NationStates Jolt Archive

It is now being reported on the Fox Report that Judith Miller of the New York Times has been sentenced the next 4 months behind bars for refusing to disclose her source.
The other reporter said his source had given him permission to talk. So he was let off.
Mrs. Miller claimed that although her source had granted permission she was still refusing because she claims the permission is illigitimate. She tried to convince the judge with a wild conspiracy theory.
The case was the one where the Intell. Agents name was disclosed in by the New York Times and by Time magazine.
It's a fitting punishment because the reporter was committing treason by doing what she was doing.
I think what Mrs. Miller should learn from this is that freedom of the press does not mean you are free to betray your nation or violate the rights of other people.

Cooooolllll

No more Watergates! :rolleyes:

She didn't commit treason. So get off it.

whoever originally gave them the name committed treason, they conspired to commit treason

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!

No one committed treason. Not the person who leaked the information. Not the reporter. No one.

There may be a violation of the law concerning revealing the identity of a government agent - there may be a violation of the law concerning contempt of court - but nothing that constitutes treason.

She didn't commit treason. So get off it.
US Constitution:

Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


By pubishing the name of an agent in major national publication, Mrs. Miller was giving aid to enemies of the United States. Do not forget that our enemies get a lot of their information from publications like the New York Times.

I agree with WL: it's not treason. But I will say that it's good that she's getting a boot.

It's obvious that modern journalists have decided that "freedom of the press" allows them to publish anything they want, no matter how it affects people's lives, puts them in mortal danger or gets people killed (*cough*Newsweek*cough*). They've become more apt at the press equivalent of "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" and need to be shown that their "freedom of the press" comes with responsibilities.

Ihatevacations']whoever originally gave them the name committed treason, they conspired to commit treason
I agree on that one. They will get theirs now that they know who it was.

I agree with WL: it's not treason. But I will say that it's good that she's getting a boot.

It's obvious that modern journalists have decided that "freedom of the press" allows them to publish anything they want, no matter how it affects people's lives, puts them in mortal danger or gets people killed (*cough*Newsweek*cough*). They've become more apt at the press equivalent of "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" and need to be shown that their "freedom of the press" comes with responsibilities.

So what guidelines should the press follow?

Feh. I'll let all you hawks fight this one out...

I agree with WL: it's not treason. But I will say that it's good that she's getting a boot.

It's obvious that modern journalists have decided that "freedom of the press" allows them to publish anything they want, no matter how it affects people's lives, puts them in mortal danger or gets people killed (*cough*Newsweek*cough*). They've become more apt at the press equivalent of "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" and need to be shown that their "freedom of the press" comes with responsibilities.
At least they got this one. All the other ones got off free.

US Constitution:

Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


By pubishing the name of an agent in major national publication, Mrs. Miller was giving aid to enemies of the United States. Do not forget that our enemies get a lot of their information from publications like the New York Times.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Read here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Make sure you read all of it.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!

No one committed treason. Not the person who leaked the information. Not the reporter. No one.

There may be a violation of the law concerning revealing the identity of a government agent - there may be a violation of the law concerning contempt of court - but nothing that constitutes treason.
This is ridiculous, I have seen some of the crazier rightwingers accusing liberals of treason because they opposed the war in Iraq or something of hte like, then when people EXPOSE A CIA AGENT, everyone is jumping to their defense. This violates some act and it can be argeud to count as treason for the original discloser

and I, sadly, partially agree with legs and pundistan, the reporters themselves did no commit treason, they violated some congressional act, whoever gave them the name committed treason

So what guidelines should the press follow?
How about truthful reporting.
How about holding on publishing crap when any reasonable person knows that if you publish it today, it will get people killed or cause riots?
How about checking facts and sources?

Ihatevacations']This is ridiculous, I have seen some of the crazier rightwingers accusing liberals of treason because they opposed the war in Iraq or something of hte like, then when people EXPOSE A CIA AGENT, everyone is jumping to their defense. This violates some act from 1994 or 96, and it can be argeud to count as treason for the original discloser

Yes, it's a serious violation of the law. A felony. But it is not treason.

A citizen, it was said, may take actions ''which do aid and comfort the enemy . . . but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.''

