Jailing Reporters

Stepping back away from the technicalities for a moment, let’s look at the big picture w/r/t Rove and Libby.

I find it hard to believe that saying “Yeah, I heard that too” is a criminal offense, no matter how you label it. Without more, I couldn’t even call such a statement a confirmation of a fact, no matter who said it.

Note further that both Rove and Libby were responding to questions from reporters who called them, not affirmatively out “leaking” as anonymous sources.

As to why reporters may have been interested in and asking questions about Wilson, I’ll quote from Jim Geraghty:

If your wife works for CIA, and you don?t want the world to know, then when you volunteer for a secret intelligence-gathering mission for the CIA, maybe you ought to not write about that secret intelligence-gathering mission on the op-ed page of the New York Times. Some people are likely to ask, ?Hey, how did this career diplomat who thought the Bush administration was off its rocker get picked for this job? The best man we could find to check this out was this guy? What, John Clark was busy??

These are tenuous straws on which to grasp for even a political story, much less a criminal indictment – in other words: Weak. If the prosecutor isn’t sitting on more, this is just plain weak.

[quote]WMD wrote:

Boston Barrister,

What about the legalities of denying a speedy trial, due process and reprsentation to those in US custody?

WMD[/quote]

That’s for another thread, but for a short answer it seems the appellate courts have ruled it’s fine to submit some of them to the military system and military tribunals.

For others, you have to argue about the applicability of the Geneva Convention, and the rights to which they’re entitled if they’re captured being the equivalent of spies under the Geneva Convention (the answer: basically none).

Slightly off-topic here, but at least it’s related. The New York Times’ great care for national security issues can be seen here:

http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/2005/07/ny-times-great-respector-of-national.html

July 20, 2005

NY Times, great respector of National Security Secrets
By Tom Smith

It didn’t seem to bother the NYT to “out” this genuinely secret operation, in a story that probably actually did harm the WOT on the margin:

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/1397

And AP published pictures of Navy SEALs, even though doing so may have compromised their security:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=605010&page=1

(See also this interesting update on where some of these incidents ended up: Areté 1.0: Encouraging Trend )

I suppose you could distinguish Rove by saying, unlike the press, it is not his job to undermine the nation’s security.

posted by thomas at 7/20/2005 01:44:00 PM

WMD, you are forgetting that to many the ends justify the means.

Zeb, simply go out and find points of fact in the news and talk about them. Rainjack has apparently done this with respect to everyone signing waivers or releases or whatnot.

Again, I’ll maintain that proof is the wrong word, because there is too much interpretation of events and we’ll never have access to enough of the facts to know in advance of a final result.

We heard the fact you “don’t like” what someone decided, or formed as an opinion and stated, but you are going to have to learn to live with it at some point. It’s part of the American system, coexisting conflicting viewpoints…

BB,

I think the conclusions you draw are from a certain presentation of facts taken from your own biases sources.

If that indeed was all that happened, then there shouldn’t be anything to worry about.

However, and it may be incorrect, but it appears that other conversations and events have happened also. If so, then there should be something to worry about.

In any case, one doesn’t have to break the law to do something wrong. If Rove was in the wrong, or other administration officials instead, and Rove was verifying the information they spread, then we can form opinions on the merit or character of the administration.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
WMD wrote:

Boston Barrister,

What about the legalities of denying a speedy trial, due process and reprsentation to those in US custody?

WMD

That’s for another thread, but for a short answer it seems the appellate courts have ruled it’s fine to submit some of them to the military system and military tribunals.

For others, you have to argue about the applicability of the Geneva Convention, and the rights to which they’re entitled if they’re captured being the equivalent of spies under the Geneva Convention (the answer: basically none).[/quote]

Thanks, BB. I was unclear about how this was legal. It still seems kind of sketchy to me but at least it has been done through the courts. And I appreciate your respectful and informative posts.

WMD

Heh, I do forget that from time to time.

BB,

I know it is common these days, but i’d hope you weren’t going to do it to.

Do you really thing it is acceptable to point to another group doing something wrong to justify Rove doing it, if he in fact did so?

That’s nonsense and it is too childish to be taken seriously.

If members of the press were breaking the rules and endangering national security then they too should be prosecuted.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Okay, Zeb, I will attempt to clarify my position and use of the analogy I made even though we have rehashed this before. True, I don’t have actual proof to back this up and if I did, I would do everything in my power to bring it to light, but as Vroom alluded to it is proof regular aw shucks folks like us will never have access to.

I believe that GWB and his associates had a desire and plan to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 came to pass. I believe they deceptively pushed this agenda aggressively after 9/11 by making claims they themselves knew to be false.

