The U.S. Supreme Court did little last week to keep some reporters from being roughed up by lower courts for failing to reveal their sources. That’s troubling, because of the chilling effect it could have on aggressive reporting. Then there is this: The New York Times’ Judith Miller and Time’s Matthew Cooper, who did not use CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name, could face jail time for not revealing who leaked it to them. Yet conservative columnist Robert Novak, who used the name, faces no such jail time. What gives?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
32 Comments
Thats an excellent point!
Has he ever made an explanation as to why he used her name?
Im glad to see that Crossfire is going off the air soon. I believe it has too much of a hand in dividing the country.
That an easy question to answer Bob Novak is a conservative. The goverment is going to after someone who supports their policies. Just like you won’t see any jail time for the high level whitehouse insider who leaked the information in the first place.
That an easy question to answer Bob Novak is a conservative. The goverment isn’t going to after someone who supports their policies. Just like you won’t see any jail time for the high level whitehouse insider who leaked the information in the first place.
It may be that Novak has already squealed to the Justice Department.
Miller and Cooper maintained their integrity, so they must be punished.
That is what I heard too. That Novak has already disclosed his source to the Justice Department.
A more important question is whether Karl Rove indeed was the insider who outed the CIA operative. He should be indicted for treason if its true.
Kelly,I can’t believe you’d even suggest such a thing! If it had been a Democrat who’d outed a CIA agent, the Repugs would be screaming from the rooftops about treason and sedition. But since it’s a Republican and Bush’s brain we’re talking about, I’m sure he was just supporting the troops and making America safe for good God-fearing Christian Right-wing Americans.
Another important question- How is it that Rove, a political advisor, has access to the names of CIA operatives? That’s not in his purview, so what’s his need to know?Not only he should be prosecuted and executed, but so should the joker that told him! And so should the ass that told him to divulge it!
In the last analysis, this is a question of the rule of law. If Rove or whoever broke the law – and we know for certain that SOMEONE violated the law -then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
Why is everyone pointed towards Rove? I know you want it to be, but at this point of time, they have not disclosed the name to the public yet.
They probably will in time. But keep on rubbing your hands together with a big evil grin and hope it is somebody like Rove.
Why is everyone pointed towards Rove? Maybe because he’s the leaker. Or maybe it has something to do with his past. There was the invitation scandal in Chicago in 1970, and the training sessions in 73 where he toured the country teaching young Republicans how to use dirty tricks,or the Bill Clements campaign (word is, he planted a bug and blamed it on the Democrats), or the Ann Richards campaign when he conducted a push-poll to plant the idea that Richards and her staff were dominated by lesbians.Rove has a history of fighting dirty, and outing a CIA agent for political revenge would be right up his alley. Nobody has “officially” accused Rove of outing Phlame yet, but Lawerence McDonnel said Friday night on Mclaughlin Group that Matt Cooper’s notes will show that Karl Rove is the leaker. I don’t think McDonnel would make an accusation like that on national TV and chance a slander charge if it wasn’t true. But we’ll find out in the next week or so one way or the other. Rove is a slick operator, and he might slide out of this. But then again, maybe not. Americans, be they Republican or Democrat, take a dim view of treason.
I hate Robert Novak. I have for years. That said I do not support bringing any charge against him. Jornalists must have a right to conceal their sources.That said, it is well past time that a special prosecutor was appointed to look into this issue. If the Whitewater real estate deal was enough to justify such measure (and Ken Starr’s subsequent fishing expedition) then surely the security of our CIA agents and potential treason at the highest level of government warrants ferreting out the leaker.
I hate Robert Novak. I have for years. That said I do not support bringing any charge against him. Jornalists must have a right to conceal their sources.That said, it is well past time that a special prosecutor was appointed to look into this issue. If the Whitewater real estate deal was enough to justify such measure (and Ken Starr’s subsequent fishing expedition) then surely the security of our CIA agents and potential treason at the highest level of government warrants ferreting out the leaker.
I think the first thing to remember is that this all seems to originate at the New York Times; kind of the Mad Magazine of the journalist world. So anything coming out of them is subject to deep suspicion anyway.However, that still doesn’t okay the right to start jailing people on news that is already everyday knowledge anyway. Paranoia does indeed strike deep. Personally, I think it involves inbreeding.
JM, How DARE you attack my favorite source of news?!?!? That’s been my best source of information for many years and I find their articles informative, stimulating, and enlightning. People like you are always so critical of good writing. You’re always ready to slam what you don’t understand! In the future, I’d appreciate it if you’d not insult Mad Magizine!
Sorry, W R, I meant Newsweek:-)
Novak all by himself is smarter than the staffs of the Old Gray Bitch, Mad Magazine and Newsweek all put together.
There’s a slant to this I just don’t understand. The whistleblowers are usually people who are trying to get information out on abuses of power for the good of the people.Where does this whole story fit in that picture? It doesn’t.These reporters are protecting a source who’s whole agenda was to cause harm. Where was the good in disclosing Valerie Plames name? NONE… That story was solely for the purpose of retribution.
Exactly what harm was done? She still has her job. She wasn’t working at a job where divulging her name was a crime. The Senate’s 9-11 Report found a Plame memo in which she obviously used inside connections to unethically get her husband a cushy junket that he then performed with paramount incompetence, never filing a written report; instead he unethically published his non-results in a New York Times piece intended only to harm the government. The only truth in it were his words about spending just 8 days in Niger “drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people” on the veranda of Niger’s poshest hotel. Stunning undercover “investigation”, by golly!
Anyway, the yellowcake story still has legs. The British have always said their intelligence about Iraq’s trying to get uranium in Africa is accurate. Now further evidence has been brought forward to give even more support to the British claims.
The 9-11 report blasted Wilson’s dishonesty, but this inconvenient reality is ignored by Bush-hating partisans.
Reporters always say their silence is an ethical duty. They would be at least partly believable if they didn’t also gain access to government secrets through this self-serving ruse. That has to stop.
Tricia, what new evidence has been brought forward to give even more support to the British claims?Where in the 9/11 report is “Wilson’s dishonisy blasted”? Where does it say that Phlame “obviously” used inside connections to get her husband a cushy junket?
I’m confused…how does “trying” to do something make someone guilty of the act, and who, exactly, is among us who has the all-knowing power to determine why someone was “trying” to do something? That’s a lot like arresting someone because they might be “trying” to be a master criminal. They haven’t done it, you understand, but they’re “trying”.
I’m confused…how does “trying” to do something (in this case, acquire uranium) make someone guilty of the act, and who, exactly, is among us who has the all-knowing power to determine why someone was “trying” to do something? That’s a lot like arresting someone because they might be “trying” to be a master criminal. They haven’t done it, you understand, but they’re “trying”.
Nola, it’s called “conspiracy” if you try or plan to do something illegal, and there are laws against it. If you plan to kill someone and either fail, or back out at the last minute, you can still be charged with “Conspiracy to commit murder”.It’s beside the point. Tricia is just grinding the party line. The Niger documents were forgeries and you’ll notice, Tricia hasn’t provided any substantiation for her charges. She also plays down the fact that a CIA agent was exposed, and that’s against the law. If a thing like this had happened in the previous administration, the conservatives would be howling for blood. It’s a double standard.
wr locke,You won’t find it at your favorite hate-Bush websites, nor will the MSM weenies print the truth about it.
Look herehttp://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
You talk about my hate-Bush websites and quote from a right-wingnut website. I read where NRO said all the things you claim, but I still don’t find it in the 9/11 report. Just because you wingnuts repeat it over and over doesn’t make it true.
You can lead a horse to water, but…..it only helps if he can read long reports.
Tricia, I see in this morning’s news that your boy Rove is in the poop even deeper. You conservatives try to say it’s no big deal and it didn’t do any harm. What about any contacts Plame had? The bad guys will suspect anybody who had any contact with Plame. How many sources were jepordized just so the current administration could exact political revenge? You conservatives screamed your heads off anout a stained dress but you fall all over yourselves trying to justify treason. Problem is, you don’t care if you’re right just as long as you win the arguement. Conservative appoligists make me ill!
Oh, By the way Tricia, this came out in this morning’s Washington Post:
“On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.”
In other words, the White House was not merely aware of Wilson’s trip and its findings, someone had gone to the trouble to find out how the trip had originated, and then lied about Plame’ s involvement in order to discredit his findings. (Plame did not “set up” the trip, as Pincus was told, nor did she “authorize” it, as Rove told Cooper. )
If you give a jackass Koolaid, she’ll drink it.
No Plame did not set up the trip in the sense of making the arrangements, nor did she authorize it; but I never said she did. My point was that the 9/11 report references Plame’s memo to her boss recommending her husband for the boondoggle. That’s the point Novak made. I could care less whetherPincus & Cooper heard it differently. Their points weren’t what I wrote about.
THe koolaide provided by the WAPO is carefully constructed to mislead.
By the way, Rove has long ago verified that he told reporters about Wilson’s wife getting him the job. Nothing new there. The legal point, to your unending dismay, is that Rove did not divulge her name. So no crime was committed, except by the reporters who did publicly mention her name.
Well, jacko warlocky boy, you’re way too much of a mean-spirited, juvenile, rabid Bush hater to screw with anymore. I am done with you.
Gee Tricia, unless Wilson has several wives, I guess the omission of her name isn’t an omission at all, is it? If we mention the current president’s wife, is there some doubt as to whether that would be Laura Bush? How difficult is it to locate anyone’s maiden name? I agree with W.R. that a whole lot more has been jeopardized, and pertaining to our national security, no less. From what I read, national security is supposedly a high priority in this administration. Perhaps not.
Tricia, Bite me.
Seems that Locke doesn’t like to be so badly outdone by a woman!
What, by the way, does the incompetent CIA (with all of its leakers, obstructionists, and drones like Plame) have to do with national security? It’s been useless for decades — too many career political science majors with their own agendas; not any real spies.
Gathering intelligence is all about squeezing information out of bad people. Wilson’s tea drinking marathon doesn’t qualify.
By the way, the African yellowcake issue is supported by some good intelligence. Of course, there was also one forged document that seems to have been created only to cloud the issue; but it was even cruder than Dan Rather’s hairpiece, and it was considered suspect from the first. Only incurable partisans keep acting like the forged document was ever relevant.