Once again - Novak broke no law

Everybody here is creaming to put Novak in jail. The only relevant law is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which reads in its entirety:

Sec. 421. - Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences

A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment

************************

That's it. The law punishes INSIDERS who reveal such information. Novak is not an insider. Somebody in the government likely broke the law, but NO reporter can be punished for publishing the truth, and I would urge people to think long and hard about whether we SHOULD punish reporters who publish true facts.

The idea that Novak could be jailed for what he published would also allow Daniel Ellsburg and the NY Times and Washington Post to be punished for publishing the Pentagon Papers.

The only entity responsible for protecting the government's secrets is the government.

Seems to me the only burden of proof is that WHOEVER is involved in a pattern of activities that are intended to out a covert agent is guilty.

Doesn't say anything about insiders.

Just that WHOEVER is involved in a pattern of activities to out a covert agent is guilty essentially.

Am I missing something?

It is late, and I was up at 6am, so it is entirely possible.

Novak has engaged in a pattern of activity to identify agents.

Identifying ONE agent is not a pattern.

to multiple outings.

The second whomever called him and informed him who that agent was, and he decided to sit down and write that story, he was engaged in a pattern of activities whose sole purpose was to expose a covert agent.

If the fact that 'agents' is pluralized is the only reason he would not be guilty under this law, then whomever wrote it needs to go back to law school.

If I were prosecuting this, I would take that chance.

Read the law, which I quoted in its entirely.

Somebody broke the law, clearly. Robert Novak was not that person. Somebody in the government did.

I did read it. Several times.

Section C states nothing about the status of the person who takes active steps to out a covert agent.

Taking a phone call, writing that story, submiting it, getting it published, are all part of a pattern of activeties whose SOLE PURPOSE was to out this agent.

Now he could argue that he was ignorant of the fact that she was a covert agent, but last I heard ignorance is not a defense.

He took direct actions that resulted in her being exposed. I mean the story did not write itself, or submit itself.

Without his ACTIONS, this wouild not have happened.

He is guilty.

I mean he had a CHOICE to write that story.

And he did.

But anyway, we will have to agree to disagree.

And see where the case ends up.

in no way did Novak engage in a pattern of activity to identify agents.

If I were to say purchase drugs from a dealer, I would have to go through a pattern of activities to accomplish breaking that law.

You are stuck on a technical matter that frankly I think you are interpreting wrong.

Just what is it that you seem to think a 'pattern of activity' seems to mean?

Because to me that simply sounds like legalese for taking an action, or actions, that exposes an agent.

And if this country has no laws on the books for exposing a covert CIA agent, which is what you are saying here, we are in deep trouble.

would be attempting to identify more than one operative.

That is not difficult to define. Novak published information about ONE agent, and that is not a pattern.

A law was broken. It was NOT broken by Novak.

You tell me what law you construct that allows Novak to be jailed but protects legitimate journalists. Novak reported a true fact - Plame was an agent.

Do you really want to jail journalists for telling the truth? If so, why shouldn't journalists who report "unfortunate" facts from the war-front be jailed?

Should Hersch be jailed for telling secrets about Abu Ghraib? Please explain in explicit detail why Hersch is a good guy and Novak's a bad guy. Then explain how you will write a law convicting one and exempting the other.

>>Do you really want to jail journalists for telling the truth?<<

About the identities of CIA agents? Just as much as I want to jail the Bush adm. dirtbag who told it to Novak. Yes, yes I do.

>>Please explain in explicit detail why Hersch is a good guy and Novak's a bad guy. <<

Hersch's expose didn't expose any national security secrets, did it? AFter all, all the tortured knew. Novak may have endangered every contact overseas Plame ever made. They may all be dead now. Unless you want to say that the government shouldn't have secrets period, you have to accept that the ones who knowingly publish them are to be punished.

that this administration, or any other, would not designate certain secrets as "national security matters".

I will again state my oft-repeated claim that only the government is responsible for keeping its own secrets, not the press.

by a conspriracy to expose one agent?

egregious stretching of the meaning of the word.

if that's a possible violation of the law, as it is written. seems like it would be...some others have similar thoughts.

others have similar thoughts because they've already come to the conclusion that Novak is a douchebag (with which I agree) and therefore deserves to be jailed (with which I disagree). They then ignore the law as written and ignore the implications of what they're asking for.

Any law that imprisons Novak will be used against our side more often than not.

The portion of the law under "c" targets those people who do investigative work to identify likely CIA agents with the idea of "outing" as many as possible thus rendering US inteligence efforts ineffective. This was a major effort of the radical left right after Vietnam.