Better read up on the law. Or, if you like, the Republicans can redefine what treason and sedition mean - much to my dismay, and the dismay of others.

Ihatevacations']This is ridiculous, I have seen some of the crazier rightwingers accusing liberals of treason because they opposed the war in Iraq or something of hte like, then when people EXPOSE A CIA AGENT, everyone is jumping to their defense. This violates some act and it can be argeud to count as treason for the original discloser

and I, sadly, partially agree with legs and pundistan, the reporters themselves did no commit treason, they violated some congressional act, whoever gave them the name committed treason

That false charges of treason have been laid against liberals does not justify making false charges by liberals.

None of this has anything to do with treason.

The leaking of the name of a CIA agent was a serious offense, but not even in the same ballpark as treason.

Furthermore, Ms. Miler is not being punished for publishing her article. She is being held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal her source. World of difference.

How about truthful reporting.
How about holding on publishing crap when any reasonable person knows that if you publish it today, it will get people killed or cause riots?
How about checking facts and sources?
I agree, but I don't believe that goes far enough.

Journalists/editor/media conglomerates should be subject to fines/imprisonment if they publish materials/information covered under National Security secrecy. Also, they should be held liable for printing rumors/partial (spun) stories/outright lies.

I realize that would cut back on the ammount of "news" that we get bombarded with and would put most "entertainment news" (which is mostly unsubstantiated hearsy/rumor anyway) out of business and would make the news less "sensational"....but so be it.

The news should be the truth...not something spun and sensationalized in order to get ratings and advertising dollars.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Read here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Make sure you read all of it.
1. This not about party partisanship since most people of both parties support the fact that she is guilty.

2. There are more than 2 witnesses to support the charge. This includes the person who disclosed the name in the first place. It also includes the reporter's employer.

3. None of the those cases applies here. You do not have to take up arms and start killing Americans to be guilty of treason.

4. Even in the final paragraph, it states that the courts' definition of treason is muddled. Hence the only reliable definition is that given in the constitution itself.

The news should be the truth...not something spun and sensationalized in order to get ratings and advertising dollars.

Truth is subjective -- and NO SOURCE is unbaised, no matter how much it tries to be. Asking for the truth will get you nowhere.

Reading a variety of news sources, both domestic and international, will allow you to synthesize a view that probably approximates truth -- but for too many people, that's too much bother.

That false charges of treason have been laid against liberals does not justify making false charges by liberals.

None of this has anything to do with treason.

The leaking of the name of a CIA agent was a serious offense, but not even in the same ballpark as treason.

Furthermore, Ms. Miler is not being punished for publishing her article. She is being held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal her source. World of difference.
Well, whoever let the name slip is at least in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. They could probably get more than that

1. This not about party partisanship since most people of both parties support the fact that she is guilty.

2. There are more than 2 witnesses to support the charge. This includes the person who disclosed the name in the first place. It also includes the reporter's employer.

3. None of the those cases applies here. You do not have to take up arms and start killing Americans to be guilty of treason.

4. Even in the final paragraph, it states that the courts' definition of treason is muddled. Hence the only reliable definition is that given in the constitution itself.


She would have to "adhere" to the enemy.

This means that you would need two live witnesses to her doing something like swearing fealty to al-Qaeda.

You don't have anything like that. Sure, revealing a name may aid the enemy - but if you don't have the "adhere", it won't stick.

Jeez, I'm starting to sound like Johnny Cochran.

Truth is subjective -- and NO SOURCE is unbaised, no matter how much it tries to be. Asking for the truth will get you nowhere.

Reading a variety of news sources, both domestic and international, will allow you to synthesize a view that probably approximates truth -- but for too many people, that's too much bother.
I don't believe that factual truth is subjective. Reporters should report the facts and only the facts. Not speculation. Not rumor. Not "anonymous source" bullshit. JUST the facts...all the facts. Let the viewer/reader come up with their own conclusions from there.

Truth is subjective -- and NO SOURCE is unbaised, no matter how much it tries to be. Asking for the truth will get you nowhere.