I believe that they aggressively went after any one who opposed their agenda or said “hey wait minute this doesn’t match up”. By going after people who weren’t onboard with their plan, I believe they used deceptive tactics to smear or discredit individuals. These tactics were at the very least dishonorable at the most criminal. No, I can’t prove that but from my interpretation of the information I have gone over that is my opinion.

I believe that people who think like you Zeb, have come to the conclusion that as long as your agenda gets met (prayer in school, overturning of Roe V Wade, Iraq approval, christianity as a powerful political force with strong Gov. and legislative power) You will approve of any tactics whether honorable or not that gets your goals met, all while wrapping yourself in the flag of decency and the blanket of feigned naivety.

So, I hope this somewhat explains my position to those who have the ability to look at things objectively. I don’t expect that from you, but rather you pulling out your trusty magnifying glass and searching for some minute detail in which to whip up the sheep. [/quote]

Honestly Elk if it is ever proven that Bush had such an agenda and he in fact is guilty of even some of the things which you speak of I would then oppose him. I don’t think winning at “any” cost is ever the answer.

Let me ask you this: If nothing is ever proven relative to the various charges mentioned by you, would you ever say that you were wrong about GW?

Fair question?

[quote]vroom wrote:
WMD, you are forgetting that to many the ends justify the means.

Zeb, simply go out and find points of fact in the news and talk about them. Rainjack has apparently done this with respect to everyone signing waivers or releases or whatnot.

Again, I’ll maintain that proof is the wrong word, because there is too much interpretation of events and we’ll never have access to enough of the facts to know in advance of a final result.

We heard the fact you “don’t like” what someone decided, or formed as an opinion and stated, but you are going to have to learn to live with it at some point. It’s part of the American system, coexisting conflicting viewpoints… [/quote]

Well…sometimes there is in fact proof. Take Watergate for example. I think there was plenty of proof of crimes committed.

Opinions are another matter. If someone does not like a particular politician I have no problem with that.

I did have a problem with people claiming that Bill Clinton, for example trafficed drugs out of his home state. That was a nasty rumor spread by some on the far right. There was even a propaganda film produced to “back up the charge.” I consider that wrong even though I opposed Clinton politically.

No man even if he is President should be accused of “Crimes” unless there is proof.

I have no problem with conflicting opinions. I think that’s one thing that makes this nation great!

[quote]vroom wrote:
I suppose you could distinguish Rove by saying, unlike the press, it is not his job to undermine the nation’s security.

BB,

I know it is common these days, but i’d hope you weren’t going to do it to.

Do you really thing it is acceptable to point to another group doing something wrong to justify Rove doing it, if he in fact did so?

That’s nonsense and it is too childish to be taken seriously.

If members of the press were breaking the rules and endangering national security then they too should be prosecuted.[/quote]

Actually, that was just an example of some of the various “worse” things, that are under the same general theory, that no one seems to care about.

It’s not justification if Rove actually did anything, and I never said it was. I actually didn’t even write the line about distinguishing Rove – that was from the original post I linked, and I don’t think it was meant as a justification.

But if all these people going after Rove actually do care about exposure of undercover ops being a threat to national security, they can certainly find some good examples that we could actually reform.

Or if they care about national security perhaps they could even start an investigation to see if we could discover just what was the information that was in Sandy Berger’s pants… =-)

At any rate, let’s just say I find it hard to give credence to the idea that a lot of the people piling on Rove give a rat’s butt about national security.

Zeb, if I saw reasonable evidence or “proof” that I was wrong, I would admit it.

It’s the tactics that I have seen this administration use that have formed my opinions of it.

I think Bush senior and the people surrounding him were more honorable then his sons and probably the reason why they lost their re-election bid.

Slightly more honorable and strategically smarter a lot smarter.

In the spirit of jailing reports over Rove, I’d like to dedicate this next post to e-hater, lumpy, mark, and some disgruntled canadians who are jealous of the Might of the United States!!!

Karl Rove, The NARCitect
The overlying importance of this whole Plamegate scandal is that it perfectly illustrates how far the Republicans will go to destroy a true American hero. We saw it when they invented a group of phony Veterans known as “The Swift Boat Liars” to besmirch the heroism of Sen. John Kerry, a thrice-wounded Vietnam vet with eight Purple Hearts, 17 Medals of Honor, and a Cap’n Crunch Super Sailor Badge with clusters. We saw it when they smeared the reputation of Scott Ritter, a Green Beret who disguised himself as a middle-aged pervert in order to expose the seedy underworld of internet pedophiles. We saw it when the right-wing controlled media made a laughing stock of the courageous Sandy Berger, a man who risked severe paper cuts to his genitals in order to illustrate how badly security at the National Archives has deteriorated on Bush’s watch. And now, the Repugs have shown their true colors once again by blowing the cover of super-duper top secret undercover CIA agent and American Hero, Valerie Plame. Her crime? Telling the truth about Bush’s lies.

