Posted on 03/24/2005 6:25:20 AM PST by Pikamax
It is completely baseless and outrageous.
Liberallary thinks there will always be disputes about what is true and what isn't, especially in politics where real interests are at stake. The best way - BY FAR - to resolve these disputes is public discussion. When you start jailing your opponents you've lost all claim to decency or freedom.
If you'd made this statement from the beginning and left it at that I would have agreed with you.
Possibly testified. He isn't saying but we know he hasn't been held in contempt.
Why did you feel compelled to us the term "Nazi"?
It is not at all clear to me.
Yes, which is why the journalists should speak.
When you start jailing your opponents you've lost all claim to decency or freedom.
They have been called before a grand jury under subpoena and will not testify as the law demands. I urge you to read the appellate court ruling I linked up thread, including each judge's individual opinion. The three judges were unanimous and one judge even states he would be inclined to allow the journalists to protect their sources but the evidence presented under seal by the prosecutor was so compelling he virtually had no choice.
In general the sources for a reporter aren't required by the government, except in cases of national security. In the Plame/Wilson case, we apparently have someone who may have broken national security laws. In the case of the Islamic charities raid, we have someone who revealed information that was given to the Islamic charities and allowed them to destroy evidence, when such raid was done a few months after 9/11 and was the government's appropriate efforts to discover sources of terrorism money and people IN THIS COUNTRY who were aiding and abbeting their activities.
This is why I count on you for information in this case.
I also shouldn't try to get too technical when I am posting from my son's home and also watching a two-year old. LOL!
It can be confusing but oh so very interesting.
I'll ping you if Matt Cooper gets frog-marched off to jail.
LOL
This seems like a just decision to me. What's all the fuss? Jail the journalists and free Terri!
Off to do more laundry. Back later.
I didn't even bother to read the whole article because there was no crime involved in Plame case and the so-called witnesses deserve what they get for attempting a partisan attack on a conservative reporter, in an attempt to influence an election. Besides that, the source that the government is looking for, is probably within the CIA, or was at the time and fed the two reporters other information which the reporters then used to interfer with a terrorist investigation.
It was probably Ted Kennedy.
Add to that that apparently Plame no longer had a "covert identity" for nearly a decade before.
Thing is, the blabbers already spoke to the FBI.
The info is out there.
"But where's Novak in all this? Why isn't he being pursued?"
Larry,
don't buy into the latest left-side deflections. Novak is pursued. In fact, his sources have already spoken to the FBI, saying they told him not to use the name. This has been reported, but is ignored, because the Plame investigation cheerleaders are having second thoughts because it turns out that the leakers were not the usual hate objects of Rove, Libby, etc.
Novak can't talk, but he did warn them. He said the first leaker was "not a partisan gunslinger." They didn't listen.
The crime is not who printed but who leaked.
Well, if you have witnesses lying to cover up a criminal act, it seems logical that they might succeed in allowing that criminal to go free. Why is that so difficult to imagine?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0316-25.htm
Here's a prof for journalistic protections - but not in this particular case.
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.