Reading a variety of news sources, both domestic and international, will allow you to synthesize a view that probably approximates truth -- but for too many people, that's too much bother.
The problem is that most reporters don't even try to report the truth.

She would have to "adhere" to the enemy.

This means that you would need two live witnesses to her doing something like swearing fealty to al-Qaeda.

You don't have anything like that. Sure, revealing a name may aid the enemy - but if you don't have the "adhere", it won't stick.

Jeez, I'm starting to sound like Johnny Cochran.
Ok, I give you your point.

This talk of Ms. Miller being punished for publishing what she did or for committing treason is off-base, as that is not what is occurring. (And, as WL, has tried to explain, her conduct is simply not treason -- or even in that ballpark.)

Ms. Miller is being held in contempt of court for refusing to name her source -- nothing more and nothing less. She is not being punished for anything. There is a rather significant issue about freedom of the press and confidentiality of sources and whether Ms. Miller should be held in contempt is debatable.

As for the idea that reporting should be restricted in relation to national security, such an idea is contrary to our nation's ideas and true security. Freedom is not weakness.

This is one of those issues on which I cite the US Supreme Court, not because of its authority, but because of the soundness of its reasoning and the eloquence of its opinion: New York Times v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/403/713.html ), 403 US 713 (1971):

Mr. Justice Black, with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins, concurring:
...
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. ...

[W]e are asked to hold that despite the First Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security." ... To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure."

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes - great man and great Chief Justice that he was - when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.

"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government."

Mr. Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Black joins, concurring:
...
Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions there should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate.
...

Mr. Justice Stewart, with whom Mr. Justice White joins, concurring:

In the governmental structure created by our Constitution, the Executive is endowed with enormous power in the two related areas of national defense and international relations. This power, largely unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branches, has been pressed to the very hilt since the advent of the nuclear missile age. ...

In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For without an informed and free press there cannot be an enlightened people.

...
Note: I am not saying -- nor am I implying that the Court has ever held -- that a journalist cannot be punished for violating a national security statute with criminal penalties. To the contrary, they can and have and should be. The above case is about preventing the press from publishing information on grounds of national security -- i.e., prior restraint. But the sentiments expressed above to also make clear that we should not view freedom of the press as inimical to our security and, I think, give cause for belief that we should very rarely seek to punish the press for exercising its freedom -- to do so is against our interests.

Note2: FYI, the above case was a 6-3 per curiam decision rejecting the Nixon administration's attempt to get injunctions restraining the publication of the infamous Pentagon Papers. I have, rather obviously I hope, only quoted a few select passages from some of the concurring opinions. Of course, there were other concurrences, more to the concurrences from which I quote, and two dissenting opinions.

i don't recall anyone accusing either reporter of treason

Ihatevacations']i don't recall anyone accusing either reporter of treason
Read the first post in the thread.

How about truthful reporting.
How about holding on publishing crap when any reasonable person knows that if you publish it today, it will get people killed or cause riots?
How about checking facts and sources?
And what about instances when reporting the truth may result in killings or riots? Like the situation on the Phillipines right now, where the president blundered big time and the press reported that truthfully. The people are on the verge of fullblown civil unrest, just the army holds them back.

The problem is that most reporters don't even try to report the truth.

1. That is so untrue as to be absurd.

2. The very reporting about which you complained about in the start of this thread was true.

3. Again, I'll quote the wisdom of the Supreme Court on the notion that freedom of speech or press should be restricted to "truth."

New York Times v. Sullivan (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html ), 376 US 254, 269-272 (1964):

The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 . "The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369. "t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," [I]Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 , and this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all." United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (D.C. S. D. N. Y. 1943). Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 -376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

"Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."

Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open ...

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth - whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials - and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 -526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445. As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 , the Court declared:

"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."

That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and [it] must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive," N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433

Oliver Wendell Holmes also explained in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919) persecution of speech that is "untrue" may seem "perfectly logical":

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/418/323.html ), 418 US 323, 339-341 (1974):

We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues. ...

Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. As James Madison pointed out in the Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798: "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution of 1787, p. 571 (1876). And punishment of error runs the risk of inducing a cautious and restrictive exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press. Our decisions recognize that a rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship. ... The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.

