Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Leak Probe Gone Awry (Wilson, Plame)
New York Times ^ | September 27, 2004 | Editorial

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; bush; cia; cialeak; firstamendment; fitzgerald; freedomofthepress; iraq; josephwilson; judithmiller; justice; libby; newsmedia; newyorktimes; novak; plame; wilson; yeloowcake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last
Is the Times kidding? It says it was not involved?

The Times helped light the fires of this witch hunt as part of its plan to bring down the president and get Pulitzer Prizes. Now it feels the heat, and fears being consumed by the flames -- flames that are also raging at the Tiffany Network for similar reasons.

Some things should be kept in mind. Plame's former covert operative status was well-known in Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington. There was no harm from disclosure without dissemination by newspapers. Wilson did such a poor job at investigating the Niger yellowcake claims he was rebuked in the Senate Intelligence Committee report. The forged documents appear to have been planted by French Intelligence to undercut America's reason for enforcing UN resolutions and taking out Saddam.

What has gone seriously awry was not the probe so much as the Times' failure to wound President Bush.

1 posted on 09/27/2004 6:16:07 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY
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.

Memo to the NY Times Editorial Board - when you throw a grenade and forget to pull the pin, don't be surprised when it gets thrown right back at you later.

2 posted on 09/27/2004 6:17:36 AM PDT by dirtboy (Kerry could have left 'Nam within a week if Purple Hearts were awarded for shots to the foot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Note the insidious naming of Scooter Libby in this editorial too. Pretty obvious who the Slimes' target is here.


3 posted on 09/27/2004 6:18:54 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Proud to be a Reagan Alumna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell; Shermy
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."

4 posted on 09/27/2004 6:19:41 AM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
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.

In other words, the First Amendment should be whatever the New York Slimes says it is. 

 

5 posted on 09/27/2004 6:21:36 AM PDT by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

This is precisely how they should be investigating. Ask the reporters. They have no privilege. They were involved in a crime, even if they were not themselves committing it.


6 posted on 09/27/2004 6:21:43 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
This is precisely how they should be investigating. Ask the reporters. They have no privilege. They were involved in a crime, even if they were not themselves committing it.

For a moment there, I thought you were talking about cBS

7 posted on 09/27/2004 6:25:14 AM PDT by IncPen (Tell your grandkids you helped prevent a Kerry presidency...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OESY
an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources.

I'm a firm believer that all sources should be on-the-record and fully identified. If you won't put your name to the info, the info is not worth having.

If one accepts anonymous sources as a journalistic tool, you slide right to Katie Couric editorializing and saying, "Some people are saying the death rate in Iraq is the highest America has seen in any previous war ..." I think all such blather should be seen as unethical.

8 posted on 09/27/2004 6:25:17 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (I have two words for John Kerry: "YYYEEEEAAARRGGGHHHH!!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
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.

This "chilling rejection" of a media privilege that has no basis in law -- either under the First Amendment or under any "evolving common law" principles -- is the best thing that has come out of this case. It was the height of arrogance for the New York Times to call for an independent investigation of this case while at the same time claiming that the newspaper itself should be immune from any and all independent investigations into cases that the paper's staff covers.

9 posted on 09/27/2004 6:28:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Why do they keep calling her a "covert Central Intelligence Agency operative"? She wasn't in the Directorate of Operations...she was in the Directorate of Intelligence. She worked at Langley everyday. Not clandestine. Am I wrong here?


10 posted on 09/27/2004 6:30:28 AM PDT by ohiobluesuiter (We've got better hair! -John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

Mike, I thought you'd like to see this info...


11 posted on 09/27/2004 6:31:52 AM PDT by NordP (We're Mad As Zell, and We're Not Going To Take Your Liberalism Anymore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
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.

If I witness a robbery at a convenience store and an accused perpetrator is arrested, the fact that I had no involvement in the matter at hand does not exempt me from being compelled to testify before a grand jury in the case.

12 posted on 09/27/2004 6:32:05 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Chris Matthews will be ejaculating drool all over this editorial! The New York Times makes mention of Matthews'favorite villain, the dastardly Scooter Livvy.

(Are things so grim for the left, Scooter gotta be dredged up?)

13 posted on 09/27/2004 6:34:58 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@Good Luck To Our Freeper Friends In Florida.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Plame's former covert operative status was well-known in Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington




Yep. IF they really want to know who exposed Wilson's wife........they need look no further than Wilson...and his wife.

They talked about it at every dinner and DC party they went to for the longest time.


14 posted on 09/27/2004 6:37:05 AM PDT by ArmyBratproud (all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"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.

Further Memo to NYT: Logic would say the purpose of the investigation is to determine where the focus should be. But then logic has never been a NYT strength, which, like it's MSM colleague CBS, supports only investigative efforts which target their predetermined, prejudged outcomes.

