Posted on 07/02/2005 1:48:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I am highly suspicious of this. How do we know those are the original notes? Those reporters wouldn't have protected Rove...they would have turned him over in a New York minute.
Judith Miller...urged Hogan yesterday not to jail her... her lawyers said that...incerceration would be "merely punitive""
Um, Judy dear, that is what jail is for. To PUNISH the offender for breaking the law.
Send 'em to Martha Stewart's place in West Virginia.
Probably because they had the Italian government approval. However, the US will never admit that since they don't want to get an allies' officials in trouble with lefty Italian judges.
The Americans can better take the heat since they can get out of Dodge.
Right, I agree. Plus I thought I had heard that Cooper's source had given him permission to release his name. I recall reading that somewhere-not sure.
And I think Rowe would be more careful.
First question is why would Rove put himself at risk like this?
Second, if that was the case, do you for a minute think these reporters would go to jail for him?
Third, if that was the case, that information would have been leaked to friends of theirs and it would be on 60 minues within a week.
I don't know who their source is, but I doubt it is a Republican, if so they would have tossed them to the wolfs long ago.
Thanks, I feel better. I don't think the reporters would protect Rove at all. This case really is being hyped because it is the only criminal,ethics case against the Bush administration. The Clinton had lots of investigations. Double standard.
Otherwise, we'll be bombarded with daily op/ed bulletins from their federal pens on how they're not being treated according to the Geneva Conventions, how humiliating it is in the showers, and how lousy the food is.
Rice pilaf, AGAIN?
Leni
thanks for explaining this so well; it makes me wonder why Woodward and Bernstein weren't hauled in to reveal their source during the real investigation, thus preventing selectivity of investigation based on political sensitivities of the media.
Time Inc. wasn't the target of the judge's ruling that refusing to speak was contempt of court, it was their reporter.
He should be man enough to take the gaff if he continues to refuse.
Do take the 2nd Amendment symbolically, too?
If there's no law, then how are they being charged?
I believed they did, at least at a lower level who may not have let the government know or knew that the government did not want to know .
You are misinterpreting the first amendment, my friend, much as the liberals do. While the liberals read the Establishment clause to say that the government must be hostile to religion, and read the Free Speech clause to mean that they can say whatever they want without ANY consequence (not just government consequences), you seem to read the Free Press clause to mean that no law applies to a reporter if they were in the course of their job. The Free Press clause just says that the government cannot tell the press what to print or what not to print, and even that has some restrictions in time of war. It does not say that they will be free of consequences for what they print (think libel, etc.), nor does it say that they are exempt from other laws during the course of their duties.
In this case, no one told the reporters they could not print what they discovered. The laws being enforced here are not laws against the press - they are laws that apply to everyone; namely, that you cannot impede a criminal investigation by refusing to supply information in your possession about criminal activities (unless you will incriminate yourself by doing so). Reporters think they are above this law, but there are no exceptions written into federal law for the media (although several states do provide protection for reporters.)
So, if you object to this situation, the conservative course of action is to lobby Congress to pass a law allowing reporters to protect their sources without conseqence. I would oppose that, but it would be the correct process to follow. If you advocate having the judge ignore the clear text of the law, then that is a liberal position, not a conservative one.
Throw them in the wing where the weight lifters like to bunk. Let them learn what cringing servitude to your master means
I'm not really interpreting too much. It says "no law." If I want "no law" to mean exactly that in reference to religion (which I do), then I want it to mean the same in reference to the freedom of the press.
To abridge means "to make less than." Any law that results in less freedom than full freedom is in violation of this amendment.
Here's the part where I begin to interpret. If sources CAN be developed if confidentiality is assured, then full, unencumbered freedom would allow that. Any law that lessens that full freedom would then be in violation of the 1st amendment, imho.
Additionally, there would also be concerns regarding the 4th and 5th amendments in forcing an agent of the press to reveal sources.
I don't want any laws regarding religion, therefore, I don't want any laws abridging the freedom of the press. I want "no law" to mean the same in both cases. It's not an unreasonable expectation, since "no law" actually does mean "ZERO law."
If they don't apply to the press, then how is the press being charged for violating them?
If they do apply to the press, then they are "a law" rather than "no law." The constitution says "no law" abridging freedom of the press.
See posts #37 & #39.
I am a pastor. I have full confidentiality in pastoral counseling, so I'm told.
It is obvious to me, that no criminal would ever confess anything in my presence if he knew I could be forced to divulge it in a court of law.
The same applies to the press. Who would talk about questionable activities to the press if they knew the press could be forced to reveal their sources?
If the one injures religion, then the other injures the press. "NO law abridging the freedom of the press." No law = no law.
IMHO, the reporters are right.
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.