There are, of course, laws restricting absolute freedom of speech. Two of the cases here involve drawing the line of when the press may be sued for libel. Our laws are based on a careful balancing of interests over the last 2 centuries. One can argue for tweaking in either direction, but such wholesale condemnation of freedom of the press as exhibited here is unwarranted and unwise.

And what about instances when reporting the truth may result in killings or riots? Like the situation on the Phillipines right now, where the president blundered big time and the press reported that truthfully. The people are on the verge of fullblown civil unrest, just the army holds them back.
Should read my second point in that qoute.

Here's an interesting note...

Most (if not all) journalism programs have a journalism ethics class that is offered...but is only an elective...

Ihatevacations']Well, whoever let the name slip is at least in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. They could probably get more than that
yes whoever leaked the name is a criminal and must do jail..at least 20 years...

but the prosecutors and the Justice Dept have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this WITHOUT jailing journalists whom promised to protect their sources ID.

yes whoever leaked the name is a criminal and must do jail..at least 20 years...

but the prosecutors and the Justice Dept have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this WITHOUT jailing journalists whom promised to protect their sources ID.
1) That never should have been printed
2) They have no right to withold a source in a criminal investigation, especially a federal one.

The fact that it was not pertinent information to be disclosed and the fact that revealing the information is a felony should strip them of their protection as journalists

Ihatevacations']1) That never should have been printed
2) They have no right to withold a source in a criminal investigation, especially a federal one.

The fact that it was not pertinent information to be disclosed and the fact that revealing the information is a felony should strip them of their protection as journalists
2. careful there. There are some cases in which withholding a source during a criminal investigation is legitimate.

yes whoever leaked the name is a criminal and must do jail..at least 20 years...

but the prosecutors and the Justice Dept have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this WITHOUT jailing journalists whom promised to protect their sources ID.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for Judith Miller, mainly because what she's been doing for the last few years can't reasonably be considered journalism. She's basically been an unfiltered mouthpiece for the Bush administration and Ahmad Chalabi, tossing reason, logic and evidence to the four winds in order to get her stories, most of which have been proven vastly incorrect over the last couple of years.

What Miller has done is abused the non-existent journalistic privilege to protect sources (that's not a contradiction, I promise). She extended a promise of anonymity to someone who was attempting to commit a federal crime--that makes her potentially an accessory, but at the very least, a witness, and witnesses can be compelled to testify, with the only exception being the 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

The thing I've found interesting about this is the lack of support Miller has gotten from her fellow reporters and op-ed writers. All across the nation, editorial boards are saying that she shouldn't have extended the privilege in the first place and that she ought to give it up now because her source was dogging her. That ought to be enough to let you know that Miller is on very shaky ground here.

The comparisons of this to Watergate is complete bullshit too.

Watergate was about uncovering an abuse of power and subversion of governmental process for the sake of power.

Plamegate boils down to spite and petty revenge politics manipulating the press to destroy the career and possibly the life of a former intelligence agent and everyone she ever had official or unofficial contact with. Claiming Reporter Source Confidentiality in this case is no better than Nixon claiming "Executive Privilige" on those tapes long enough to delete the incriminating portions.

*bump*

Mrs. Miller claimed that although her source had granted permission she was still refusing because she claims the permission is illigitimate.
Cite me one source where this is fact. I've yet to read that anywhere. Most of the articles I have read said that the court AND investigators already knew who her source was regardless of whether or not she admitted it.

You can read that here (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20050707/ts_chicagotrib/newyorktimesreporterisjailed) if you're interested.

How about we worry about who actually put this CIA agent's name out there? It certainly wasn't Judith Miller. In fact, if you read that article, you find out that Robert Novak is the one who originally revealed the identity after learning it. Matthew Cooper, who made a deal, wrote a story, too; Miller never wrote a published story on Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in question, instead she merely investigated the story after the fact.

Ihatevacations']1) That never should have been printed
2) They have no right to withold a source in a criminal investigation, especially a federal one.

The fact that it was not pertinent information to be disclosed and the fact that revealing the information is a felony should strip them of their protection as journalists

By God. I agree with [NS}Ihatevacations!

The comparisons of this to Watergate is complete bullshit too.

Watergate was about uncovering an abuse of power and subversion of governmental process for the sake of power.

Plamegate boils down to spite and petty revenge politics manipulating the press to destroy the career and possibly the life of a former intelligence agent and everyone she ever had official or unofficial contact with. Claiming Reporter Source Confidentiality in this case is no better than Nixon claiming "Executive Privilige" on those tapes long enough to delete the incriminating portions.

Holy cow. And I agree with Gauthier too? It must be the end of the world.

Cooooolllll

No more Watergates! :rolleyes:

Guess you'll just have to win elections the old fashion way.

Cooollll!

No more classified troop movements being disclosed to the international media and causing our marines coming ashore in Somolia to be greeted with cameras and floodlights! :D

Guess you'll just have to win elections the old fashion way.

Cooollll!

No more classified troop movements being disclosed to the international media and causing our marines coming ashore in Somolia to be greeted with cameras and floodlights! :D
Actually it is way better that the media not know our movements cause everytime they know something they blast it to the whole world so that our enemies get the info and are there waiting to kill our people.

Cite me one source where this is fact. I've yet to read that anywhere. Most of the articles I have read said that the court AND investigators already knew who her source was regardless of whether or not she admitted it.

You can read that here (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20050707/ts_chicagotrib/newyorktimesreporterisjailed) if you're interested.

How about we worry about who actually put this CIA agent's name out there? It certainly wasn't Judith Miller. In fact, if you read that article, you find out that Robert Novak is the one who originally revealed the identity after learning it. Matthew Cooper, who made a deal, wrote a story, too; Miller never wrote a published story on Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in question, instead she merely investigated the story after the fact.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/06/roves_name_is_spoken_brit_hume_defends.php

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972931

http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0707.shtml

the above links indicate all roads lead to Rove.

Emails prove it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050702-23462000-bc-us-leak-2ndld.xml

http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/7/3/142921/3542

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/39315670-ec89-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/12051982.htm





http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050707/OPINION01/507070312/1015

Guess you'll just have to win elections the old fashion way.

Cooollll!

No more classified troop movements being disclosed to the international media and causing our marines coming ashore in Somolia to be greeted with cameras and floodlights! :D

I love the "blame America first" attitude that sees American ideals of democratic government, free press, and an informed public as weaknesses rather than strengths.

We are not a weaker nation because we have a free press and an informed public. It makes us stronger and more secure.

Jettisoning our ideals and way of life to "protect us" is sickening and obviously counter-productive.

So, is anyone going to charge the leak with any sort of crime? And do we know who it was now, or what their motivation might have been?

So, is anyone going to charge the leak with any sort of crime? And do we know who it was now, or what their motivation might have been?
That's what the grand jury is investigating--who to charge with making the leak, and potentially with perjury for lying to the grand jury. As far as motivation, well, political revenge seems most likely, but in my opinion, there's no justification for it, regardless of motive.

For now on:

1) it is mandatory to report any suspiscious activity by ordinary citizens, neighbours (look at these new laws...)

2) it is illegal to investigate or report government activities


Tomorrow morning in America's newspapers:

"GUY NEXT DOOR PICKS NOSE, SUED BY DISGUSTED OLD LADY. - Army torches house, kills hamster in surgical strike."

"MOWING LAWN AT 7AM, A FEDERAL OFFENSE? - New detention center build at Gitmo. Your neighbour could be next."

"LOVE THY GOVERNMENT - 11th commandment found in a dig on mount Sinai, made mandatory. All Bibles rewritten."

"JOURNALISTS: DO WE NEED THEM? - An editorial from the new Committee of Truth and Information."

I love the "blame America first" attitude that sees American ideals of democratic government, free press, and an informed public as weaknesses rather than strengths.

We are not a weaker nation because we have a free press and an informed public. It makes us stronger and more secure.

Jettisoning our ideals and way of life to "protect us" is sickening and obviously counter-productive.
Whose saying that?

