Striking a blow at the press (re:Valerie Plame case) (NYT/ IHT)

(still no Justice, why isn't Robert Novak in Jail?)

Striking a blow at the press

The New York Times

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005
Journalism suffered a harmful setback when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case of two reporters who have been threatened with jail for declining to reveal their sources. The reporters had been questioned by a grand jury investigating the unmasking of an undercover CIA officer whose husband had run afoul of the Bush administration.

It can be a crime for a federal official to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Yet somehow the case evolved to focus on the reporters, who did nothing wrong. Now that the Supreme Court has refused to consider the case, the reporters face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury.

One of the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times, never wrote an article about the case. Still, Miller faces jail along with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who did write about the agent, Valerie Plame, but focused on the motivations that may have lain behind her unmasking.

The government has every right to investigate whether a crime might have been committed. But in the process, it has done more harm than good when the prosecutor inexplicably switched gears and began threatening to punish Miller and Cooper for declining to reveal their sources.

<http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/28/opinion/edjournalist.php>
(more at link above)

when Shrub was appointed.

Hope you rot in hell Judy, there is blood from this war on your hands. Maybe you'll start asking why Nofacts walked?

During the Monica years they had no trouble distorting the truth for profit, now they're going to have to suffer to regain their integrity. karma is a bitch that way.

the supposition that either novak sang like a bird or that he is the subject of part of the prosecution and these testimonies are integral in the case.

one of your reporters is getting nailed for covering up a crime. In most parts of the law, that's called being an accessory. Tell the asshole she's lucky she's only being charged with contempt. Outing a CIA agent is not only against the law, it falls under a loose definition of treason, and you know what this country does to traitors.

It's one thing to have an anonymous source exposing a crime. It's quite a different thing to have one covering it up.

Besides, all they're doing is looking for corroborating evidence. Nofacts already told them who did the deed.

...coraberate something Navak has already told them?:shrug: