Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dalglish: Justice Dept. Probe of 'NYT' Shows Need for Shield Law (Journalists worried?)
Editor and Publisher ^ | 12/30/05 | Joe Strupp

Posted on 12/31/2005 6:43:53 AM PST by HonduGOP

Dalglish: Justice Dept. Probe of 'NYT' Shows Need for Shield Law

By Joe Strupp

Published: December 30, 2005 1:11 PM ET

NEW YORK Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, expressed outrage at the Justice Department investigation into who leaked classified information to The New York Times about the Bush administration's controversial domestic spying program, saying it is even more serious than the Valerie Plame probe.

"This is much more of a classic whistleblower than the Plame case was and that is why the stakes are much higher," Dalglish said. "The public needed to know about it and that is a classic reason why reporters need to protect their sources and it is even more reason why there is a need to have a federal shield law."

Dalglish believes that the seriousness of this case could drive regular citizens to speak out against such investigations and push more for a federal source protection bill to be passed by Congress. "Hopefully the public will begin to understand," she said.

Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis declined to comment on the Justice Department investigation and said no Times officials would be commenting. Executive Editor Bill Keller did not return calls seeking comment because, his office said, he was out on vacation


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doj; dojprobe; homelandsecurity; leaks; news; spying
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

1 posted on 12/31/2005 6:43:54 AM PST by HonduGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP
Too bad for you New York Times, whistle-blower does not fit in this case.

A whistleblower must also limit the disclosure to a member of Congress or staff of the executive or legislative branch holding the appropriate security clearance and authorized to receive the information disclosed.

2 posted on 12/31/2005 6:46:55 AM PST by mware (everyone that doesn't like what America and President Bush has done for Iraq can all go to HELL.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

With freedom comes responsibility.


3 posted on 12/31/2005 6:47:03 AM PST by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, expressed outrage at the Justice Department investigation into who leaked classified information to The New York Times


She should be arrested and thrown in Jail.
Just another stinkin Commie Pinko.


4 posted on 12/31/2005 6:48:13 AM PST by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

"The public needed to know about it and that is a classic reason why reporters need to protect their sources and it is even more reason why there is a need to have a federal shield law."

No... the public did not need to know, and for SURE, Al Quaida did not need to know.

The reporter should be asked for their source, and if refused, put in jail until the traitor that exposed this national security information is found.


5 posted on 12/31/2005 6:48:42 AM PST by Paloma_55 (Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

re: seriousness of this case could drive regular citizens to speak out

Certainly makes me want to speak out! Find whoever did this and, with proper consideration of their civil rights of course, throw the book at them.


6 posted on 12/31/2005 6:48:48 AM PST by jwpjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

"This is much more of a -classic whistleblower-( insert Treason) than the Plame case was and that is why the stakes are much higher," Dalglish said.
The fecal material will fly on this one!


7 posted on 12/31/2005 6:49:07 AM PST by primatreat (Alzheimer's in all its glory is knocking at my door/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

They're they go again with their "Whistleblower" talking points...


8 posted on 12/31/2005 6:50:09 AM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

I agree, Mware. It doesnt apply here. Leaking classified info is reprehensible enough without doing to injure someone else politically..


9 posted on 12/31/2005 6:51:18 AM PST by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

No, the public didn't need to know. Yeah, there needs to be an investigation and jail time - of the congressman who leaked it and the Slimes that ran with it.


10 posted on 12/31/2005 6:51:20 AM PST by mtbopfuyn (Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

Yes, and I've heard other "journalists" whine about "the chilling effect" on "journalism" that this investigation will have. This isn't about journalism. It's about printing national secrets that could (and has, if you count past stories) cause many deaths.


11 posted on 12/31/2005 6:51:27 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Lucy Dalglish is remarkably ignorant. However, ignorance, bias, laziness, and carelessness seem to be rampant amongst the members of the press these days.


12 posted on 12/31/2005 6:51:49 AM PST by Clara Lou (A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. --I. Kristol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

The push for a shield law, however you feel about the merits, is doomed to failre, becuase if one does favor it..you then have to immediately deal with the next question.."What's the definition of a reporter?" Would Matt Drudge qualify? How about someone who just blogs?..IOW..the MSM is over..kaput..this is their death knell.


13 posted on 12/31/2005 6:51:53 AM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mware
The public needed to know about it and that is a classic reason why reporters need to protect their sources and it is even more reason why there is a need to have a federal shield law.

This is actually a classic reason why the public does not respect the press. A "federal shield law" has no chance.

14 posted on 12/31/2005 6:52:36 AM PST by RedRover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

Good thing I'm not running things, because I'd take that reporter to Gitmo and waterboard him until he gives up the leaker, then toss his ass in jail for 30 years just for good measure.


15 posted on 12/31/2005 6:53:09 AM PST by skimask (I'll march through Hell wearing shorts soaked in gasoline, if needed to get the job done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

Dalglish believes that the seriousness of this case could drive regular citizens to speak out against such investigations and push more for a federal source protection bill to be passed by Congress. "Hopefully the public will begin to understand," she said.

Note to radical leftists, start demonstrations now!


16 posted on 12/31/2005 6:53:12 AM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP
"This is much more of a classic whistleblower than the Plame case was and that is why the stakes are much higher," Dalglish said.

Argle bargle.

17 posted on 12/31/2005 6:54:36 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

Maybe after they throw a few of these knuckleheads in jail they will take this war seriously and not as just another excercise to score a few political points.


18 posted on 12/31/2005 6:54:45 AM PST by Nateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LtKerst
"...Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press..."

Clue to Dalglish and the RCFFOTP--if we lose this war, how much "freedom of the press" do you suppose we'll have? Maybe Dalglish et al should give some consideration to what's at stake. Hint: it's more than causing problems for the President. It's our very existence.

19 posted on 12/31/2005 6:55:02 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HonduGOP

Ummm NO E&P. You do NOT get to demand the 1st Amendment does NOT protect "journalists" when you think the Plame-Wilson slander is going to "get Bush" then turn around and demand to be shielded because one of your pet stooges breaks dozens of Laws to leak SERIOUS classified info. IF the National Security issues involved in the mythical leak of Plame's CIA status OVERRULED the failed media's need to be shielded in the Affair Du Plame, the SAME principal CERTAINLY applies in this FAR more serious breach of classified info. You sowed the win American Leftist, reap now the whirlwind.


20 posted on 12/31/2005 6:55:29 AM PST by MNJohnnie (We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them.--GWBush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson