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.
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?
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.
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.
Perhaps the government official that Miller is being asked about is Joe Wilson!
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.
So who gave Novak his info on Plame and why are they hiding their identities?
This sounds interesting but not ringing any bells. What memo is this?
An unrealistic approach to fighting government and corporate abuse.
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.
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.
I don't see you demanding that Novak be held to this standard.
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)
.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.