Suite: Judy Pinstripes
It doesn't happen too often, but Jonah Goldberg and I seem to have entered temporarily into the Vulcan mind meld. I disagree with some of his conjecture about the Plame case, but this part of his post today is spot-on:
Now, depending on what happens next, Jonah may not like the real-world result of his logic. We'll see.
I also think it is simply outrageous that people think journalists should have flat-out immunity to commit a whole range of crimes. Let's assume the conspiracy theorists are essentially right. The White House deliberately “outed” a CIA operative, knowingly putting her life in danger (which always sounded like a lot of hype, but again, let’s assume it’s true). Well, why do we have these laws on the books? To protect the lives of CIA agents. Right? Well, why on earth should a journalist have the right to be an accomplice to a crime? If it’s against the law for Karl Rove to put a CIA agent’s life in jeopardy, it should also be against the law for Bob Novak, or Judith Miller or Matt Cooper to do it. It should also be against the law for journalists to knowingly help someone commit such a crime. Doctors have special privileges, but they don’t include aiding and abetting crimes. Psychiatrists have special privileges, but they must take affirmative steps to prevent a patient from hurting others. Why should journalists be exempt from such requirements?Bingo. The pleas of journalistic integrity and the dire warnings of damage to future investigative journalism (in light of the past few years, that's a knee-slapper) from Cooper, Miller, their employers and attorneys are hollow and pathetic. If Miller refuses to talk, she deserves more than a couple of months in jail.
Now, depending on what happens next, Jonah may not like the real-world result of his logic. We'll see.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Wednesday, July 06, 2005
20 Comments:
And depending on what DOES happen next, we may see Goldberg furiously backpedaling on those comments at some point soon.
"chestnut brown canary, ruby throated sparrow..."
agree with TCR on this one.
The progressives don't have much sympathy for Judith because she did such a good job parroting the bush43 administrations fabrications which helped beat the drum for a poorly thought out and just about criminal invasion of a country that hadn't harmed or threatened us. So many of them/us feel that this is what she gets for choosing her friends poorly.
On the other hand, when the same (well, almost same) thing went down during the Watergate/Pentagon Papers era, we all supported disclosure of the info while also supporting shielding the source.
It's a paradox certainly. There are no hard and fast rules. A shining example of why each case needs to be examined individually for it's own merits.
Me, while this will chill some whistleblowers potentially coming forward, I'm not sad about Judith doing time for playing footsie with Karl Rove or his minions.
I think the problem is you can't define clearly when leaking classified information is for the good of the country on neutral terms. What I mean by that is you have to know all the circumstances; there is no way to define it abstractly that allows for the Pentagon Papers and doesn't allow Plame. Ultimately it comes down to the motives of the leaker, which ultimately is for a Grand Jury to decide on a case by case basis I guess. All we can really ask is that full due process is carried out, as in this case ultimately going to the Supreme Court.
Tayefeth, it simply isn't that clear. Ellsworth and Felt were both committing crimes when they leaked the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
I am all for the confidentiality of sources - we wouldn't know half of the wrongdoing that goes on in government and corporate America without anonymous sources. So it does serve a good purpose.
However, in this particular case, I don't think my right to know is more important than the lives of case agents especially if they are in possibly hostile countries. My right to know is not more important than the lives of the sources the agents have recruited. I'm sorry but that is the way it is for me.
As for this particular case, Miller and Novak (won't speak to Cooper) have, to one degree or another, not just been mere journalists. This is especially true of Novak. And I feel this information was passed on for political reasons and not for any sense of "public good" so there is no bigger picture, no moral high ground, no greater good served in this situation.
I agree with owenz, and disagree with TCR, up to the point where he says, "By refusing to identify the leaker, Miller is breaking the law and deserves to be punished."
There is no shield law for the Federal Government for reporters, but there should be. It is the responsibility of government officials to abide by security and secrecy laws, but when they divulge information to the press, it is the responsibility of the press to inform the public. Sure, there is risk, and there is such a thing as civic responsibility... one would hope that reporters would not divulge information which they know or should know is detrimental to national security, or even to an individual, but the duty to keep secrets is over and done with when someone discloses them to a reporter.
As far as shield laws, I believe that this isn't a good example of why we need them, (Watergate is), but the principle that in order to avoid a catastrophic chilling effect on the press, which is vital to a free society, reporters need to be able to keep their sources confidential, just as a priest in confession needs to be able to keep what is said to him confidential. It needs to be a recognized legal privilege; then everyone will know the rules. Sure it makes prosecutors' jobs harder, but the public interest in uncovering corruption and secret doings in government outweighs such considerations.
See Wash Post Editorial today, with which I entirely agree:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601964.html
I would add that there is a limitless supply of terrorists. You might catch a lot of flies with flypaper, but the species is doing just fine, thank you very much.
time to find another strategy.
I would add that there is a limitless supply of terrorists. You might catch a lot of flies with flypaper, but the species is doing just fine, thank you very much.
time to find another strategy.
The Illustrated Daily Scribble expressed it well.
I am afraid I have my doubts as to whether Karl Rove leaked any information to anybody. This very well may be a case of some well placed Liberals attempting to discredit Mr. Rove after his "inflammatory" (but accurate)remarks concerning the questionable motives of Liberals.
afraid I have my doubts as to whether Karl Rove leaked any information to anybody
Newsweek article just out confirms it.
Matt Cooper's Source:
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.
love the blog
Nice blog
Are you a Industrial Maintenance Software enthusiast? If so here is a fantastic resource for everything related to things that need batteries and Industrial Maintenance Software with information, products, articles and more..Check it out here...dampex.com
Great article! Thanks.
Thanks for interesting article.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment
<< Home