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.
This intrigues me; I distinctly remember seeing Robert Novak on Crossfire stating that IF he received a subpoena, he WOULD tell them everything they wanted to know.
So if he did.......what's the rest of this about?
Where do you see that?
I don't think anybody has asserted Miller has done anything wrong.
Are you of the mind that because one may be a witness they are complicit in a crime? That is outright nonsense.
The NY Times editorial on the other hand is deceitful and malicious from beginning to end. But nobody is anticipating jail for their folly, just regarding them with disgust and disdain.
Oh, and in your world, does "freedom of the press" include the "right" to concoct lies?
Maybe he has...
They said no so he wrote up a report that they were right. He did NO investigation.
Looks to me like he never intended to and I see no reason to believe his wife thought he would.
Maybe they weren't planning to facilitate proliferation, but--at the very least--they didn't give a rat's ass if it slipped through. Since her job is knowing and reporting on what's going on WRT proliferation, why would she WANT there to be no investigation?
bump
Would agree with that, too.
But they do. The Founders thought them so central to proper functioning of a democracy that they specifically guaranteed "Freedom of the Press".Corporate abuse? I believe it is handled better without media hype.There is no distinction between "speech" and "press" in the First Amendment, and there is no distinction between journalism and book publishing; both are "the press." It is far more clear that Free Republic is part of "the press" than that CBS is; although both are more modern technologies than the 18th Century printing press, posting on the Internet is done on a non-discriminatory basis (which is why there is so much obscenity there) whereas broadcasting is a creature of the government censorship of all competion to the government's licensees.
You mean regulatory agencies that Republicans are always trying to gut and Democrats revile because of their closeness to the industries they're supposed to regulate?Government abuse? As it stands, the media protects Democrats and slanders RepublicansJournalism is a business. If you evaluate it as such, you find that it can be spoken of as a single entity because journalists are less willing to question the objectivity of other journalists than politicians are willing to question other members of their own political party. It's go-along-and-get-along all the way.
No it doesn't.In the age of the Internet and talk radio all views are easily available to anyone who's seriously interested and willing to make a small effort. Of course, the truly lazy and stupid get what they deserve...as always.
. . . which would be all well and good if the choices were individual. As it is, political choices are collective and we all tend to get what "the truly lazy and stupid" deserve.I think bloggers/Freepers should be content to battle the literal press with the Internet and talk radio. The worst of our problem is broadcast (mostly TV) "objective journalism."
To claim to be objective has the same effect as claiming to be wise - it rejects the idea of debate on equal terms and produces a propaganda battle. Editorialists and talk radio hosts speak with a human voice; "objective journalists" tell us a selected fraction of the truth and presume to condemn those who lay emphasis on the work 95% of the public accomplishes on a given day rather than on the fact that 5% of the public does not choose to work on the terms they are offered.
Here is that memo!
http://www.intelmemo.com/
"Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods."
New York Times stock hit a 52-week low this morning.
Exactly. It was their paper that published Wilson's "It was I" piece that kicked this off. A piece that was filled with deceit. You are correct, they are definitely involved.
July 6, 2003
(C) Copyright New York Times
The NYT is quite selective in its First Amendment applications/protestations.
It has not yet see fit to review "Unfit For Command" - even though this Swift Vet's book has been No. 1 on the NYT's own listing.
That is the question. Since the reporters who have fought subpoenas have been publicized and Novak's name has not been among them I will guess he fulfilled his statement that he would cooperate.
I can only guess that the trail did not lead along the "conventional wisdom" and now the NY Times evidently realizes it and has had their little hissy fit that the probe is "straying".
I call it following the leads.
I hope.
Miller is being forced to reveal her sources of information relevant to Plame's outing. Plame's occupation is considered classified information by the government...whether or not you agree. You mean you really can't see that you're applying one standard to Novak and another to Miller? You can't think at all. LOL...a fool's cackle.
Are you asserting Wilson did a legitimate investigation and accurately represented his findings?
Yes.
But I can't be sure and neither can you since his instructions have never been made public, nor has his report, nor the reports of the Ambassador to Niger or of General Fulford.
Absurd.
How would you know? Your grasp of reality is so limited.
Read the posts.
"But I can't be sure and neither can you since his instructions have never been made public, nor has his report, nor the reports of the Ambassador to Niger or of General Fulford."
Joe Wilson said that he did not know who sent him to investigate "yellowcake" and he would not know them if he met them on the street.
HELLO!!!!!
Absolutely! LOL....
That you would even ask such a question shows you have no understanding at all of human nature or the Founders' remedies for its defects.
That's been my suspicion.
Why our gal Val was just photographed speaking to Abbe Lowell at a Kitty Kelley booksigning.
Wilson, Plame steal some of Kelley’s thunder [Plame photographed]
See post #5 on that thread.
Not only cover up real information (Wilson had earlier presented information that actually buttressed the suspicion of the Iraq/yellowcake seeking), but to turn around and accuse President Bush of lying.
And remember that simultaneously over in Great Britain the charges against Blair about the "Sexed up Dossier" were being rolled out.
How did she send him?
Was she head of section? Did she set policy and hire operatives? If she did those are amazing powers for an unimportant employee whose identity was already well-known, hmmmm?
Or are you contending that she was some sort of Mata Hari...able to blind her superiors with seduction and tall tales?
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.