Jail Novak 5 months like Texas Journalist Vanessa Leggett

Texas journalist Vanessa Leggett refused to turn over notes and sources to grand jury over a notorious Texas murder case and spent 5 months in jail thanks to Ashcroft. Will the same standard be used against Robert Novak who will not turn over his sources whose revelations may have caused the deaths of American agents?
What happened to the repuke cry of "rule of law?"

<http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15577>

you do not need a furhter chilling effect on the press...

HE IS NOT THE STORY, just the messenger....

For that we shoudl be grateful even if he is now lying out
of his ass

He knew that exposing a CIA operative would be damaging to national security. Yet he did so anyway. By listening to the senior officials he has shown that he has no allegiance to the USA. He's as bad as the terrorists!


Why did 5 other reporters have the conscience to refuse to publish this treason?

death to traitors!

since I strenuously opposed the jailing of Vanessa Leggett, I will also object to the idea of jailing Novak.

Putting journalists in prison for reporting things they legally learned is unconscionable, regardless of the politics of the journalist.

As a minor Texas journalist myself, I've been to court at least three times in the past 10 years with my toothbrush in my purse, prepared to go to the pokey.

I also objected to Ms. Leggett's jailing, although not much. Please remember that she had never been published - even once - at the time she claimed to be a journalist. Nor did she have a book deal or an editor.

I know there is no protection for me and my sources. All my sources have is my word that I will go to jail before I reveal their names. If you give journalistic protection to "reporters" or "journalist" where do you draw the line? I'm published in a newspaper. Is someone who keeps a blog also a journalist? How about the guy who passes information to drug dealers - couldn't he be researching a book?

The bottom line is this - why was Novack's column news? I know the undercover names of most of the cops in my county. Do I print them just for the hell of it? No. I think this was the most evil kind of journalism - being used for retribution.

If I'm willing to go to jail, why isn't Novack?

On edit: Also, what does "legally learned" mean? I have printed information I was given by a person who illegally taped a conversation. I knew the tape was illegal when I took it from my source. However, I was willing to go to jail to expose a District Attorney admitting that he was inventing evidence in a case. It wasn't legal but it was the right to do - for me, at least.

they are jailed for refusing to answer questions from a grand jury not for what they reported.

Death is the penalty for treason in a time of war.

to execute reporters of ALL parties?

You DO NOT want that, this is what happens in places like the
old USSR

He directly compromised national security and he did for political reasons.

IMO, he either gives up his sources or he takes a gurney ride for treason. "Journalistic integrity" is NOT an excuse for treason and cannot be hidden behind in a case of this magnitude. He is directly responsible for endangering every last American to terrorist attack by WMD for his treasonous acts.

I cannot support letting him take a walk on treason because he's a journalist. He fucking endanger MY family and friends for political gain.

If you let him walk, then every traitor should walk.

somebody from the white house did.

He just did his job.

Being a journalist does not require one to be a whore.

Why was the name of the operative news? This wasn't the Pentagon Papers, for Pete's Sake. Novack did this out of pure bullyism. Ask yourself: why didn't the other 4 reporters who had the leak report it? Maybe they have ethics?

defending the ethics of what he did. I think it was wrong.

I'm defending the legality of it. I do so because there's a much bigger principle at stake than "we don't like Novak, so let's hope something bad happens to him."

The principle is that the press is not responsible for keeping the governments secrets. An example I've used a lot in this case is this: say a NYT reporter gets a copy of the redacted portions of the 9/11 report, and say those sections are embarassing to the government. The reporter publishes them. Should that reporter go to jail simply because the government called them "classified"? I think not.

A free press is the frontline tool for keeping a check on the excesses of government.

You have commented on the journalists' ability to withhold source information as though it were something written in the law. It is not. There is no such thing as a journalist privilege, as in doctor-patient, atty-client, or spousal privileges. For example, the gov't (ie, courts) may not compel me to testify concerning information I obtained from a client, because it is protected BY LAW.

However, a court can (and often does) compel a journalist to divulge his or her source. If s/he refuses to comply with that court order, s/he may be jailed for contempt. That is the typical punishmnet for failure to comply with a court order, whether journalist or not.

While I find it very brave that most journalists will refuse to divulge their sources, there is no legal protection for such a stand.

We know asked around to see what others, such as his CIA contacts, thought and he was informed appropriately. He went ahead on his own with complete knowledge of the conseqences. To think that a man of his experience did not know what he was doing is ridiculous.
A patriot would have exposed the "sources" as traitorous conspirators and wuld not have allowed themselves to be used.
I think that in regards to national security and the effectiveness of our intelligence community, the law is the law. Any one person disclosing the name of an operative compromises all of our security.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

"embarassing the government," as someone mentioned above, is not applicable here--an agent penetrating the network of WMDs has been outed, endangering her life as well as the security of the entire nation. Novak has not only exposed the name of an operative, his writing is also evidence that someone else committed that same crime. He needs to be compelled to testify, same as any witness.

Reporters in many places undoubtedly know informants who work undercover and slip them information--why don't they publish their names? Because to do so would be career suicide: who would trust them with info in the future? And they would look unethical and clueless. With that reputation, who would want them to write for them?

Six other journalists realized they would be engaging in treason if they printed this information.

Novak is the one who decided to walk the path of a traitor. He also did it blatantly.

The penalty for treason in a time of war is death.

and I keep pointing out that he committed no crime, and I posted the relevant law in another thread.

Also, there is a very precise, constitutional definition of treason:

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.

His article deliberately and needlessly released her maiden name. It was a vicious attack. Surely, the press deserves protection, but not when it is used in this manner.

His crime is not the same as Legitts. She was protecting sources. His crime is not protecting his source, it is in publishing the information in the first place. He should be charged with capital treason and then cut a deal to reveal his source.

who was legally bound NOT to reveal it. HE just repeated it. Would you have said the same about Woodward and Bernstein back in Watergate days?
:eyes:

Some people are letting their hatred for Novak cloud their judgment. If we jail journalists for publishing the truth, it will NOT be applied only to right-wingers.

ANY journalist who publishes a government secret would be at risk of imprisonment. There's good reason why the law doesn't apply to them.

Novak should have done the same. The crime was in revealing her name to Novak and he should have reported the treasonous f*ks who did that so that charges could be filed against them. Now he is just aiding and abetting them, which makes him complicit as well.

I'll admit I am against the death penalty in the first place, but don't you think the rhetoric here is a bit over the top. This blatant bloodlust — let's execute him for treason — is something I would expect to read on FR, not here.

Do you realize what a chilling effect this would have on freedom of the press? Executing people in the media is something we would expect in a military dictatorship, not here. We've slipped, but not that far. Would you be so eager if this was one of our favorite lefty journalists like Palast, who has been known to shed light on the BFEE?

I would not be opposed to seeing him jailed for a time, however. There is a long history of this and there are many journalists who have gone to jail to uphold the tenets of their profession.

I've been here a long time, Walt, and sometimes I worry about the change that I have seen in you. We do not win by becoming the enemy.

And the waay we start to end it is to not execute journalists.

No, I have a better idea. Let's rendition his ass to Egypt and have one of their famously gentle police interrogators ask him, ever so nicely (naturally, the bamboo splinters, rubbing alcohol, vice-grip pliers and huge piercing needles will be sitting on a tray in plain sight) who blew Valerie Plame.

If he doesn't talk? Hey, I hear pierced testicles are kinda kewl this year.

for political hardball, but I am feeling rather nauseated by seeing messages such as this here: "I hear pierced testicles are kinda kewl this year." Now we're going to advocate torture?!?!? :wtf:

I am worried about the future of our country, I do not have faith that these people will not some day resort to torture and execution — Frankly, I think Ashcroft would be there were he not restrained. However, it is very upsetting for me to find that same sort of bloodlust here.

--what Novak did was blatantly dangerous to the life of the operative as well as all Americans (in that the intelligence on WMDs may now be greatly compromised)--slimeballs can't hide treason under "freedom of the press"

Should take a minute or two and write both CNN and the Chicago Sun Times and tell them that his poor judment in revealing the name of an important operative just to help the WH get revenge shows that Novak's age is affecting his judgment and he should no longer represent their news outlets. I did today. I also emailed Novak himself. Don't expect to hear from him. :evilgrin:

Until he coughs up the name, freedom of the press does not extend to protecting traitors, murders, rapist and other malefactors.

