Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in CIA Leak (Journalists Must Testify in Plame/CIA Leak Case)

ASSOCIATED PRESS ^ | 2/15/05 | MARK SHERMAN

[SuziQ]

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

According to stories I've read, at the time of the article, she wasn't 'undercover' and there were folks in DC who already knew who she was and what she did for the CIA.

[itsahoot]

When the media started fabricating "unnanamed scources

Shades of Deep Throat"

[Lone Red Ranger]

Maybe this is just what it takes to stop the leaks to the press. This is not a bad thing. I know journalists may be worried that they'll be frozen out and saying you can't have another Woodward and Bernstien without some 'right' to protect sources. IMO, this is a mixed bag at worst. (Not everyone gets to be a Bob Woodward...) We do have checks and balances built into our government to prevent abuses like Watergate, but no one seems to remember that the Pentagon papers were leaked by people with a political motivation which drove the 'plumbers' to stop the leaks (and use illegal/extra-judicial means). Stoping the leaks at the source by depriving the leakers of their potential reward means that people have3 to work within the system (a system that does work when it is honored). And reporters can still get to the facts without necessarily having to rely on people who would abuse their trust to propel their agenda.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. That is still true. But this country does have secrets to protect. We really do not want some things to come to light. Those who disagree with policies, particularly in diplomatic and intelligence circles, have dissent channels that do work and do protect them as dissenters. There is a formal process. If they used it instead of taking our dirty laundry out for the world (not just interested/concerned Americans), including our enemies to see we would be better off.

Besides, so far the so-called "Plame-gate" investigation by journalists has yet to reveal anything by the administration worthy of a Woodward or a 'gate' title. Freezing out reporters from anonymous insider leaking does not cripple their ability to get to the facts, but it does prevent those politically motivated leakers from leaking.

If we as Americans really do want to provide this protection to journalists, we need to have a standardized test for journalists and issue licenses similar to we do for lawyers (otherwise, anyone can be a journalist) and we need to amend the Constitution. I know we can ammend the Constitution and pass laws, but I am not so sure how many journalists we'd have left if they had to pass something similar to the Bar exam.

And journalism has it's own means to control this. They have Op-Ed, Commentary, and other columns/outlets to say that this information being presented in this section does not meet the same standard of information/fact-checking. Too often I see opinion insinuated into 'news' articles. Too often the sources are buried so the facts are difficult to check. There are standards for this and all of us learned how to write a bibliography in English classes that I know journalists have to take. If they used the tools available appropriately, perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in the hot seat.

Somewhere between lazy mental fuzziness and seeking to be the headline and not just write the headline, and the political motivations of the leakers it looks like there's lots of room for the profilaxis of personal accountability and self-discipline.

Otherwise, we rely on the Law. Welcome to the world. If you can't control yourself in regards to containing this nations secrets, we have ways to do that for you. Journalists and the leakers alike need to be reminded of this when they go to make that choice. This should serve as a very healthy reminder.