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.
On what basis do you assert Novak revealed classified information? So far the evidence is he did not.
On what basis do you say you want Novak to cooperate as if he isn't? Word is that he has talked to Fitzgerald.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Novak (I'm not a particular fan, per se) for revealing the informatin of why Wilson was sent Niger way.
Desperate attempt to ratchet up some other scandal involving the Bush administration. The National Guard story blew up. Again. Now they're gonne regurgitate this one. It's amazing that members of the press would be asked who their source was for a story. You would think if something illegal was done by the WH that the presstitutes would be more than willing to reveal their criminal source. However, they aren't doing that. Makes me wonder if their source is a RAT.
I wonder who wrote this Editorial. Too chicken to put a specific name on a story indicates that someone at the NYTimes does not want the Dan Rather treatment.
"Freedom of the press" has not always been construed to mean that the press has special privileges and is above the law, laws which apply to everyone else. Take the case of Kenneth Starr; the Clinton admin, working hand in glove with the Times and other media, leaked privileged grand jury testimony, then blamed it on Starr in order to sidetrack Starr's investigation. If the media had been required to name their sources, this injustice - this crime - would not have been possible. But I guess you don't think it's a crime for Democrats to interfere with a federal grand jury investigation.
The Times should move on, but they can't.
I don't see it. I see lots of cheering that a Times reporter might be sent to jail. That's all.
As far as we're concerned, reporters who divulge classified information, or any information protected by law such as grand jury testimony, are accessories to a crime.
Too me its not so simple. It's well known that government often misuses the classification system to hide its errors and motives, and to maintain its hold on power. Partisans are always able to see this about their opponents, never about their own guys.
Quite simply, we do not trust the press not to fabricate stories based on made-up or dubious sources
Quite right. Nor should you trust me...or I you. But the antidote for these human weaknesses is more, not less, freedom of the Press. Or do you want to shut down the blogs simply because an awful lot of bloggers are completely irresponsible, uniformed, foul-mouthed, ignorant, hate-filled, etc., etc.?
"In other words, the First Amendment should be whatever the New York Slimes says it is."
Think it is about time to pull the NYSlimes press credentials.
Right again.
Like all things constitutional (and legal) the meaning, the real meaning as expressed in the actions of the legal system, is constantly changing and evolving in response to elections and changes in public perceptions.
But the importance the Founders attached to the basic idea is unchanging.
The reason that Novak is holding firm is that (a) he is a reporter and (b) the "government official" who outed Plame was Joe Wilson! As a conservative columnist, Novak won't be believed if he reveals it was Wilson. So he has to keep low profile until courts force NYT to reveal that it was Wilson. That's why NYT reports are claiming journalistic privilege -- they don't want to damage their precious liberal cause.
Absolutely. Novak should have to tell what he knows.
*** it was a serious abuse of power ***
is that the NYT's punchline? THEY should talk about abuse of power?
I have the distinct impression that the NYT has something to hide in this case, ESPECIALLY since they obviously lie in saying they had "[no] involvement in the matter at hand." Of course they did! They ran the Wilson story!
Do you apply this reasoning to Judith Miller? If so why don't you say so?
We owe a debt of gratitude to Novak ... for revealing the informatin of why Wilson was sent Niger way
No we don't
Novak is largely responsible for this whole mess because he couldn't understand why the CIA didn't use a partisan litmus test in selecting someone to check on reports that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
The CIA actually did its job quite well sending not just Wilson - who was eminently qualified to question high officials and corporate officers - but also our Ambassador to Niger and General Carlton Fulford, as well as covert operatives.
But Novak, irresponsible partisan gossip that he is, wouldn't accept this. So he nosed around until he found a government official who was mad enough at Wilson's criticism that he off-handedly insinuated that Wilson got his job through his wife's CIA connections.
Novak saw confirmation of his prejudices, didn't bother to do any real checking, and went to print with the info despite a CIA request that he not do so.
That's my take on the matter. I find it extremely unlikely that the Administration would be so stupidly vindictive as to deliberately out Plame.
What's most disturbing is the continued silence of the officials involved. Why haven't they stepped forward and admitted a lapse of judgement - a minor one if Plame was truly not a covert operator and who's position was well-known?
It's just possible that the people who will end up in jail over this are not "leakers" or reporters. It's just possible Plame, Wilson, and their "ring" will go to jail.
I suspect that's what's really terrifying the Slimes into gibbering hysteria. The game is just about up.
Consider, Plame's job was proliferation--presumably to contain it. Instead she sent Wilson over to be sure that any evidence of proliferation would be smothered.
Yeah? How did she do that?
No, I never stated Miller revealed classified information, which is why I didn't say so. LOL
On what peculiar tangent of "thinking" did you arrive at that "question"?
Novak is largely responsible for this whole mess because he couldn't understand why the CIA didn't use a partisan litmus test in selecting someone to check on reports that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
Are you asserting Wilson did a legitimate investigation and accurately represented his findings?
Absurd.
Oh, THAT memo. Yes, indeed.
Either way, I say there's treason going on here and I hope to God that this grand jury has moved on to examining that.
Scooter alert!
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.