Let's see how it works, I am the Son-of-Sam, I come up to a reporter and tell my store and promise to give him the lead on all further murders. The reporter writes the story, but will not give my name to the police. Do you think he is protected by freedom of the press? Or is he an accessory-to-the-crime?

No post-Patriot Act punishment would be too harsh.

He's a TRAITOR.

Are you saying journalists should be allowed to put covert CIA operations at risk to serve base political ends?

He assisted al qaeda in outing an WMD operative.

Clearly he should be immediately jailed without bond and without a lawyer and tortured until he tells who outted that person.

Go read the Patriot Act.

Why doesn't it apply to Bush Traitors?

do you really believe that if we can jail journalists for publishing the truth, that it will only be applied against right-wingers?

I don't.

It would be a chilling restraint on the freedom of the press. The government has sole responsibility for protecting its own secrets.

I'm not saying Novack has broken the law - he hasn't. Yet.

I don't buy into the treason claim. However, if there is an investigation and Novack refuses to reveal his source under judicial mandate, that is a violation of the law. He most assuredly should go to jail for that.

Doofus, I think your approach is ideally wonderful. However, I do NOT think there should be journalistic protection of sources. We can no longer define "journalist" these days. Plus, even a lawyer or a doctor's promise of silence has limits.

Hey, if Susan McDougal has the cajones to do it, why shouldn't Novack?

jeezusfuckingchrist.

I prescribe a double scotch and a few minutes of reflection. I confess I was a bit outraged when I first heard this story but after thinking about it, I realized a couple of things.

Someone in Shrub's administration put out this information. (Or TWO someones, apparently.) THOSE are the people who are supposed to keep secret information secret. Say what you want, there really IS a need for some stuff to be kept secret (and I understand the * admin normally exercises that need beyond reasonable bounds)...

But the distinction between this sort of poop and for example the details of Cheney's Energy policy meetings seems awfully clear to me, and it seems you don't see it. Probably I haven't explained it clearly. In any case, I don't see what Novak did as inherently traitorous. Perhaps you can explain how it is, with some legal citations. 'kay?

He's had 46yrs free & clear as a pompous, bombastic wind-bag. Let him eat dry toast without jam for at least a symbolic period of time so that he understands the truer nature of what it is Americans are dying for on foreign landscapes while sacrificing here at home so that he can, presumably, act as he does.

Novak. He only jails people who oppose Bush and his cronies. He would not bother little weasels who reveal information knowing that it endangers people's lives. If Daniel Ellsberg or Vanessa Leggett had done such a thing we would not have applauded their actions. They stood for responsible free speech/press, not for the freedom to "out" people for political retaliation even to the point of jeopardizing lives.

The dangerous precedent that could be set by forcing Novak to cough up the name is not worth the pleasure that could come from damaging the Bush White House.

Sorry, but America comes first to me.

As I've already pointed out, journalists have no legal protection for refusing to divulge their source. They never have! That's apparently just a popular misconception that is out there.

While most journalists bravely refuse to divulge their sources, there is no legal protection for such refusal. If a journalist (or any person, for that matter) refuses to obey a court order, the typical punishment for such contempt of court is a short jail sentence.

Attys, doctors, and spouses have privileges protected by law, and for the most part cannot be compelled to provide information. But there is no such protection for journalists!


And btw, even my protection is limited. If someone comes to me, even asking for legal counsel, but informs me that he is GOING to commit a crime, that communication is not privileged. I can be compelled to testify against that individual. And actually, in Texas, I even have a duty to report the communication.

We are above the law. Novak should go to jail.

What law has he broken?

Just pick him up for torturing.

along with zillions of othr things I can't seem to remember, I seemed to recall a recent case of a journalist protecting their source. I agree that is vital to the media, however, when it puts the lives of government employees and the security of our country at risk, that is something else entirely.

As Rummy squealed a few months ago about supposed leaks of military plans, they "ought to be in jail."

...for all the other inmates.

:-)