Has Novak been arrested yet?

[BOSSHOG]

The columnist who outed a CIA undercover operative under his byline. That is treason. I guess he must be a bush enabler immune from Ashcroft justice. I urge you again to write your congressioinal reps asking that Novaks complicity in this federal crime be investigated. He can whine about not revealing sources, but he, not the sources, published the operatives name. He is aiding terrorists according to george bush, just as surely as limbaugh is (remember, buying drugs is aiding terrorists.) Novak should be sent to GTMO and the white house sources names can be tortured out of him. That will maintain your journalist integrity, bobby.

Isn't it amazing how we work to uncover wrongdoing while the right works overtime to cover it up. Keep digging away my Fellow Americans.

[Sweetpea]

1. NOPE

[opihimoimoi]

2. He should be

What a toady

[slinkerwink]

3. AND.....

frogmarched into a maximum security federal prison for being a traitor to his country!

[Scott Lee]

4. I have a question for any of you legal eagles out there

We are well aware of the historic legal right of a journalist to protect their sources with anonymity. But as all rights go, there are exceptions in extreme circumstances. To your knowledge, has there been many cases where a judge has legally and successfully compelled a journalist to reveal the identity of a source?

Question two: Given the seriousness of CIA issues (national security), could a winning case be made to legally force Novak to cough it up?

[BOSSHOG]

6. Excellent Question

but, Novak is guilty of IDENTIFYING the operative under his byline. His obvious guilt should be dealt with as a separate issue. Who told him is irrelevant to his guilt. He prances around with that - I'm a journalist and I ain't telling persona. Why is that keeping him from the firing squad? NO ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE IDENTIFIED THE OPERATIVE, NOVAK DID. He is a bush enabler therefore immune from ashcroft justice. Rise above it my Fellow Americans.

[dsc]

5. Novak isn't guilty of a crime

The law is narrowly drawn and affixes criminal blame to the person who told Novak the operative's name. Novak can be supeonaed but only with Ashcroft's direct approval. Then he could be jailed for contempt.

[opihimoimoi]

7. Then the Law is Flawed, should be amended

[mobuto]

9. That would have a chilling effect on freedom of the press

Restrictions on what the press can print have to be extremely limited for us to have a free society. No, go after Bush. But Novak isn't to blame.

[mobuto]

8. Novak isn't the problem

The First Amendment guarantees his right to print what he's fed - and I think any prosecution of him would be stupid and shortsighted. The buck stops with Bush and Bush alone.

[salinen]

10. Darn

The image of Novak having his nipples twisted in Gitmo was sure comforting.

[BOSSHOG]

11. Response to Posts 8 and 9

No one values the Constitution more than me. However, it is against Federal Law to identify a CIA undercover operative. That is what novak did and it doesn't make any difference where he got the information. He made the conscious decision to break the law. Journalistic integrity would have prevented him from printing the agents name, not exposing her. I agree, go after bush (VIA NOVAK). I also think that ashcroft can institute the patriot act in this case, send novak to gtmo and torture the leakers names out of him. The chill on our Constitution is coming from Novak and his ilk who would use their positions in "journalism" to punish those who tell the truth. I would like to warm things up a bit. God Bless all who love our freedoms and choose to make an effort to maintain them.

[Scott Lee]

14. There is an ongoing skirmish as to Valerie Plame's status

Of course, take into account this was on a rightwing whacko message board, but here it is anyway...

Many of them are taking issue as to whether Plame was actually an operative - claiming she was actually an "analyst", and therefore not covered under the federal laws against outting CIA agents. Of course this sounds like the mother of all dissemblence; I believe that anyone working undercover for the CIA would be be under the umbrella of such protective statutes. However, what would you say to these wingnuts about "analyst" vs. "operative"?

[Dookus]

15. Nope...

if you read the law in question, Novak did not break it. The person who leaked to Novak DID break the law. Only people who have "inside knowledge" of who's an operative and then reveals it is guilty. People who learn that information and then spread it, are NOT guilty.

Novak broke no laws. The person who leaked to him did. THAT'S who we should be going after.

[JNelson6563]

12. Not yet

that slimey bastard.

Julie

[Skittles]

13. BOSSHOG !!

THAR YOU ARE. I have missed you. :hi:

[DeaconBlues]

16. My question is: why hasn't the top-level members of the Bush cabal

who outed Plame's wife in jail yet? The double-standards in this country are incredible. Republicans and corporate stooges can get away with treason.

[kevinam]

17. that is what I have wondered.

What happened to the investigation. Hasn't it been long enough that there should be suspects, and possibly charges filed already?...Kevin.

[DeaconBlues]

19. Ashcroft and the DOJ are in charge of the "investigation"

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Crisco kid to move on this.

[Patriot_Spear]

18. Quit getting my hopes up...

...maybe for Christmas Santa will bring Nofacts some chains!