How about that?

and then get back to me.

there should be some sort of repercussion for his actions, for breaking the spirit of the law. he revealed sensitive government information and he knew it. he wasn't exposing corruption, or something noble like that. remember, everyone reamed geraldo for drawing circles in the sand; novak's outing of plame was equally superfluous, but way more specific.

The other thing is, he is such a douche.

and no, C doesn't apply. He has in no way engaged in a pattern of activity to identify agents.

:shrug:

The people calling for Novak's arrest just don't know what the hell they're talking about.

:shrug:

a very clever insult based on my sigline! You're the first!

Oh wait... you're the 15,736th

You are the one claiming such a thing and now feel slighted because everyone in the world notices. Give me a break.

don't flatter yourself.

You'd have to be a helluva lot more clever than that to get a rise out of me.

Good point you make, but Novak may yet commit a crime if he fails to reveal the criminal source of his information.

I am conflicted about this. In general, journalistic confidences should be respected, even by law enforcement, but I think that a crime has been committed when the Bush* regime aborted Plame's undercover operation which may have been getting too close to Whitehouse skulduggery for their comfort.

The only crime he could possibly be charged with is Contempt of Court, and I would vehemently oppose that.

Seriously - stop and think about these two questions:

a) Should the press be held responsible for protecting the government's secrets?

b) Should a journalist ever be punished for publishing the truth?

I think he can and should be fired by his employer for being an irresponsible asshole who exercised incredibly poor judgment.

Would you suggest that a reporter or columnist who mentions the name of a rape victim or mob informant on air not be subject to discipline(regardless of whether it's legal or not)?

I think rape shield laws are bullshit, as well as mob protection laws. It is NOT the duty of a free press to keep secrets.

If Novak is held in contempt of court, he would not be being punished for telling the truth, however despicable it was that he revealed a certain truth. He would be punished for impeding an investigation into a crime which has national security implications as well as implications of corruption at the highest levels of the Bush* regime.

There are times when the press should be held responsible for protecting the government's secrets, such as operational details from reporters embedded with troops. However, this is not a case of protecting the government's secrets, but rather of Novak protecting a government criminal after the crime has been committed. The crime (leaking) was against the American people. This is not the same as simply "protecting sources", because in the great majority of such cases, the leaker or whistleblower is reporting a greater crime, not committing a greater crime. Forcing Novak to cough up the criminal will have no impact on the good whistleblowers that benefit the American people by revealing crimes.

I am a little conflicted, but it seems to me that given the specific facts of this case, Novak should be punished for being a conveyor belt in a corrupt White House ABC scheme (Ashcroft-Bush-Cheney).

Somebody broke the law when they released classified information to Daniel Ellsberg. He took that information to the NY Times and Washington Post. They published it.

Who should've been jailed for that?

No, neither Ellsberg nor his leaker caused down-line agents to die, such as may well have now that Plame was revealed by the criminal in the Whitehouse regime. Neither Ellsberg nor his leaker interrupted an investigation that was getting close to Whitehouse corruption, unlike the current case where the criminal leaker interrupted just such an investigation.

that specifies the death of an agent means a crime has been committed.

We are not discussing right from wrong - we're discussing the law. What law did Novak break?

If you care to read what was written above, I agreed with you that Novak has not yet broken a law. Now drop this, please, unless you are just trolling for an argument.

despite your objections. What law did Novak break? What you call trolling I call simple disagreement.

...as a result of his column, I think this thing would have been bigger than Watergate and Iran/Contra combined. Novak would have been forced to resign from CNN, and most likely pressure for him to retire would be overwhelming.
As it is, CNN probably should decline to renew his contract the first chance it gets.

the responsibility would lie with the government insider who outed her, not with the journalist who published it.

How on earth can you give the government the right to punish reporters who print the truth? Do you know what the repercussions of that are?

What if the government decided that the incidents at Abu Ghraib should be kept secret and somebody published them? Would you support the prosecution of such a reporter?

...I suggested that his conduct and role in such a situation would leave his continued employment in extreme jeopardy, due to the likely public outrage.

I don't know how you derived your conclusion from my post.

I believe any journalist who tells the truth should not be prosecuted or fired. In this case, it sucks cuz he's a douchebag. But the general principle is more important: journalists are tasked with revealing secrets, and the government alone is responsible for keeping its secrets.

the double standard is that had michael moore done this he would have been sent to gitmo.

