And bleeding heart liberalism, don't forget that :) J/K :)
-----Original Message----- From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 5:47 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: the advent of thought crime Interesting that I agree with all of your intermediate arguments and disagree with all of your conclusions. But it seems to me that given the murkiness of the issues that reasonable people may differ. But still. I offer a few thoughts in the interests of furthering discussion. I do think that the most important issue is that Karl Rove (if he did) retaliated against a critic of the administration by endangering his wife. He then (if he did) committed perjury and denied doing so. The above is speculation based on a few newspaper stories. However, while the freedom of the press issues might be collateral damage, this might be longer lasting and more significant than the arrogance of one administration or the peril of one agent. I agree that almost anyone cna be the press anymore. See the case where Apple Computers is suing a blogger. This makes freedom of the press more important than ever though, not less. We are ony a teeny tiny step from being individually silenced, say I, who was only yesterday accused of libe. Granted, this was not a political case, but this is a public form and what is being done to Judith Miller could just as easily be done to Mike D or you or I if we had souces, not that we do, but do you see my point. It's absolutely a free speech issue. Now with the commission of a crime it all becomes murkier. I would love to know why Novak is for some reason immune. But the thing that bothers me is that Miller didn't assist in this leak, she merely wrote about it. She might therefore know something about it, but if her source said for chrissakes if you tell anyone I told you this Rove will absolutely set the spooks after me there might be good reason for her to protect her source. And is not the willingness of government workers to drop a dime on the likes of Karl Rove something we should be protecting? Caveat - I have no special knowledge of this case and so my opinion is subject to change as more news becomes available. I furthermore am unable to shed any light in grand jury proceedings :) I should probaby also disclose a past career in newspapers, and a father who is a journalist. Dana On 7/9/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While I think the leaking of information is a very, very serious > issue, I think the media frenzy about media rights is perhaps > overblown. And at the very least distracting from the CIA leak issue. > > I'm going to reply inline to a couple of the articles. Since this is > just an informal discussion, I apologize for not using proper > citations. > > > which it tries to hide. Reporters, in the eyes of the people running > > the country, have no more rights than any other Americans and should > > be treated as "ordinary citizens." > > > I believe this is actually the case. As I understand it, the > Constitution guarantees the people freedom of the press. That means > anyone is allowed to publish, not just an approved or specially > sanctioned "press". That in turn means that there isn't a special > legal distinction between "journalists" and anyone else. The > _credibility_ of certain people as journalists is determined by public > perception and market forces. > > > > It's hard to argue against that, although the Constitution of the > > United States does mention the press, seeming to equate it with > > religion as a private establishment with an obvious public role. > > Self-aggrandizing flummery, I think. > > > > .... [Judy] Miller was not taken away because of what she did as a > > journalist; she was put away for thinking and asking questions -- and > > for standing up as an ordinary citizen who told the government it had > > no right to know what she was thinking or asking. > > Perhaps. This is where it gets really murky, IMO. As I understand it > she was under subpoena to provide testimony to the court. We know that > refusal to obey the subpoena can lead to an arrest for contempt of > court. However, we also have the Fifth Amendment which protects > against self-incrimination. BUT, and here's the wonky part, as I > understand it if the person taking the Fifth wasn't actually a > participant of the crime in question, then taking the Fifth isn't > actually protecting against self-incrimination. It's being used > instead to shield a crime. And in that case it's not a > Constitutionally protected application of the Fifth Amendment. And if > she wasn't a party to the crime, then her refusal to answer the judge > was a violation of her subpoena. > > > > With the Valerie Plame leak investigation, the press has planted its > > flag on the least favorable ground to fight the larger battle for > > confidentiality. This is a case in which the sources weren't > > disclosing wrongdoing by others but were allegedly doing wrong > > themselves by blowing the cover of a CIA officer. > > This is a key point. As I outlined earlier, I think that the > journalist doesn't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to > shielding people who have actually committed the crime. Unfortunately, > the bru-ha-ha by the press is about how the press has been injured. > The press is always at its worst when it tries to report its own > self-interests. > > > The New York Times and Miller decided not to try to finesse the issue. > > Instead, they opted for what the Times editorially has described as an > > act of "civil disobedience," > > It's important to remember, that the origin of the term "civil > disobedience" was Thoreau willingly being jailed for his conviction > that a law was wrong. So to cry foul about being jailed for an act of > civil disobedience seems a bit misplaced. Coincidently, Thoreau's > principles were being tested by another war in which the U.S. was > involved. > > > We should begin by agreeing that the reporter-source privilege isn't > > absolute -- any more than attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient > > privilege. The American Bar Association's code of ethics recognizes, > > for example, that the confidentiality of conversations between an > > attorney and client is limited by what's known as the "crime fraud > > exception." The privilege can be breached if the attorney learns his > > client is planning to commit a crime or if the attorney is himself > > participating in a crime or fraud. > > Bingo! And this is exactly the point I made above about subpoena and > Fifth Amendment protections. And, at least from my limited > understanding of the situation, the law is actually in compliance with > this suggestion by Mr. Ignatius. > > I'll readily admit that I don't have all the details about this case > and that I'm not a lawyer anyway. And I've actually been willfully > trying to ignore the media's bleatings of self-injury. I'm much more > interested in the actual act of treason. Who performed it, why, and > what the repurcutions will be. I do care that the process of > uncovering that information be done in a measured and legal way, but I > don't want people to get distracted by what appear to be illusory > injuries at the expense of the real case. > > -Kevin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164140 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
