[Steve_Seattle]

The grand jury was not established to prosecute a crime, but to see if a crime was even committed. The pertinent law sets a very high bar of proof, one which requires actual, deliberate treason and intent to harm the security of the United States. As Novak said from the outset, Plame's identity was not shopped, or emphasized, but was made casually as part of a wide-ranging conversation. As other, even pro-Democrat, journalists have pointed out, Plame's identity was widely known in Washington before this "scandal" broke.

As for the press which you so uncritically praise, it generally defended one of the most sinister and massive threats to free speech in the history of this country - McCain-Feingold, and Bush was roundly criticized by me and others in this forum for signing that horrible law. The reporters in this case are being found in contempt of court, and most legal experts believe that the judges are acting responsibly and in conformance with previous freedom of the press precedent, and that appeals to higher courts would almost certainly fail. I'm not sure how my belief that reporters should obey settled law makes me a "Nazi".

[liberallarry]

Your first paragraph is just a restatement of my assertions.

As for the press which you so uncritically praise

A complete misstatement of my position. I uncritically(?) praise freedom of the press. Not the press itself and certainly not individual newsmen or publications. Like Adam Smith's celebration of capitalism; protect free enterprise despite the fact that many businessmen are selfish, mean-spirited, unappealing crooks.

The reporters in this case are being found in contempt of court, and most legal experts believe that the judges are acting responsibly and in conformance with previous freedom of the press preceden

They are being found in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources...on the theory that there is no law or precedent which allows them to shield criminals or criminal actions. Probably a reasonable interpretation of the law.

But where's Novak in all this? Why isn't he being pursued? And here's something to think about. Suppose the reporters lose their appeals and decide to reveal their sources. What happens then? According to you NOTHING will happen because no crime has been committed. Are you satisfied with a legal system which allows such things to happen?

I'm not sure how my belief that reporters should obey settled law makes me a "Nazi"

I don't like using epithets like that. In my 3 years of posting this may be the first time I've used "Nazi". That tells you how important I think this case is and how blind I think you are.