You shouldn’t have asked.
First, the hate-Bush left wing was demanding to know who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the press in what they saw as retribution for Joseph Wilson’s words against the Bush Administration.
But now that they are one step away from the source of the leak, they don’t want them thrown in jail for refusing to give up the name.
Why, because the sources are NY Times reporter, Judith Miller, and Time Magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper.
With the SCOTUS refusing to hear their case, the two reporters will surely face jail time.
Does anyone here doubt that if the person who was facing jail time was a friend of the Bush White House or, especially, an employee of said Administration, folks like Farhad Manjoo of Salon would have totally forgotten the phrase “1st Amendment protection” ?
Hi. Perhaps you misunderstood the article, or read into it what was not there.
1) Federal prosecutors are not “one step away” from finding the leaker. They’re one step away from charging someone with obstruction, not with leaking; it’s not even clear the leaking was a crime.
2) You’ve got absolutely no basis to question my commitment to the First Amendment. It’s just an ad hominem attack to make yourself feel better. I don’t see how an employee of the administration deserves a reporting shield privilege (can you tell me?); I can tell you that I don’t want Novak to go to jail either, and I’m no fan. It would be as grave a blow to the press if he was imprisoned as it would be if Miller and Cooper are jailed. Of course, for some reason, Novak doesn’t seem to need to worry about that.
3) If you cared about America you’d care about the First Amendment.
OK, “Mr. Manjoor�, I’ll play along (although, if you want this to continue much further, you are going to have to produce an email addy),
First, the feds believe that they are one step away from the leak. According to them, these two know the identity of a source who can name the leak. That is what they are going to jail for obstructing.
Second, the way the article is written shows that you really want to know who the leak is, but can’t stand that it is journalists that are going to jail for what even liberals are calling a ‘break in national security’.
And this is funny, “I don’t see how an employee of the administration deserves a reporting shield privilege�.
Oh really “Mr. Manjoor�, should Deep Throat be put in jail and his family have all the book money taken away? Or do you think he did the right thing?
You do know that there is no statute of limitations for espionage, right? And you do know that two wrongs do not make a right, right?
Doh! And I forgot #3!
If you think I don’t care about the first amendment, then you have either got some seriously deficient brain cells or just have done your ‘background’ before laying down your accusations, “Mr. Manjoor�.
E-mail me at [email protected]. Why are you so surprised that a reporter would comment on your blog? You think we don’t read these things? And why do you keep misspelling my last name?
To your assertions: “First, the feds believe that they are one step away from the leak. According to them, these two know the identity of a source who can name the leak. That is what they are going to jail for obstructing.”
No. They don’t. You are wrong and are making that up. Fitzgerald says that his investigation is done save these two reporters; and we know that other reporters have talked. This means a) there’s not enough evidence to bring a charge under the law, or b) the leaker didn’t commit a crime. Lawyers who are observing the case and judges who’ve ruled in the case have, through their opinions, made it pretty clear that Fitzgerald seems to be planning NOT to charge anyone for the leak. Rather, he’ll be charging someone in the government with obstruction of justice. This is the same non-crime that Martha Stewart was charged with; as William Safire wrote in today’s Times, it’s not a big enough charge to justify a hit on the First Amendment.
You’re not very bright if you think Deep Throat was entitled to the reporting shield. Deep Throat wasn’t the reporter. He should have gotten, if anything, whistleblower protection. But he can’t be put in jail for not divulging his source BECAUSE HE WAS THE SOURCE. He can’t benefit from the reporting shield; it’s Woodward who needed the shield. Why do you not understand this?
Of course I want to know who the leaker is. Who wouldn’t? Don’t you want to know? I just don’t think you ought to put the reporter in jail to get the leaker’s identity. It’s un-American.
Test email being sent.