Posted on 06/28/2005 9:46:09 PM PDT by neverdem
Washington
LEGEND has it when Henry David Thoreau went to jail to protest an unjust law, his friend, the philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, visited him and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in here?" The great nature writer replied, "What are you doing out there?"
The Supreme Court has just flinched from its responsibility to stop the unjust jailing of two journalists - not charged with any wrongdoing - by a runaway prosecutor who will go to any lengths to use the government's contempt power to force them to betray their confidential sources.
The case was about the "outing" of an agent - supposedly covert, but working openly at C.I.A. headquarters - in Robert Novak's column two years ago by unnamed administration officials angry at her husband's prewar Iraq criticism.
To show its purity, the Bush Justice Department appointed a special counsel to find any violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That law prohibits anyone from knowingly revealing the name of a covert agent that the C.I.A. is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal. The revelation must be, like that of the 70's turncoat Philip Agee - "in the course of a pattern" intending to harm United States intelligence.
Evidently no such serious crime took place. After spending two years and thousands of F.B.I. agent-hours and millions of dollars that could better have been directed against terrorism and identity theft, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, admits his investigation has been stalled since last October. We have seen no indictment under the identities protection act.
What evidence of serious crime does he have that makes the testimony of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine so urgent? We don't know - eight pages of his contempt demand are secret - but some legal minds think...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the right of the press to protect criminals; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Novak revealed the name of his source to the prosecutor..."
Well, then why isn't the investigation over? What you say makes sense, it is congruent with the article's discussion about a "Martha Stewert prosecution". But if there was a crime committed, wasn't it by the leaker? So, if they know who that person is why hasn't the focus of the investigation turned to him or her?
However, that does not mean the reporters are off the hook -- because they refused to cooperate in what was still an active criminal investigation at the time they were called to testify.
Finally, I think I understand this. Thank!
Reporters DO NOT have to divulge the idenity of their "source" - it has to do with freedom of the press. Get over it and move on.
"I don't know what Miller and Cooper have to do with the Novak's story which revealed Wilson's wife's identity. I don't get it."
I'm with you. There has to be more to it. Why do they have un-named sources? Novak is the source. LOL
The Times is hoist on their own petard. They lobbied for an independent prosecutor and investigation because they figured it would embarrass the Bush administration.
Re: the Pew poll on the press/media.
How is it you can't turn on the TV these days without hearing about Bush's low poll numbers, the war is going badly according to public opinion......but nothing about the public thinks the media sucks?
Safire is the type of pantywaist "conservative" that the MSM loves. Like Kristol and Tucker Carlson he can usually be counted on to stage a preemptive retreat when engaged by an America-hating Lib.
Should lock up about 90% of all reporters and throw away the damn key.
But what happens when conservative journalists need confidential sources, say in the Terry Schiavo cover up, or in collecting dirt about our beloved judges, or our trade policy with China, or the profiteers of illegal aliens? Well, nothing will be exposed, because these journalists would have to reveal their sources.
Rolly said it best last night. Take away our property, take away the press, and take away our guns. Incrementally the govt. is plundering this country.
"Perhaps the leaker(s) was as good of as source as Dan Rather..."
It would be tough to reveal a source that was "made up" to hurt Bush, yet I do think it's a good source, otherwise they would out him/her. I will laugh my ass off if it turns out to be a Democrat official.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
Yes, this was a "liberal" attempt to get the Bush administration on this disclosure of an agent. Now that it turns out that other liberals will get hurt they are all for forgiving and forgetting. Not now. My suspecion is that soon we will learn that the source who revealed Plame's agency status will be another leftist, but whoever it is the story should come out. We are talking about a crime are we not?
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.