It is now being reported on the Fox Report that Judith Miller of the New York Times has been sentenced the next 4 months behind bars for refusing to disclose her source.
The other reporter said his source had given him permission to talk. So he was let off.
Mrs. Miller claimed that although her source had granted permission she was still refusing because she claims the permission is illigitimate. She tried to convince the judge with a wild conspiracy theory.
The case was the one where the Intell. Agents name was disclosed in by the New York Times and by Time magazine.
It's a fitting punishment because the reporter was committing treason by doing what she was doing.
I think what Mrs. Miller should learn from this is that freedom of the press does not mean you are free to betray your nation or violate the rights of other people.

could you get this more wrong... have you even listened to the news on this issue.. firstly, for a crime to be committed her source had to know the person was a CIA agent, had to know they had TOP SECRETE clearance, had to know they held this position within the last 5 years .... none of this is clear... secondly... SHE committed no crime at all as she got this information and decided NOT to write a peice on it...

where is the crime o expert that you are obviously not!

Should we remove any check that we have on government ... to never again have another watergate is a crime against the publics interest.

But some people rather live in ignorance it seems

could you get this more wrong... have you even listened to the news on this issue.. firstly, for a crime to be committed her source had to know the person was a CIA agent, had to know they had TOP SECRETE clearance, had to know they held this position within the last 5 years .... none of this is clear... secondly... SHE committed no crime at all as she got this information and decided NOT to write a peice on it...

where is the crime o expert that you are obviously not!

Should we remove any check that we have on government ... to never again have another watergate is a crime against the publics interest.

But some people rather live in ignorance it seems
Just those reporters who undermining the war on terror.

This incident boils down to one very very crucial question for democratic societies now under threat of terrorism:

Where does one draw the line between state security and the right to freedom of expression?

It's another one of those questions, like evolution vs creation and war vs negotiation, that will never have a consensus.

Debate forever.

So, is anyone going to charge the leak with any sort of crime? And do we know who it was now, or what their motivation might have been?

Leaking the name of a CIA agent is a violation of National Security laws and therefor, punishable by jail time. It isn't treason. Whoever leaked the name deserves to have his or her ass tossed inot Fort Levenworth.

I love the "blame America first" attitude that sees American ideals of democratic government, free press, and an informed public as weaknesses rather than strengths.

We are not a weaker nation because we have a free press and an informed public. It makes us stronger and more secure.

Jettisoning our ideals and way of life to "protect us" is sickening and obviously counter-productive.Whose saying that?

Just those reporters who undermining the war on terror.


Thank you for answering your own question.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/06/roves_name_is_spoken_brit_hume_defends.php

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972931

http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0707.shtml

the above links indicate all roads lead to Rove.

Emails prove it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050702-23462000-bc-us-leak-2ndld.xml

http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/7/3/142921/3542

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/39315670-ec89-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/12051982.htm





http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050707/OPINION01/507070312/1015

Every link you provided was a conservative or right wing publication, just for future reference of anybody who clicks. Also, you've failed to address any of the points I made. Miller is innocent, she didn't commit a crime, the leak did.

Every link you provided was a conservative or right wing publication, just for future reference of anybody who clicks. Also, you've failed to address any of the points I made. Miller is innocent, she didn't commit a crime, the leak did.
I know I didn't address your points. I was going to and got side tracked with those. The fact that they may conservative or even right wing does not bode well for Rove, himself a conservative. That you must agree to.
If you're own people are saying you did it, its possible that you did something.
This guy won't even talk about it.

It's looking like all roads lead to Rove in this investigation. Even the conservative ones.

Do not forget that our enemies get a lot of their information from publications like the New York Times.

This will go down as one of the great NS quotes...possibly.

She didn't commit treason. So get off it.

Ya. The story was written by Robert Novak. Why the fuck isn't he in prison?

Guess you'll just have to win elections the old fashion way.

Cooollll!

No more classified troop movements being disclosed to the international media and causing our marines coming ashore in Somolia to be greeted with cameras and floodlights! :D

And no more independent investigations into whether or not the President got his knob polished.

Ya. The story was written by Robert Novak. Why the fuck isn't he in prison?
The question that should be asked, is that why was he exempted when the other two were threatened with jail for refusing to reveal their source? Why the double standard?