15 posted on 09/27/2004 6:40:02 AM PDT by Reo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Thanks for posting this.

The NY Slimes was the major springboard for the lies, spins and disgusting attempt to embarass GW with the Wilson/Plame fiasco.

This bs had brewing and perking along on the rat blog sites for months, and then the NY Slimes made it front page lies, spins and vile attacks.

The NY Slimes is heading the same way that ABCNNBC BS NOTNEWS programs are heading, into extinction.

Now the arrogance of the editors and publisher of the
Slimes to deny that they had a big part in this attempted coup against GW makes C BS's fiasco look small.


16 posted on 09/27/2004 6:40:55 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (When will the ABCNNBC BS lunatic libs stop Rathering to Americans? Answer: NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmyBratproud

Ah, so "former" is the nuance word that is lost here. Now I understand. I don't know any Agency people that were true Ops that talk openly about it. Only wannabees and S&TI people.


17 posted on 09/27/2004 6:41:45 AM PDT by ohiobluesuiter (We've got better hair! -John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OESY

"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. "

This sounds like it came out of that leaked "rockey" memo that planned to "investigate" President Bush.


18 posted on 09/27/2004 6:42:41 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Below, in a couple of sentences, you have captured the full essence of the NY Slimes in this fiasco:

This "chilling rejection" of a media privilege that has no basis in law -- either under the First Amendment or under any "evolving common law" principles -- is the best thing that has come out of this case. It was the height of arrogance for the New York Times to call for an independent investigation of this case while at the same time claiming that the newspaper itself should be immune from any and all independent investigations into cases that the paper's staff covers.

19 posted on 09/27/2004 6:42:57 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (When will the ABCNNBC BS lunatic libs stop Rathering to Americans? Answer: NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Thanks for the ping. They're mad because Scooter has been completely eliminated as the source. The reporters that have been compelled to testify so far have had to admit the discussion of this aspect never came up---no Wilson's wife conversation.

So the deceitful and arrogant Times pens this:

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.

Are they idiots or just evil?

First, how do they know for a fact that the Bush WH was guilty of anything? Novak has explicitly said his source was not in the WH.

Second, if the Times were being honest about the whole thing perhaps they'd take a step back and contemplate that Miller's beat is WMD and the Plame/Wilson matter involves such and perhaps the questioning is examining that area of reportorial investigation and if somehow this type of information was passed from the CIA by someone like---oh, let's say Valerie Plame---in the past.

I really think they are evil, since they have no basis to make the flat statements they have here. They must know the truth of what the Wilsons were up to and are upset it is being found out.

20 posted on 09/27/2004 6:44:40 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Once again, none of these journalists were involved in the central issue...

You'd think the New York Times' editors would at least be able to use proper grammar in their editorials. This should be "... none of these journalists "was"...

Don't they teach diagramming sentences any more?

21 posted on 09/27/2004 6:46:38 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More ( Kerry is the Hanoi candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
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. Oh....poor baby. Let me see if I've got this right. Journalist can sit still and be quiet and not reveal their sources while the governement spends millions of our tax dollars trying to figure it out. What's wrong with this picture? I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So, why is there a governmental investigation. Leave the press and the American public alone. Let them excercise freedom of the press and free speech. BTW, is the NYT following up on the Sandy Berger scandal? Hmmmmmmm?
22 posted on 09/27/2004 6:48:53 AM PDT by no dems (Saddam Hussein, himself, was a Weapon of Mass Destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers
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.

This is outrageous.

Libby waived any confidentiality and the Times is in a snit?!

Notice how they omit the part where the reporters who testified have said that Libby never brought up, nor did they, Wilson or his wife.

What do they mean that his consenting that reporters be allowed to testify to conversations they had with Libby doesn't seem voluntary. What does that mean??? It means nothing. They are just stringing words together in order to convey a deceitful message.

They are sick.

23 posted on 09/27/2004 6:49:54 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ohiobluesuiter
She worked at Langley everyday. Not clandestine. Am I wrong here?

You are not wrong.

The 9/11 Commission exposed the memo she wrote recommending her husband for the trip to Niger. A recommendation Wilson had claimed was never made and was part of his repertoire of outrage he would spew about whenever granted a public stage.

I want to know why the Wilsons were so keen on him making that trip when it is plain he did no investigating except the most cursory of inquiry.

24 posted on 09/27/2004 6:53:42 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ArmyBratproud

Perhaps the government official that Miller is being asked about is Joe Wilson!


25 posted on 09/27/2004 6:55:31 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

And keep in mind that CBS bumped a story by Ed Bradley that was going to cover (deceitfully, from the articles I've read describing the content) the forged memo business and was going to assert (falsely) that the Bush administration "relied" on the forged documents to make the "erroneous" claim of Iraq seeking yellowcake in Niger, hence we went to war on a false basis--the CBS story was set to breathlessly inform the public.

