quote: WASHINGTON - Columnist Bob Novak, who first published the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, says he is confident that President Bush knows who leaked Plame's name.
Novak said that "I'd be amazed" if the president didn't know the source's identity and that the public should "bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is."
posted
Well...it seems to me that the Patriot Act was tailor made for just the sort of bugs we need to put in place.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, Novak, theoretically, shouldn't reveal his sources to the public, though it would seem he has been cooperating with the investigation. Reporters should protect their sources, otherwise, no one would ever come forward with information that the public needs to know.
The President, however, does not need to (and should not) keep the information to himself. If he knows the source, he should make the information public and fire the person. He shouldn't tell the public that he wants to find out who leaked the story and fire them if he already knows who leaked it. If he knew, why did he spend the tax payers money on an investigation? Why did he pretend he didn't know?
Maybe Bob Novak really is the lunatic right fringe that all the liberals think he is and has become so upset with the President for not being as ultra-conservative as he is that he is making false allegations/innuendos about the President. But it seems to me that when someone from the right makes statements like that about someone from his own party, there might be something to it.
I don't know what to think. Why would Novak say he believes the President knows who the leak is?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone, on any side, not think that the President either knew or could only not have known if he really tried not to? I'm much more suprised that Novak would say it than by what he said.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It mostly seems like Novak trying to get back into the spotlight. He's doing pure speculation and attempting to incite controversy.
On the side note about journalists, its an interesting mix. Journalists certainly don't like to reveal their sources, and some states, like Indiana, have shield laws that create absolute or near-absolute privilege against testifying to a grand jury about a confidential source. Not only that, but if a journalist leaks a confidential source to the public, he or she is theoretically subject to damages for promissory estoppel (in some places).
Now, in the case of this leak, pretty much everyone in DC has been chased down by the prosecutor and gotten to sign a confidentiality release, a relatively new innovation. Theoretically this means that the sources have said its okay to tell people. Judith Miller thought this sounded a lot like a bully tactic, and didn't come clean (at least that's her story; she's gotten a lot of flak from journalists for other reasons, primarily related to excessive drama, some inconsistencies, and abrasiveness).
As far as whether or not it would prevent further sources from coming forward, we just don't know. Nobody's shown that a reporter revealing a source in a criminal investigation made other sources significantly less likely to come forward. For one thing, a lot of the time the sources just don't find out.
In federal court, though, journalists pretty much have to reveal their sources to grand juries if they have direct knowledge of a criminal act (possibly in some vaguer cases as well, the main precedent's pretty vague, but recently courts haven't been kind) or face contempt charges, which means up to 18 months in jail.
I've pretty okay with the legislatures choosing to grant privileges as they have, and would be fine with Congress doing so. I'm glad the courts have refrained, because I'm very wary of what happens when we start classifying people as either part of the press or not part of the press, with regard to those rights that have already been incorporated under the first amendment due to freedom of the press.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anybody else think that journalists get entirely too much glee out of having a secret source that they can publicly and repeatedly refuse to reveal?
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. They have to specify the sources are confidential (in one of many ways) in articles, but you hardly ever hear about a journalist talking up confidential sources, even when there's a furor going on.
From the journalists I know, tv dramas and the like have made it so nearly everyone wants to go "off the record" (that's a typical direct quotation), and journalists have to work just to convince people that it would be perfectly reasonable to be on the record. Not only that, but lots of people view confidential sources as made up sources, when that might only happen in extremely, extremely rare cases (even if the public doesn't know, multiple people in the newspaper are usually aware, or at the very least able to work out a good idea).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