Novak has been an "insider" for Republican administrations for decades. I know that traditionally, laws protecting reporters are on the books because they serve the public's interest. Novak, though, is a Party hack that operates as a psuedo-journalist. His expose has nothing to do with serving the public's interest, but everything to further the agenda of the criminals operating in the WH.

There ought to be a law for people like this...

You're not privy to the facts, so making such a broad statement is totally unwarranted.

He could indeed be found guilty of conspiracy under the statute you cite, and under the Espionage Act of 1917, depending on the extent of his involvement in the leak.

He might also be prosecuted under 18 USC § 1001 if he made material false or misleading statements to investigators or the grand jury.

that Novak had government security clearance, and used it to identify Plame, he broke no law.

Goddammit, THINK!!!!!!! Do you REALLY want the government to be able to prosecute journalists who tell the truth?

that's not how conspiracy law works- he doesn't have to be technically guilty on the underlying statute- any more than anyone else in a conspiracy has to actually pull the trigger or rob the bank to be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or robbery.

And yes, I do indeed want the government to be able to prosecute journalists who "tell the truth' under certain conditions.

As I mentioned in the other thread, motive is important- and we're not talking about a whistleblower or Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. what we have here is an intent to harm two people working for and on behald of the US government. Potentially, he may also have harmed vital US national security interest by effectively outing other agents and contacts in the field who may have had contacts with Ms. Plame.

a short-sighted idiot.

If the Government decides tomorrow that the news from Iraq is "protected" and a paper reports it, would you accept the prosecution of such reporters?

Why is this hard to understand? The press is NOT responsible for government secrets - the government is. Somebody in the government broke the law. Focus your anger and vengeance on the right people.

just someone who practiced law for 10 years who actually defended a few federal crimes in his day (including some arising from violations of 18 USC § 1001).

If we accepted your analysis, then a journalist "telling the truth" could publish all sorts of classified information that could endanger the lives of tens of thousands if not millions of Americans.

Law is generally not the province of bright lines, like you suggest.

While 1st Amendment concerns doubtlessly exist in this case, they must be balanced against the greater public interest. It is, shall we say- nuanced, which is why the Supreme Court has so often been divided when considering cases that involve opposing interests like this.

So, depending on the scope of Novak's involvement, I would have no problem seeing him prosecuted. That stems not from any feeling of anger or vengence on my part, but from a reasoned consideration of law and public policy.

you should know that one can't be prosecuted absent a pertinent law.

Tell me what law Novak broke. I quoted the only relevant law of which I'm aware above, and he doesn't violate any of those provisions.

Exactly what law would you prosecute him under? Be very very specific. Quote the relevant statutes. I'm not a lawyer myself, so perhaps I'm totally wrong, but I'm unaware that general douchebaggery is prosecutable.

18 USC § 371 is the general conspiracy statute. There are others and the law is obviously more complicated:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Here's a typical jury instruction:

Count 1 of the indictment charges that from on or about... the defendant<s>, came to some type of agreement or understanding to <commit an offense against the United States namely, describe substantive offense or offenses> and then acted to achieve the goal<s> of the alleged conspiracy or agreement or understanding in that one of its members thereafter <describe overt act or acts>.

To be convicted of conspiracy, the conspirator doesn't have to be guilty of the underlying offense- as in my example in the previous post- conspiracy to rob a bank doesn't equal actually robbing the bank ones' self. It's the agreement, planning and overt act to commit the offense that one gets convicted for. Indeed, no one has to even rob the bank in order for a conspiracy conviction to stand.

they conspired to commit?

Are you REALLY a lawyer? Because I'm not and I think I could beat you in court.

and went to great lengths to explain why Novak couldn't be convicted- but why insiders could. I named another in one of my previous posts- the Espionage act- and in fact that one has been used to prosecute leaks before- back during the Reagan Administration.

You're not getting the concept here- admittedly it's not the easiest one for people to grasp- and it often shocks law students when they see the breadth of criminal culpability that arises from inchoate offenses like conspiracy or solicitation.

As to meeting me in Court, I doubt you'd really want to do that...;-)

the last refuge of a desperate prosecutor.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Novak conspired to break the law. As far as anyone knows, he got a phone call and reported what he was told.

I would not fear you in court.

on edit: you didn't answer my question. Are you a lawyer NOW?

that neither you nor I know what the evidence is- he may or may not have been involved in a conspiracy- and he may or may not have lied to or misled federal investigators, so it's totally unwarranted to say that he's comitted no crime. I merely laid out scenarios whereby he might end up being prosecuted.

Also, you shouldn't be so dismissive of conspiracy- it is in fact a very powerful prosecution tool and is used all the time to convict people.

In answer to your question, I have bar tickets in Oregon and California, although I no longer litigate- burnt out on the long hours and cynicism. Went back to grad school for an MPH instead.

On another note- most trial lawyers prefer their adversaries and hostile witnesses arrogant. They're easier quarry....

you are NOT a lawyer.

And I will easily dismiss conspiracy as a valid prosecution. I have already done so in this thread.

Novak broke no law. You can imagine scenarios in which he is guilty of conspiracy, but you have zero evidence of such a crime.

Given the evidence you have, would you prosecute him? Even more importantly, do you think it's wise to prosecute a journalist for telling the truth?

I think the state bar(s) would beg to differ- there's a lot more to being a lawyer than litigation.

Moreover, you've proven nothing with respect to conspiracy except that you obviously have no understanding of how the law works. Obstinance isn't proof- and bare assertions do not make a case. The bottom line is that you cannot back up your statement that "Novak broke no law," because as I stated in my original post, you don't know!

At this point, neither do I, but I'm not the one making the claim-

Given the evidence I currently have, I might be able to make a case for a false or misleading statement indictment- it depends on what he actually said to investigators.

See, e.g. http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/17857/

As to conspiracy, we'll have to see what the evidence ends up showing. At this point, all we know for certain is that he outed a CIA agent for malicious purposes. That's probably not enough for an indictment, but I wouldn't even say that for certain without having seen the caselaw.

but no indication whatsoever that Novak violated the law in question. Now you're trying to move it to conspiracy or false/misleading statement, of which you have no evidence.

The purpose of this thread is to point out that a journalist identifying a CIA agent is not against the law. You can crime-hunt all you want, but my original point remains true - Novak did not violate the Intelligence Agent's Identity Act of 1982.

People get convicted for conspiracy every damn day, and a helluva lot of 'em are sitting in federal prisons. Just because you don't LIKE the law, and can sit back in the cheap seats and call it "the last refuge of a desperate prosecutor" doesn't mean you win.

None of us here know all the facts. Not you, not me, not Dep Kid. And since there has been no legal proceeding so far, NOTHING'S in evidence, so don't pull that "assuming facts not in evidence" bullshit. We're all making some assumptions, you included.

Gawd, I just love armchair "lawyers." What state(s) are YOU admitted in, Dookus?

Bake

that if someone simply told Novak something about Wilson's wife and he printed it, then that probably doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy. On the other hand, if they met, planned and talked about what they were going to do and why, then that's conceivably a basis for a conspiracy indictment.

It all depends on the extent and scope of Novak's involvement and how much he actually knew ahead of time. Indeed, for all we know, Noval\k could have solicited the information himself....

Given that the leak was put to six separate reporters, it seems far more likely that Novak didn't commit a crime - he was just one of the six that were fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how you look at it) enough to recieve the link.

Now, what doesn't make any sense at all - how would Novak solicit the information himself, unless he knew the information already? And if he already knew, how did he know?

If he didn't know, and he called up a government agency, and said, "Hey, what can you tell me on Wilson and his wife," he still wouldn't have broken the law - it's well within a journalist's rights to ask questions. If he / she isn't supposed to know the answer, the burden lies with the government to not give it.

Is THAT a secret a government can protect by prosecuting journalists who reveal it?

It sure seems that way to me.

it violates.

For god's sakes, THINK!!!!!!!


What law can you construct that allows the prosecution of conservative journalists that doesn't double-back on liberal journalists?

Novak remains the "douchebag of liberty."

and his legacy and reputation will hinge on that. But his freedom should not.

He's a columnist. He doesn't write a journal; he writes opinion. Its anyone who writes an opinion column protected as a 'journalist'? Is this the kind of "press" whose reporting is protected? Woodward an Bernstien were journalists - reporters with a byline. Novak makes birdcage liners. Like Limbaugh, he's an entertainer at most.

Yes, there's a lot of hyperbole in the above; but there's some truth, too.

Would you have trusted Nixon to determine whether Woodward and Bernstein were "real" journalists?

he's spent 40 years as a journalist. We happen to disagree with his political view, but that doesn't mean he should be jailed.

Goddammit, is it so hard to understand? If you give the government this power against conservative journalists, it will be used twice as hard against liberal journalists.

If Novak wants to get in the way of that train, he's welcome to.

The law, as it stands, demands a compelling state interest to get anything out of a reporter like this. It is sad that efforts to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being employed against American citizens or the citizens of American allies are treated with such contempt simply because a few reporters may be inconvenienced because assisting the harming of US national interests is not smiled upon by the law.

If there's some compelling national interest why CIA agents and foreign double agents should be exposed while those who expose them (and I don't mean the journalists) go unpunished and continue to threaten US national security, I would really like to hear it.

the ONLY thing Novak can be charged with is contempt of court. He did NOT violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

I like Jon Stewart's approach. He's been calling him a "douche bag for democracy" and tonight he called him a "human stain" or something to that effect. At the very same time I saw Jon Stewart call him that I flipped the channel to CSPAN where lo and behold, Novak was yapping away about Kerry. He really looked bad. He knows his journalistic integrity and ethics are being questioned by his peers and much of America. He knows that we know he is a douche bag.

I say we just ridicule him into retirement. :spank:

What he did was wrong. It was immoral. It was total douchebaggery, and we should shame him as much as we can. But I will defend to my death his right to be a douchebag, because any attempt to prevent him from being one will ultimately kick us in the balls.

I'll shout it from the rooftops and send emails! I'll tell folks in line at the supermarket: "Man, that Robert Novak is such a douche bag!"

Simple. Say it over and over to people and pretty soon Novak will be THE encyclopedic example of a bona-fide, Grade A Douche Bag... until the end of time.

Failure to respond to a legal summons would thereby land him in contempt and/or obstruction charges, which could indeed put his sorry ass in prison.

Every US Citizen is protected by the 5th.

While the 5th Ammendment is generally held to protect the accused from testifying against him/herself, it does not protect a material witness from answering legal questions concerning another's crime, especially if the prosecution offers transactional immunity that guarantees non-incrimination.

explain the legal exceptions to the 5th.

I don't want to get too far off track, and the 5th also covers things like Due Process and Double Jeopardy. Basically, the governing idea behind "pleading the 5th" is that said testimony is self-incriminating. If the risk of incrimination is removed, then testimony can be compelled (or the witness risks contempt charges).

There are two basic types of immunity that "except" the 5th: "transactional immunity" in which the prosecution agrees to forego indictment of the witness if the question is answered, or "use immunity" wherein prosecution cannot directly use the compelled testimony to prosecute the witness. The SCOTUS has held that "use immunity" is typically adequate protection from self-incrimination, and courts may compel testimony if it is offered.

You might find these useful:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/08.html#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

remove Novak's legal jeopardy and let him testify. If he doesn't, charge him with contempt.

I would oppose that, because I believe a free press is more important than any individual crime.

But your examples don't show any real "exemption" from the 5th. However, I don't think the 5th even applies because Novak broke no law. He cannot incriminate himself absent a law against him.

He is not a criminal. He is a material witness to a crime, and I would vehemently defend his right under the first amendment not to testify about it. I would likely lose in court, but I believe the principle of the first amendment allows for ANY journalist to reveal a government secret.

> I don't think the 5th even applies because Novak broke no law.
> He cannot incriminate himself absent a law against him.

And THAT is exactly why he could be easily required to testify before a congressional hearing or grand jury regarding the matter.

> He is a material witness to a crime, and I would vehemently defend
> his right under the first amendment not to testify about it.

And you would lose the case, because the first ammendment does not protect a witness from testifying any more than it protects a witness from delivering false testimony.

> I believe the principle of the first amendment allows for ANY
> journalist to reveal a government secret.

I would tend to agree, although there are probably exceptional cases wherein expressing such a secret would be deemed obscene or so disruptive to government activity that it presented a serious threat in itself (US v. O'Brien, 1968). In any case, it offers no protection for the leaker, nor does it protect Freedom's Douchebag from revealing the identity of the leaker if he is required to do so under appropriate circumstances.

can have free access to government employees and report the truth should supercede any limits you want to provide.

I'm sure there are precedents, and as I say above, I'm not a lawyer. But I'm not entirely ignorant of constitutional law, either. The point of this thread is to point out that Novak did NOT break the law regarding the revelation of covert operatives identities.

I also think any attempt to prosecute him under conspiracy laws would be a terrible stretch.

All I'm trying to do is focus people's attention on the REAL criminal: whoever revealed to Novak that Plame was CIA agent. None of us would be served well by living in a country in which journalists could be prosecuted for telling the truth.

If, as you say, he broke no law, he CANNOT logically incriminate himself. Ergo, his testimony can be compelled since it cannot incriminate him.

Bake

what law he should be jailed under.


And whatever law you invent, tell me why liberal journalists who expose nasty government secrets should be protected from such a law.

broken the back of America and the hearts that try to keep truth from turning into a sham.

Why anyone would employ this piece of scum is beyond the pale.

I'm saying the demands to put him in jail are ridiculous.

Can YOU explain (since nobody else will) what law you can construct that punishes Novak and let's Hersch continue?

against being such an ugly person. If there was, he would be in clear violation!

Section C does not require that multiple agents actually be exposed. Go back and read what it says:

"Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents ..."

The key is the pattern of activities INTENDED TO IDENTIFY AND EXPOSE. Establishing a pattern of activities is pretty easy, similar to establishing the requisite predicate acts under the RICO statute.

So what is required in the way of an actual identification or exposure? Read the rest of the statute:

"... discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent ..."

AN INDIVIDUAL. One. That's all it takes. One, as in "Valerie Plame."

We can argue about whether journalists OUGHT to be prosecutable; that's a question of policy. As for the statute, I think it's pretty clear that Novak CAN be prosecuted under section C, which unlike A and B, does not apply only to insiders (again, read what the statute actually says).

Further, you must also look at how the courts have construed the statute. Whereas your reading of the statute (erroneous, in my opinion) gets hung up on "agents", the courts may not be so hung up. I have not done a WestLaw/Lexis check on this, but it can be done easily enough.

Bake, Esq.

tell me what pattern he engaged in.

As far as anyone knows, he received a phone call.

I'm not misreading the law, you're stretching the known facts. You're the second "lawyer" in this thread who has done nothing but presume facts not in evidence.

"As far as anyone knows, he received a phone call." "You presume facts not in evidence". That's a far cry from saying that no journalist could ever be found guilty under the statute. After all, Novak knows. And the people who he talked to know.

Let the grand jury make an inquiry as to what the facts are. In fact, I don't know why Novak wouldn't be an accessory before the fact or a co=conspirator to the Bush adm. crime. All I DO know is that you really don't deserve to cop an attitude.

that I have printed the entire content of the law in question, and it doesn't apply to Novak.

I also know that any law attempting to punish Novak in a case like this would be seriously flawed, for multiple reasons.

And finally, I know I can cop any damned attitude I want. It's a message board.

Then he was given the name, presumably as "payback" for Wildon's OPED piece, wrote a story referring to Valerie Plame as a "covert agent", and submitted it for inclusion in his paper. It was printed and the deed was done. The fact that the government employee who gave nofacts the name broke the law by outing a covert agent to approximately 6 members of the media, only ONE took the next act and passed the information out into the public.

Furthermore, there ARE other instances of nofacts publishing names of covert agents in his columns. I'd have to go look it up, but I think JMM at www.talkingpointsmemo.com covered this and I've seen it elsewhere. Nofacts has outed agents before, thereby completing your last piece of the puzzle as a pattern. Robert Hanssen I think was named by nofacts, so he HAS engaged in a pattern covering several years.

ON edit: Actually the phone call was well into the "pattern" and only step 1 in this particular instance.

to never live in a world where answering the phone is considered part of a conspiracy.

Your assertion is ludicrous.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

sorry you can't discuss things without personal insults.

I did address your issue. Answering the phone should not be considered a criminal activity.

Why is my post gone?

And you did NOT address the issue. Of course answering the phone is not a crminal activity, yet you choose to answer that part of my post only.

You have made post after post about "one outing of an agent is not a pattern", I provided evidence that he has outed others over the years and that this whole episode from the time he took the call to getthe info to his printing of the name and identifying her as a covert agent is part of his pattern spanning several years, now you have my post removed because you claim some personal insult?

I'm sorry you can't get over your theory being busted.


Disclaimer: I admit I did not provide links to the previous outings by Nofacts, but when I read through the thread originally no one had brought this up. I did point to a general place to look for confirmation and provided a potential name for searching, leaving it to others to confirm for theirselves. Dookus kept returning to post after post that to prove Nofacts committed a crime you had to prove a pattern beyond the one outing (which as others point out is a misread on his/her part, IMO), I believe the information is out there that, even though it is not necessary, Nofacts has demonstrated a PATTERN of outing agents.

that's why your post was deleted.

You haven't come close to "busting my theory", either.

You've made an outlandish assertion and provided nothing to back it up other than your own twisted definition of what a "pattern" is.

My "assertion" is no more outlandish than your "definition" of "pattern" which is what I accepted as the standard for this discussion, so when you refer to it as perverted, you may want ot revisit YOUR definition.

I admitted I did not provide specific links to the previous outings by Nofacts, that does not mean they aren't there. For general discussion I felt it was sufficient to bring up the idea. Apparently in this debate only you get to provide generalized info, everyone else has to be very specific. Did you go to talkingpointsmemo.com or check my "outlandish assertions" at all?