Note that Wilson himself gave people to think that one reason he was commissioned to sally forth to Niger and sip tea was on the basis of the forged memos. A tale many in the media were pleased to repeat when the fact is the memos came to light in October 2002, after his trip in February 2002.

What did Wilson know about the forged Niger documents and when did he know it?

Now CBS is in a spot where they have shelved the story since they realize now we're not going to sit by idly while they broadcast outright false anti-Bush propaganda.

Word is that lib blogger Josh Marshall was a "consultant" on that project. I am pretty sure I've heard before he's a conduit to Wilson himself.

It seems of piece.


26 posted on 09/27/2004 7:01:32 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OESY

So who gave Novak his info on Plame and why are they hiding their identities?


27 posted on 09/27/2004 7:02:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
This sounds like it came out of that leaked "rockey" memo that planned to "investigate" President Bush.

This sounds interesting but not ringing any bells. What memo is this?

28 posted on 09/27/2004 7:02:59 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I'm a firm believer that all sources should be on-the-record and fully identified

An unrealistic approach to fighting government and corporate abuse.

29 posted on 09/27/2004 7:04:06 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House

One thing I remember clearly(so do they). Novak said the source was an administration source, he specifically said it was NOT from the White House. The N Y Times says the White House because that's where they want to cause damage.

30 posted on 09/27/2004 7:07:31 AM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Part of the Reagan legacy is to re-elect G.W. Bush))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Excellent summary of the related events.

When the Wilson/Plame fiasco hit the MSM news last summer, many of us pointed out that this had been blogging along on the left wing blog sites for months. Then the NY Slimes decided to make the blogged lies and spins front page news.

"Word is that lib blogger Josh Marshall was a "consultant" on that project. I am pretty sure I've heard before he's a conduit to Wilson himself."

The Wilson/Plame lies/spin blogging is very similiar to the Burkett/? blogs lies before CBS picked up on them.


31 posted on 09/27/2004 7:07:37 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (When will the ABCNNBC BS lunatic libs stop Rathering to Americans? Answer: NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Ask the reporters. They have no privilege. They were involved in a crime, even if they were not themselves committing it

I don't see you demanding that Novak be held to this standard.

32 posted on 09/27/2004 7:07:47 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OESY

You forgot to mention that the "Iraq - yellowcake" question was decided without depending on the "forged documents" (as per Lord Butler, 9/11 Commission, Senate Intel Report)
.


33 posted on 09/27/2004 7:08:10 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The news media is not the police. They have no special rights or priviledges. As it stands, they can throw verbal bombs at any public figure they dislike. That is not a good situation.

Corporate abuse? I believe it is handled better without media hype. There are agencies in charge of corporate misconduct. If they need to be strengthened, then strengthen them. But it's not media's job to proffer unverified and unsubstantiated information.

Government abuse? As it stands, the media protects Democrats and slanders Republicans. That's not good. If media were even-handed, I might view it differently. But the current situation is heavily biased, and so I cannot see that media "helps" in cases of "government abuse". Again, there are agencies that are tasked with this sort of thing. The media should not proffer unverified and unsubstantiated information.

34 posted on 09/27/2004 7:20:05 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (I have two words for John Kerry: "YYYEEEEAAARRGGGHHHH!!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OESY
A Leak Probe Gone Awry </>

Translation: "We thought this propaganda campaign organized by the DNC and the MSM, complete with discussions between Pinch Sulzberger and Terry McAuliffe, would smear mud on Bush. Instead, it's backfiring on us, the liars who orchestrated it."

35 posted on 09/27/2004 7:21:39 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"I'm a firm believer that all sources should be on-the-record and fully identified."

Especially with a rag like the NYT which has a proven history (Jayson Blair) of fabricating stories. If a source won't go on record, he/she has no business talking. Period. In today's environment, the media have shown they cannot be trusted.
36 posted on 09/27/2004 7:27:39 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"I don't see you demanding that Novak be held to this standard."

Lots of us think Novak should be required to report his source. As far as we're concerned, reporters who divulge classified information, or any information protected by law such as grand jury testimony, are accessories to a crime. Quite simply, we do not trust the press not to fabricate stories based on made-up or dubious sources.
37 posted on 09/27/2004 7:32:21 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
They have no special rights or priviledges

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.

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 Republicans

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.

But even previously, the media with all its faults was considered one of the foundations of our system of checks and balances which has proven to be the best restraint on human greed, cruelty, arrogance, and intolerance.

38 posted on 09/27/2004 7:34:01 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"An unrealistic approach to fighting government and corporate abuse."

