Posted on 06/30/2005 6:15:10 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
It says freedom of the press....like the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't give limits.
Well, we don't "know" for sure he testified - taking the 5th means you don't testify, for instance.
You can't use the "freedom of the press" to defame someone - there are reasonable limits.
Well, certainly slander is a limit.
But, that is it.
Anonymous sources are vital to journalism.
Without them, many corrupt govt. officials would never get revealed.
Does the press abuse them? Yes. But, that doesn't mean they should have their press freedom taken away.
Now, as for the Plame case, it will be interesting to see who the leaker is. I don't think this will be some horrible end-of-the-world scenario to have this source divulged in this relatively unimportant case.
But, it could stifle the ability in the future to get anonymos sources in stories that are vital and need them because people are afraid of retribution for talking.
I wonder if the notes that will be handed over will be authentic.
I do not agree that slander is (or should be) the only limit.
1) There is no First Amendment reporter's privilege; the privilege is not Constitutionally mandatory. This was, in fact, already well-established by Supreme Court precedent, and was presumably raised by Miller and Cooper in hopes that if the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the Court might overrule its earlier holding, but the SCOTUS holding was clearly binding on the Circuit Court.
2) There may or may not be a federal common law reporter's privilege (there was no majority on either side of this question).
3) Even if there is a federal common law reporter's privilege, it does not apply to the facts in Miller's and Cooper's cases because their is no other way to obtain the information sought.
There seems to be some confusion about the issue from the Appeals Court because Sentelle wrote two opinions, one for the whole panel of the Court which is the Court's decision in the case and one for himself as a separate concurrence. It was in his concurrence that he argued that there was no federal common law reporter's privilege, but that was his individual opinion, not the holding of the Circuit Court. Justice Tatel, in his concurrence, took the opposite tack, that there was a privilege but it did not apply as set forth above.
I don't think the "notes" are what will save Mr. Cooper from jail - my guess is he will also testify under oath as to the source.
they can't just accept the notes de-facto - Cooper must also testify - if he falls into the perjury trap, and has handed in fraudulent notes on top of it, he's going down.
He may testify. Whether or not what he'd say under oath would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...?
that only implies to self-incrimination.
Any word from the NYT on Judith Miller's fate?
It looks like "Time" may have given their reporter the option and he declined to go to the mat for the privilege of keeping his source/s confidential.
Also possibly to divert attention to just what was he really doing in Niger, anyway? He certainly wasn't doing a real investigation into the question of yellowcake.
Why would he "take the fifth?" No one has accused him of a crime. Except recently by innuendo the NYT And Time has in order to get their journos off the hook, portraying the matter as if it's only about who spoke to Novak. Were these officials the same who spoke to Cooper? Wash Post put out disinfo that "six" "white house" staff marketed Plame's name before the Novak article (which only mentioned two). That has consequences, it must be investigated.
There's the whole state department memo leak to the Wall Street Journal, which Jeff Gannon later cited to his ill fame. The MSM/lefties totally ignored the ramifications of that since it would protray the investigation as something bigger than a white house plot to coopt Novak to harm Wilson. The memo leak is the only clear pro-Bush leak and came from a supporter, IMO. All the examination on the left on the Jeff Gannon scandal avoids the underlying issue - what the memo said. Since it tends to prove Wilson a liar, it is ignored, as is Novak's hints about whom the leakers were.
I'm missing where anonymous sources are protected.
They're free to report. The law is also free to investigate crimes and elicit testimony from those of possession of knowledge pertaining to such. Nobody's stopping them from reporting what they know in full. It's that they won't that's the problem.
He didn't take the 5th.
"Also possibly to divert attention to just what was he really doing in Niger, anyway? He certainly wasn't doing a real investigation into the question of yellowcake."
Pincus said an official called him and said the trip was a boondoggle. It could be seen that way. Wilson is coy saying he had no reason to go to Niger. He was soliciting business there for a gold mine at some time, at his omission.
Tenet or assistant is a good choice for this complaint since Wilson's article compelled Tenet to write an apologia which I think was too quickly demanded by the Bush Admin.
I'm not buying it. I am seeing that excuse used to disseminate flat out lies, though.
Exactly. But is that the focus? No, we're treated to endless harping on the lie that Wilson "discovered" there were no yellowcake deals being made.
I agree. That Wilson's article was timed for publication as the President and a large entourage were out of the country so were ill-prepared to respond was intentional on the part of the New York Times, I'm sure.
Not excusing the poor handling of it by the WH. That was disappointing.
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.