Answer this directly; IF I show proof of Nofacts outing a covert agent on a previous occasion, would that constitute a "pattern" to a great enough degree to satisfy you?


This is from YOUR post #60;

a pattern of activity would be attempting to identify more than one operative.

That is not difficult to define. Novak published information about ONE agent, and that is not a pattern.

A law was broken. It was NOT broken by Novak

It's as simple as that. He HAD to engage in at least two acts: 1. He made/received a phone call. 2. He wrote the column. Two acts is all it takes to establish a pattern. I'm not "assuming facts not in evidence." He had to have engaged in those two facts, at minimum.

You're entitled to your opinion as to whether the law is good or bad, or whether it OUGHT to apply to Novak. You're not entitled to decide whether in fact it DOES apply to him. That is reserved for a court.

When you've been to law school, practiced for over ten years, and helped numrous trial and appellate courts construe various statutes, like some of us have, then you can talk to me about what I'm assuming and what I'm not assuming.

And yes, it's "Mr. Esq." to you. I did it the old-fashioned way: I earned it.

Bake, ES-f'in'-Q

:)

Novak facilitated a crime. If he had not printed the name there would hardly be a crime to talk about, since only he and the two traitors who named her knew it. In printing her name he broad casted it to the world. If that is not a crime it damn well should be. What I don't understand is why other 'reporters" defend his "rights".

it should be quite easy to point out what law he broke.

I'll wait...

>>it should be quite easy to point out what law he broke.<<

Accessory.

These guys conspired to break the law. You agree with that. Then if Novak enabled them to do that, how can he not be as guilty as they? Novak wasn't trying to get secrets from the government. He was not acting as a journalist anymore than a racing driver involved in a bank robbery is acting as a racing driver. He was helping two traitors to out a CIA agent. He was totally complicit in that criminal act.

is a word. Show me the law.

the crime occurred when somebody in the government told Novak (and other reporters) about Plame. By the time Novak published what he knew, the law had already been broken - the crime had already occurred. He had no part, as far as we know, in inducing that crime to occur.

Answering the phone should not be criminalized.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."

common senses was to keep his mouth shut like the other's who knew that was releasing this was treason.

I fucking don't care about novak, except he should do jail time if he doesn't come clean.

would define a crime before convicting someone.

What law did he break?

include the name of a spy that added not one thing to the article being written. Novak and most other DC reporters knew Valarie Plame used to be a spook. The only reason that Novak used the name was an attempt to give some weight to his story.

Novak's only claim is that if he gives up his source, he will lose, this source and future sources, I'm of the opinion that having inside people not talk to reporters about who the spooks are is a good thing.
Why the Robert Novaks of the world need to know the name of spooks is a mystery to me

IMHO...

RL

are both refreshing and challenging and I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say we look forward to hearing you flesh them out.

but thanks for noticing...

Of course, your response points out a bigger issue.

You seem to be sure you "speak for everyone."

I look forward to hearing you flesh that out...

RL

living up to my expectations for you.

I'm honored.

RL

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Insult?

RL

just an observation.

Do you have anything to contribute beyond "Novak's a douche and so are you?"

If not, all I can say is I know you are, but what am I...

but if you insist...

You seem to really like Novak. Hmmm.

Just an observation...

RL

"defending him?"

I noticed that you never addressed my point in the earlier thread. That's pretty convenient.
The Professor

Sorry, but I missed the other thread and would like to hear what your opinion is on this.

. . .one of revealing the source, but in protecting his "source" he is facilitating the escape from justice of a felon. He's abetting a felon by standing on journalistic and constitutional principle.

However, his choice was to have notified the authorities that this felon had revealed this information, and then printed it anyway. Now, he protects his 1st amendment right of free press and expression, but still cooperates with the execution of the law.

By refusing to reveal his source, he is obstructing justice. He is NOT protecting the identity of a powerless whistleblower in the government for whom the only protection is anonymity. And, the public interest is not served by the revelation of Ms. Plame's CIA position. So, Novak's first amendment stance is specious, and his motivations are unethical.

He's protecting a criminal and i think is obstructing justice. The case isn't one of revealing a source. It's failing to reveal the name of a felon.
The Professor

Your explanation bolsters the OP's theory.

On its face, it would seem that this is about participating in a conspiracy to violate 50 U.S.C. § 421.

Journalists break the law, too. Even as part of their profession. Generally, what we see are civil violations (libel, plagiariasm, et al), but there's no "shield" which protects a journalist from criminal litigation.