There are "whistleblower" laws for that purpose. How do we protect ourselvers from media abuse and lies and slander when the courts have gutted libel law and made it possible for the media to say virtually anything with impunity?
39 posted on 09/27/2004 7:35:46 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

How do you know Novak hasn't testified to the grand jury?

What lie has he disseminated regarding this matter? None! He did not push the Wilsonian spin/lie so he did not participate in the crime. He revealed an aspect of it.


40 posted on 09/27/2004 7:37:12 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

On what basis do you assert Novak revealed classified information? So far the evidence is he did not.

On what basis do you say you want Novak to cooperate as if he isn't? Word is that he has talked to Fitzgerald.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Novak (I'm not a particular fan, per se) for revealing the informatin of why Wilson was sent Niger way.


41 posted on 09/27/2004 7:39:41 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Desperate attempt to ratchet up some other scandal involving the Bush administration. The National Guard story blew up. Again. Now they're gonne regurgitate this one. It's amazing that members of the press would be asked who their source was for a story. You would think if something illegal was done by the WH that the presstitutes would be more than willing to reveal their criminal source. However, they aren't doing that. Makes me wonder if their source is a RAT.

I wonder who wrote this Editorial. Too chicken to put a specific name on a story indicates that someone at the NYTimes does not want the Dan Rather treatment.


42 posted on 09/27/2004 7:39:53 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

"Freedom of the press" has not always been construed to mean that the press has special privileges and is above the law, laws which apply to everyone else. Take the case of Kenneth Starr; the Clinton admin, working hand in glove with the Times and other media, leaked privileged grand jury testimony, then blamed it on Starr in order to sidetrack Starr's investigation. If the media had been required to name their sources, this injustice - this crime - would not have been possible. But I guess you don't think it's a crime for Democrats to interfere with a federal grand jury investigation.


43 posted on 09/27/2004 7:40:15 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OESY

The Times should move on, but they can't.


44 posted on 09/27/2004 7:41:20 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Lots of us think Novak should be required to report his source

I don't see it. I see lots of cheering that a Times reporter might be sent to jail. That's all.

As far as we're concerned, reporters who divulge classified information, or any information protected by law such as grand jury testimony, are accessories to a crime.

Too me its not so simple. It's well known that government often misuses the classification system to hide its errors and motives, and to maintain its hold on power. Partisans are always able to see this about their opponents, never about their own guys.

Quite simply, we do not trust the press not to fabricate stories based on made-up or dubious sources

Quite right. Nor should you trust me...or I you. But the antidote for these human weaknesses is more, not less, freedom of the Press. Or do you want to shut down the blogs simply because an awful lot of bloggers are completely irresponsible, uniformed, foul-mouthed, ignorant, hate-filled, etc., etc.?

45 posted on 09/27/2004 7:42:52 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MNnice

"In other words, the First Amendment should be whatever the New York Slimes says it is."

Think it is about time to pull the NYSlimes press credentials.


46 posted on 09/27/2004 7:44:40 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Control the information given to society and you control society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
"Freedom of the press" has not always been construed to mean that the press has special privileges and is above the law, laws which apply to everyone else

Right again.

Like all things constitutional (and legal) the meaning, the real meaning as expressed in the actions of the legal system, is constantly changing and evolving in response to elections and changes in public perceptions.

But the importance the Founders attached to the basic idea is unchanging.

47 posted on 09/27/2004 7:48:17 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

The reason that Novak is holding firm is that (a) he is a reporter and (b) the "government official" who outed Plame was Joe Wilson! As a conservative columnist, Novak won't be believed if he reveals it was Wilson. So he has to keep low profile until courts force NYT to reveal that it was Wilson. That's why NYT reports are claiming journalistic privilege -- they don't want to damage their precious liberal cause.


48 posted on 09/27/2004 7:51:01 AM PDT by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
There's a recent book out - "Imperial Hubris" (I think) - by an anonymous CIA employee (who has since been identified), and the author represents a CIA faction that is deeply opposed to the Bush administration's policies. It's always seemed quite possible to me that elements in the CIA are actively trying to undermine Bush, and this whole Wilson/Plame affair could have been part of that effort.

By the way, this book is reviewed in the current "National Review," and it's "must" reading. This CIA faction advocates an end to U.S. support for Israel, and that we cave in to EVERY demand by Bin Laden and his minions, that we virtually cede the entire Islamic world to Bin Ladenism. They also demand we cease to support any government - India, the Philippines, etc. - which is actively fighting Bin Ladenism. It is frightening reading; a powerful faction in the CIA wants Bin Ladenism to go unopposed, on the hope that the terrorists will then leave us alone. This is madness.
49 posted on 09/27/2004 7:51:07 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Absolutely. Novak should have to tell what he knows.


50 posted on 09/27/2004 7:52:31 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson