Posted on 09/27/2004 6:16:05 AM PDT by OESY
When the Justice Department opened an investigation a year ago into the question of how Robert Novak obtained the name of a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative for publication in his syndicated column, we expressed two basic concerns. The first was the need for an independent inquiry led by someone without Attorney General John Ashcroft's ultra-close ties to the White House. That was addressed belatedly with the naming of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to pursue the accusations that unnamed Bush administration officials illegally leaked the woman's undercover role in an effort to stifle criticism of Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.
Unfortunately, our second, overriding fear has become a reality. The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources. In an ominous development for freedom of the press and government accountability that hits particularly close to home, a federal judge in Washington has ordered a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, to testify before a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the covert operative's identity and to describe any conversations she had with "a specified executive branch official."
The subpoena was upheld even though neither Ms. Miller nor this newspaper had any involvement in the matter at hand - the public naming of an undercover agent. Making matters worse, the newly released decision by Judge Thomas Hogan takes the absolutist position that there is no protection whatsoever for journalists who are called to appear before grand juries.
This chilling rejection of both First Amendment principles and evolving common law notions of a privilege protecting a reporter's confidential sources cries out for rejection on appeal, as does the undue secrecy surrounding the special prosecutor's filings in the case.
Mr. Novak has refused to say whether he received a subpoena. But other journalists have acknowledged getting subpoenas and some have testified about their contacts with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. They say they did so based on his consent, but consent granted by government employees under a threat of dismissal hardly seems voluntary. Once again, none of these journalists were involved in the central issue: the initial public identification of Mr. Wilson's wife.
If an official at the White House intentionally triggered publication of the name of a C.I.A. operative to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility and silence criticism of Iraq policy, it was a serious abuse of power. The legacy of the investigation should not be a perverse legal precedent that makes it easy for prosecutors to undo a reporter's pledge of confidentiality, thereby discouraging people with knowledge of real abuses to blow the whistle to the press.
The Times helped light the fires of this witch hunt as part of its plan to bring down the president and get Pulitzer Prizes. Now it feels the heat, and fears being consumed by the flames -- flames that are also raging at the Tiffany Network for similar reasons.
Some things should be kept in mind. Plame's former covert operative status was well-known in Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington. There was no harm from disclosure without dissemination by newspapers. Wilson did such a poor job at investigating the Niger yellowcake claims he was rebuked in the Senate Intelligence Committee report. The forged documents appear to have been planted by French Intelligence to undercut America's reason for enforcing UN resolutions and taking out Saddam.
What has gone seriously awry was not the probe so much as the Times' failure to wound President Bush.
Memo to the NY Times Editorial Board - when you throw a grenade and forget to pull the pin, don't be surprised when it gets thrown right back at you later.
Note the insidious naming of Scooter Libby in this editorial too. Pretty obvious who the Slimes' target is here.
In other words, the First Amendment should be whatever the New York Slimes says it is.
This is precisely how they should be investigating. Ask the reporters. They have no privilege. They were involved in a crime, even if they were not themselves committing it.
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about cBS
I'm a firm believer that all sources should be on-the-record and fully identified. If you won't put your name to the info, the info is not worth having.
If one accepts anonymous sources as a journalistic tool, you slide right to Katie Couric editorializing and saying, "Some people are saying the death rate in Iraq is the highest America has seen in any previous war ..." I think all such blather should be seen as unethical.
This "chilling rejection" of a media privilege that has no basis in law -- either under the First Amendment or under any "evolving common law" principles -- is the best thing that has come out of this case. It was the height of arrogance for the New York Times to call for an independent investigation of this case while at the same time claiming that the newspaper itself should be immune from any and all independent investigations into cases that the paper's staff covers.
Why do they keep calling her a "covert Central Intelligence Agency operative"? She wasn't in the Directorate of Operations...she was in the Directorate of Intelligence. She worked at Langley everyday. Not clandestine. Am I wrong here?
Mike, I thought you'd like to see this info...
If I witness a robbery at a convenience store and an accused perpetrator is arrested, the fact that I had no involvement in the matter at hand does not exempt me from being compelled to testify before a grand jury in the case.
(Are things so grim for the left, Scooter gotta be dredged up?)
Plame's former covert operative status was well-known in Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington
Further Memo to NYT: Logic would say the purpose of the investigation is to determine where the focus should be. But then logic has never been a NYT strength, which, like it's MSM colleague CBS, supports only investigative efforts which target their predetermined, prejudged outcomes.
Thanks for posting this.
The NY Slimes was the major springboard for the lies, spins and disgusting attempt to embarass GW with the Wilson/Plame fiasco.
This bs had brewing and perking along on the rat blog sites for months, and then the NY Slimes made it front page lies, spins and vile attacks.
The NY Slimes is heading the same way that ABCNNBC BS NOTNEWS programs are heading, into extinction.
Now the arrogance of the editors and publisher of the
Slimes to deny that they had a big part in this attempted coup against GW makes C BS's fiasco look small.
Ah, so "former" is the nuance word that is lost here. Now I understand. I don't know any Agency people that were true Ops that talk openly about it. Only wannabees and S&TI people.
"Unfortunately, our second, overriding fear has become a reality. The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources. "
This sounds like it came out of that leaked "rockey" memo that planned to "investigate" President Bush.
This "chilling rejection" of a media privilege that has no basis in law -- either under the First Amendment or under any "evolving common law" principles -- is the best thing that has come out of this case. It was the height of arrogance for the New York Times to call for an independent investigation of this case while at the same time claiming that the newspaper itself should be immune from any and all independent investigations into cases that the paper's staff covers.
So the deceitful and arrogant Times pens this:
Unfortunately, our second, overriding fear has become a reality. The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources. In an ominous development for freedom of the press and government accountability that hits particularly close to home, a federal judge in Washington has ordered a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, to testify before a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the covert operative's identity and to describe any conversations she had with "a specified executive branch official."
The subpoena was upheld even though neither Ms. Miller nor this newspaper had any involvement in the matter at hand - the public naming of an undercover agent. Making matters worse, the newly released decision by Judge Thomas Hogan takes the absolutist position that there is no protection whatsoever for journalists who are called to appear before grand juries.
Are they idiots or just evil?
First, how do they know for a fact that the Bush WH was guilty of anything? Novak has explicitly said his source was not in the WH.
Second, if the Times were being honest about the whole thing perhaps they'd take a step back and contemplate that Miller's beat is WMD and the Plame/Wilson matter involves such and perhaps the questioning is examining that area of reportorial investigation and if somehow this type of information was passed from the CIA by someone like---oh, let's say Valerie Plame---in the past.
I really think they are evil, since they have no basis to make the flat statements they have here. They must know the truth of what the Wilsons were up to and are upset it is being found out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.