Posted on 04/19/2005 3:12:31 PM PDT by stinkerpot65
FYI....
Because journalists are NOT above the law.
"Don't know why the bother. Doesn't look like any crime was even committed."
You know this?
LOL! But I do mean it.
I hope they rot in jail.
There is no such thing as a journalistic privilege.
I disagree. Protected sources are an important way to weed out corruption.
If Matt Drudge gets a picture of Ted Kennedy taking a bribe, his source ought to be protected. Otherwise, he is far less likely to get such a picture.
Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
In no uncertain terms, actually.
The leak was the crime. It was not a leak about a crime.
Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
The whole thing was a liberal media witchhunt which Bush caved in to.
If these journalists want to be protected under the law, they'll have to get the U.S. Congress and 50 state governments to change their laws. Making a Constitutional issue of this is nothing more than a lame attempt by one of the most mediocre professions in the U.S. today to elevate their work to the same level of "legal sanctity" as that of a lawyer or doctor working on behalf of his or her client.
they convicted and sent Martha Stewart to jail for the "crime" of "lying" to the FBI about a transaction that they didn't prosecute her for.
If Martha gets convicted for that then these snakes should be put to death.
(that's a joke, son)
"Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says:"
Mr. T knows this how?
I agree. Another witchhunt. Although, in this case, Stewart did commit a crime by lying. But the prosecution of a lie over a non-crime was all about her fame.
Mrs. T is Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing. She wrote the original law.
Did you even read the article?
Who was prosecuted over the Pentagon Papers?
Read this from the Court today:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200504/04-3138b.pdf
If I read it correctly, the jusdge is not without sympathy for the reporters but says they'd lose anyway in these circumstances, comparing it to the "crime/fraud" rule. IE, can't use the "privilege" to shield the crime.
"Did you even read the article?"
Did you? Where is it shown her knowledge about Plame's circumstances?
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.