The inspiration for six Ian Fleming novels and the hit TV series, Alias, Plame’s 35-year career as a super-duper top secret agent was what legends were made of. From her base of operations, Codename: Cubicle, Agent Plame spearheaded such major CIA operations as Project Fetch Director Woolsey a Cup Of Coffee and Operation Who Stole a Box of Staples from the Supply Room? In 1996, she singlehandedly thwarted a major terrorist attack by remaining motionless at her desk for several months while slowly tripling the size of her ass. Along with John Deutch and Aldrich Ames, Valerie Plame is one of the few CIA spooks who has earned the admiration and respect of progressives everywhere.

While some repugs are quick to shrug her off as a “pencil pusher” or a “cubicly monkey”, the frontline of the War on Terror ran right across Agent Plame’s desk. When she pushed her seemingly nondescript pencil, nations burned. Empires rose and fell at the flick of her super-duper top secret wrist. So when the Agency ordered her to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger, she devised a cunning plan to assign the most unqualified, inexperienced boob with zero credentials to the task. It would be the exact opposite of what the Nigerites expected.

After hours of painstaking research, she whittled the list of candidates down to two potentials. Big Bird from Sesame Street refused the assignment, so she placed a call to Mr. Joseph Wilson, Codename: Shmoopsie, - former Ambassador to Lower Slobovia and, by pure coincidence, her husband.

Shmoopsie was incredibly busy helping democrats defeat Bush in the 2004 election, but when Agent Plame, Codename: Mumsy-Wumsy explained the mission to him, he turned his yacht around and headed for Nigeria at once. It was a daunting task, requiring long hours in a third world country with shitty golf courses, but he would do it for Mumsy-Wumsy. He would do it for the country he loved. And he would do it for America, too.

After spending several grueling hours sipping dreadful martinis at the Lagos Hilton, Shmoopsie made very shocking discoveries:

  1. Nigerian leaders vehemently denied selling yellow cake, or any other form of tasty dessert to Saddam Hussein.

Alas, Bush’s entire reason for invading Iraq was a farce.

Upon reading Shmoopsie’s super-duper top secret CIA report, Codename: An Article in the New York Times, Agent Plame proceeded to the office of Director George Tenet, carrying a cup of coffee to confuse snipers, ward off ninjas, and cloak her from Soviet spy satellites. Director Tenet was not only unimpressed by the Jennifer Garner pouty-face Agent Plame had spent months perfecting, but complained that she put too much cream in the coffee. Devastated, she returned to her Base of Operations, but vowed to continue working behind the scenes to expose Bush for the lying liar he is.

When she found out days later that Robert Novak had blown her cover, she immediately suspected that Rove was behind it. Aside from her husband, the Agency, the barista at the Langley Starbuck’s, the entire cast of Cats, most of Washington D.C., and that guy who printed the “Kiss Me, I’m Married to a CIA Operative” T-shirt she gave to Shmoopsie for their anniversary, Rove was the only person who knew of her super-duper top secret identity. Obviously, this was his revenge for Shmoopsie’s completely impartial criticism of Bush’s illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Sleazy tactics indeed, but business as usual for the Bush junta. They ruined Wen Ho Lee, and now they had ruined her.

In the twelve months since Rove destroyed Agent Plame’s career, Mumsy-Wumsy and Shmoopsie have suffered an endless nightmare of TV appearances, speaking engagments, magazine spreads, and lucrative book deals. Karl “The NARCitect” Rove’s immediate termination will go a long way to repay these modern day Rosenbergs for the unjustice done to them, but it will never repair the damage they’ve inflicted on the War on Terror, a federal jobs program soon to be helmed by President Hillary Clinton. What Rove did amounts to treason, and not the noble kind of treason where you sell out your country or side with the enemy. Nothing short of his prosecution and incarceration will get us back on the Roadmap to Winning the Peace.

Ok, I can’t take credit for this. I got this from: blamebush.typepad.com.

(I wish I would have).

JeffR

Hey, jerffy, I heard Ted Kennedy is gonna be on C-span tonight… see if you can catch it! Oh, nice post all three words of it I read. :wink:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

QUESTION: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn?t a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There?s leaks at the executive branch; there?s leaks in the legislative branch. There?s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

There was never a pledge to “fire the leaker,” and so Bush couldn’t be backing off of one – there was definitely a statement one could interpret as a pledge to fire anyone who was found to break the law, and that’s all Bush confirmed.

BB:

You are going to have to stop ruining the ABB crowds take on this situation. You know how they hate those pesky little things called FACTS!

