually "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater". If there's actually a fire, you're SUPPOSED to yell fire in a crowded theater. If Novak had FALSELY outed somebody, there'd be a case, but I haven't heard ANYBODY say that this is true. This is why a suit for libel wouldn't succeed....the truth is an absolute defense. Thirdly, just in case you didn't realize it, the Constitution trumps other Federal law that's enacted through the legislative process, as the Espionage Act was. If the Espionage Act said people had to get CIA approval before publishing, it's void because it violates the First Amendment. This is why Jim Crow laws were struck down, because they violated protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

Let me ask you this: What result would successfully prosecuting Novak yield? Wouldn't it chill the relationship between ALL reporters and their sources? Wouldn't that be likely to lead to corrupt administrations getting "free passes" at a later date, because reporters were scared to publish the truth for risk of criminal prosecution? Is that REALLY where you want to go?

[nostamj]

31. so, let me understand this...

"Is that REALLY where you want to go?"

where YOU want to go is for the WH to continue to USE journalists in the commission of federal crime which endanger US citizens and national security.

when hi-dee-ho then....... by all means, let us praise Novak

[stickdog]

32. What public interest was served by committing this crime?

None.

So stop falling for the crap.

Novak deserves to hang for this.

[RC]

27. Put the blame where is belongs. It's not with novak.

Educate yourselves people. You are starting to sound like the competition.


Editorial: Scandal/Who outed CIA agent Plame?

So now you have both Novak and the Washington Post saying that two senior administration officials were the leakers and Bush refusing to take it seriously.

The Justice Department has responded affirmatively to Tenet's request for an investigation. But get this: When Justice informed the White House of the investigation Monday evening, it said it would be all right if the staff was notified Tuesday morning to safeguard all material that related to the case. The staff had all night to get rid of anything incriminating.

That incredible tidbit supports calls by Democrats and a slew of others for Attorney General John Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel to investigate this case. They're right: Ashcroft has no credibility in this, and neither does the White House, given its habitual effort to spin information, mislead the American people and smear anyone who disagrees with it. This developing scandal ultimately goes to the even more serious question of administration manipulation of intelligence on Iraq, where American soldiers continue to die almost every day in a campaign that looks increasingly like a bad mistake.


http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php?template=print_a&story=4128418

[DemLikr]

30. I'm with you, Nostamj. Throw the turd in jail. n/t

[lumpy]

34. Novak did a lot of waffling

trying to appear innocent (like, the CIA didn't tell him revealing the name of a CIA operative would cause problems) of the repurcussions his article would create, even going so far as denying statements he introduced into print. The pukepundit is on the da'fence.

[NoKingGeorge]

35. Integrity , Jornalistic tradition, his peers -all reasons to fire.

How could CNN ever have any journalistic integrity if they do not fire him. Would Walter Cronkite types work at a station that employs someone like this? How about his peers, They toe the line, how must they feel seeing a traitor like this in their company.
The other 5 journalists who knew of a federal crime being commited and do not report it also have some answering to do.