[go star go]

He's a Clinton appointee and his people at the CIA started this whole thing by talking with a British newspaper.

[max_rpf]

Does freedom of the press apply to libel? I didn't think so...

The CIA should demand the names of the source this article (a mole by any definition in the CIA). If information in a "press" (as we know it - propaganda) article turns out to be intentionally false, then the source of the article should not be protected by the freedom of the press.

Not only is the source responsible for the libel act, they have most probably violated their security clearance, and violated a whole host of laws regarding national security.

If the reporter refuses to name his source, he should be held in contempt of court, or be held personally responsible for the libel act. It should be in the ethics of Journalism (isn't that a joke) that if a source intentionally provides false or misleading information they will not be protected by the journalist that they gave the information to. It should impugn the honor (as if journalists had any) of the journalist to allow himself to be used in this manner.