[/quote]

You can twist in the wind all ya want zeb, but:

QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that?s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Bush clearly sees firing and “taking care of” as equivalents( yes does mean yes in wingnuttia right?). Scotty boy also said the same damn thing. He is the president’s spokesperson right?

again also:
Bush: “If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”

Now most would assume firing, but of course it could mean giving the leaker a medal of honor? What does appropriate action mean ZEB, B.B.?

boy those facts ARE pesky things…

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Hey, jerffy, I heard Ted Kennedy is gonna be on C-span tonight… see if you can catch it! Oh, nice post all three words of it I read. ;)[/quote]

You not reading posts?

No!!! The surprise is killing me.

Once you start reading, you might start forming thoughts, and then…

Elkhntr the Republican!!!

Alas, you didn’t read it, so there’s no hope.

JeffR

[quote]WMD wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
WMD

These are not the same as criminals in our judicial system.

Nothing illegal is ocurring, so just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong. Are some innocents being caught up in the process–I’m sure yes. It is an unfortunate by-product of the war and current world situation.

If it has or will save one American life, then I stand by it. As you are want to say–we are not afforded all the facts here and probably never will know what was learned through the interrogation process of these people.

Why exactly are they not the same as criminals in our judicial system? We are calling them criminals, accusing them of things, interrogating them and basically violating our own constitution by holding them indefinitely. I mean this nation was founded on the concept of the rule of law, was it not? And if any innocents are caught up in it, it’s wrong.

Are you a lawyer? That is why I addressed the question to BB. I figured he could explain the legal loophole that is allowing this to go on. The people in charge at Guantanamo have said themselves that most of the people still in custody have no ties to terrorism. If that is the case, they should be released immediately and at the very least given a public apology by all those responsible. I’m sure you would not be so complacent about it if it was you or a family member being detained.

Many things that we know to be wrong were once quite legal: slavery, segregation, wife beating, child labor, etc., etc. So don’t try that weasel defense. An act does not have to be specified in a legal code to be wrong.

And the idea that American lives are somehow more valuable than, well, anybody else’s rights, life or dignity doesn’t even deserve a response.

WMD[/quote]

I am not a lawyer, but I’ve followed the news as to why and how these people could be detained as they were. Maybe instead of trying to prove your manhood over the internet with tough guy talk you could listen and learn.

they were classifies differently than our criminals and therefore could be treated differently. They were in effect hanbded over to the military and are now under their jurisdiction.

I probably would not be so complacent if it were my family member, but if my family member were guilty I would say-“do the crime do the time” That is a weak argument that can be used anytime YOU want to try and justify your weak ass position.

I have no idea what your weasel defense means. As I said it is legal and you may not like it but tough shit. Then go through the legislature or in this case the military nd get it changed. Right now nothing illegal is being done and I stand by the chosen course. These are not ordinary times. Different rules apply during warfare.

You are right about an act not being wrong just because it isn’t specifically coded. But in this case, they are following strict rules that have applied to engagement and agreed upon by many nations over the course of time. So really, let’s concern ourselves with the actions and their legality, not your opinion of their moral impudence.

You may not believe that an American life is worth any more than someones dignity, but I beg to differ. Again, this is war and some things are different than they would be on our streets. I do not advocate torture or anything illegal. But if detaining some and interrogating some has an affect that does in fact save lives I’m all for it.

BB,

You’ve performed a common republican move. You’ve flipped from one apparent silly stance to another.

Instead of claiming that one wrong allows another wrong, you’ve now flipped to how horrible it is that Rove is being scrutizined and that those who are looking at him should have looked this hard at others.

Regardless, it doesn’t matter who else deserved such scrutiny also, if Rove did such, it should be brought to light. In fact, he deservers much more scrutiny, as does the administration, because of the position of authority they hold.

Do you actually have something reasonable to state or are you just going to keep lamenting the fact that people are looking at this and trying to deflect and distract from the issue at hand with silly emotional comments concerning other transgressions, trangressors and their motives?

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Hey, jerffy, I heard Ted Kennedy is gonna be on C-span tonight… see if you can catch it! Oh, nice post all three words of it I read. :wink:

You not reading posts?

No!!! The surprise is killing me.

Once you start reading, you might start forming thoughts, and then…

Elkhntr the Republican!!!

Alas, you didn’t read it, so there’s no hope.

JeffR

[/quote]

jerffy, with the sensless nature of your posts that do more harm then good to the republican party when sane people read them, I am beginning to think you are a double agent of sorts.

Yes, actually working for the Democrats to secure a win in the next election.

I just knew you had some redeeming qualities about you!

Jerffy the Democrat, I like the ring of that.

Proof Sasquatch, we want proof damnit! Not your conjecture from reading or watching the news! Got it.