Clarification/Follow-up by tarot10 on 07/07/05 12:45 pm:
what sacrafice did you do to be jailed again?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/07/05 1:44 pm:

Hello tarot:

I too, sacrificed my liberty for my beliefs. But I'm no hero - just one of millions.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/07/05 4:25 pm:

Thanks Its:

If the leak was an attempt to warn critics that the administration will not tolerate anything but lockstep agreement and anything other than that will result in a ruined career (and I think it was all that), this was an egregious breach that cannot be tolerated in a free society and the press MUST be free to investigate unfettered.

She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.

As Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1972, "The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring to fulfillment the public's right to know."

Critics point out that even presidents must bow to the Supreme Court. But presidents are agents of the government, sworn to enforce the law. Journalists are private citizens.

James Madison wrote, "among those sacred rights considered as forming the bulwark of their liberty, which the government contemplates with awful reverence and would approach only with the most cautious circumspection, there is no one of which the importance is more deeply impressed on the public mind than the liberty of the press."

49 states recognize a reports right to confidential sources and so does the Constitution. It’s about time the federal government got with the program.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/07/05 4:46 pm:
ex,

I don't think it's 49 states is it? But where is the constitutional right to confidential sources? I'm not arguing against a free press, just wondering where the constitution protects confidential sources for reporters. No kidding, I'd really like to know. Help me learn here, ex.

Btw, Here's another take on this whole incident...

Martyrs to Media Absurdity
The story behind the jail threat.

You might have seen Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper on TV. They are reporters for the New York Times and Time magazine, respectively. They give every impression of being intelligent, professional, and decent people, and they might well be going to prison for 18 months.

That's a tragedy for them, but for the rest of us it's an object lesson in media inanity. Miller and Cooper, who are refusing to reveal their sources in a federal investigation, have hit the talk-show circuit as anguished defenders of the First Amendment and of the media's watchdog role. They are quite sincere about that. But they would actually be going to jail partly to provide after-the-fact vindication for an absurd media feeding frenzy about a non-crime that journalists relentlessly hyped to hurt the Bush administration.

Let's back up. In February 2002, Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from the African country. After the invasion of Iraq, he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying that his work in Niger had exploded the administration's bogus WMD claims. Wilson became a liberal and media cause celebre.

But the flap raised questions. Wilson wasn't an expert in nuclear proliferation or in Niger. He had written for left-wing magazine The Nation. In other words, not a natural fit for such a sensitive mission. Journalists wondered why he had been tapped for it. Conservative columnist Robert Novak was told by administration sources that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA. He published her name. Other reporters, also informed about Wilson's CIA connection, did the same.

Cue the caterwauling. The media and Democrats were wracked by spasms of outrage. The Bush administration was punishing Wilson by outing his wife and putting her life at risk! It had violated a law against exposing covert agents! The scandal was Watergate, Iran-Contra and every other -gate wrapped up into one (the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said the administration's conduct came "perilously close to treason")! The administration must, must appoint a special prosecutor to investigate! Now!

Well, the press and President Bush critics got what they wanted — good and hard. The special prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, has done what special prosecutors usually do, namely trample all over any sense of proportion. He has subpoenaed various journalists, including Miller and Cooper, who have refused to reveal their sources. They are now in contempt of court.

An axiom for defense lawyers goes something like: "If you can argue the law, argue the law; if you can't argue the law, argue the facts; if you can do neither, try to change the law." It is this last, usually desperate tack that has been taken by the journalists' defense, which is urging the creation of a new absolute federal privilege against journalists being forced to reveal their sources. An appeals court has already unanimously nixed this idea. A much simpler, more obvious argument is available to the defense — that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act that was supposedly violated in this case wasn't. The act establishes an extremely high standard for a criminal violation — the agent in question has to be undercover (Plame wasn't), and the leaker has to know she was undercover and be intentionally trying to undermine U.S. intelligence (very, very unlikely).

But the Miller/Cooper defense hasn't made this argument, probably because it would be so embarrassing. You mean to say, after months of chest beating, the Bush administration's crime of the century wasn't even a crime? It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it? That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid. If Miller and Cooper go to jail — I hope they don't — they will have plenty of time to think about the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of their caterwauling colleagues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/07/05 6:00 pm:

Hi Its:

Our rights aren’t listed in the Constitution. They did that on purpose.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/07/05 8:48 pm:
Ex, then why this statement?

൹ states recognize a reports right to confidential sources and so does the Constitution"

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/08/05 8:50 am:

Sorry Its:

I can't be responsible for every jerk who opens his mouth.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/08/05 11:21 am:
Ya mean that wasn't your statement?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/08/05 1:18 pm:

Hello Its:

Nahh, not me.

excon

snigger, snigger. Ok, you caught me.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/08/05 4:36 pm:
:)