I might suggest, for example, that a reporter communicating coded information to assist a contract killing has participated in a conspiracy. He may well succesfully protect sources, but would still likely be held complicit in the crime.

In this case, based on what we know, Novak may have been a participant in a crime, totally separate from his First Amendment rights, though attached to his profession nonetheless.

Anymore than a racing car driver at the wheel of the getaway car in a robbery is acting as a race car driver. He was accessory to a crime with two government officials. He used the fact he was a journalist to facilitate the crime. Just as a race car driver uses his abilities to escape pursuit.

to give John Ashcroft the power to decide when somebody is acting as a journalist and when he is not?

Anyone can call himself a "journalist". If man conspires to commit a crime with administration officials and calls what he is doing "journalism" that is OK? I'm no keener on allowing this kind of power to Novak than Ashcroft. At least Ashcroft can be replaced.

If he chooses not to talk to a grand jury that wants him to talk, he will rightly be thrown in jail. The point was that he has not yet committed a crime.

which, of course, is hearsay, it would appear that he may have violated 50 U.S.C. § 421(c).

None of the individuals nor organizations you cite were held in violation of this statute, so its relevance is moot. For the record, however, the Pentagon Papers case was litigated up to the USSC, who ruled, IIRC, that the public's right to know outweighed the government's right to secrecy.

In this case, specific legislation exists which prohibits the activity in which (we undersand) Novak may have been involved. Perhaps you don't care for the statute, but that's irrelevant. Perhaps there's a chilling effect attached to it, but I doubt it. Of most import, though, the statute stands, whether as a result of succesfully passing constitutional muster, or having not yet been tested.

You should note the Constitution is not case law and that plenty of code exists which seems to constradict it, but has passed muster for whatever reason: a compelling national interest, an amendment, precedent, etc.

Your "argument" sounds much like the "conservative" reaction to legislation with which they disagree. It's a suggestion that the Constitution is immutable, that its tenets are binary, and that any legistlation which seems, on its face, to be extraconstitutional is the result of "judicial activism". See, of course, Roe v. Wade for a pristine example.

All of that said, I doubt that Novak will be prosecuted for anything, as the prosection's mandate, unfortunately, is often manipulated by politics and public option (like youre, for example).

not sure what my "public option" is, but if you mean my opinion, then I disagree.

I don't think my opinion weighs heavily on the prosecutor or the grand jury.

Now as to the law itself, which law did Novak break?

And what does this have to do with Roe v Wade?

a benedict arnold. he shouldnt be on tv drawing a paycheck. he should have tomatoes thrown at him

I don't think publishing the name was illegal, only the giving the name to the reporter was illegal. An argument could be made for consipracy, but conspiracy charged are usually hard to prove.

However, by not revealing his felonious source, he is at the very least obstructing justice -- and from what I've seen, they've got him dead to rights on this one. Branzburg vs. Hayes: he must reveal his source if it's evidence of a felony. There are exceptions to this case law, but not many, and Novak doesn't fall into any of them.

actions occurrd?

He still is an asshole in my eyes.

He then would be guilty of breaking the statute, and he actually DID identify her as an operative.

Remember when Novak tried furiously to "undo" the possible legal consequences of Plame's being identified by him as an operative, claiming that he did not know that the word "operative" referred to being covert? He was fighting against being indicted for having KNOWINGLY identified Plame as a covert operative.

At that point, observers pointed out that in his past he had written about CIA operatives as, and within the context of, being covert. He tried to say that he did not really know that the word "operative" referred to such a specific circumstance (being covert), but his past writings show that to be a lie.

Yes....he IS indictable, because he knowingly identified Plame as being covert via the use of the word "operative".

Thank-you Jon Stewart...

I don't think he has done anything to earn jail time except to take a swing at a heckler.

But he is not a journalist. He shouldn't be regarded as anything more than someone who got too much face time on TV and lied the whole time.

evidently a federal judge is trying to do that to a Time reporter now who also won't reveal his sorce in this case.

The natural law of earthly beauty. The ugly-stick nearly broke in two beating Novak.

aftewr so called investigation ?

He is still an ass ....

You are absolutely, 100% right on the mark.

Nothing is more important in the oversight of the federal government than the ability of the press to let the cat out of the bag. We simply cannot pick and choose when that's okay and when it is not. The Pentagon Papers was an excellent example.

Love him or hate him, Bob Novak has been around and knows where the bodies are buried. He has stood with the paleos in the fight against the neocons time after time.

The opposition to what he did is so blatantly political here at Democratic Underground. Since when did the left become so sensitive to CIA outings? Since it came about in a way to hurt Bush. We can at least be honest about that.