Given that Novak’s sources committed what is arguably treason in outing Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, shouldn’t Novak be in a jail somewhere if he refuses to reveal his sources, as CBS did in what is undeniably a much milder crime, i.e. forgery, fraud and political spoofery.
I’m willing to see some people at CBS lose their positions given that they screwed up big time.
The question is my mind is, why is it that Novak has not been invited out of the maisntream media? Why isn’t he in jail, or under imminent threat of jail?
There is no such thng as a right of the press to protect a source.
If Novak is subpoenaed he will have to talk or face charges for contempt. If the investigation can’t figure out who the leaker was by any other means [cough…Cheney…cough] and Novak still clams up, I think he should be charged with obstruction of justice. I bet that would loosen up his pie hole. If not, then I’d be just fine with watching him rot in jail, eating rats and having to learn at an advanced age the fine art of shanksmithing.
Pressured? Hell, anyone who did what that pin-striped snotrag did should be soaked in oil for a few days, rectally impaled on the top of the Wasington Monument, and set afire to provide our nation’s capital with a warm, cheery glow to brighten these troubled times.
I didn’t follow the forgery thing particularaly closely, but I wasn’t aware CBS revealed their source because of legal pressure. I was under the impression that they revealed it because:
Novak’s source at least provided him with correct information. Rather’s gave him blatently forged documents, and I think having a source screw you over that hard gives you some ethical grounds for outing him.
- Everyone had already guessed who CBS's source was (I think they traced the Kinko's the texts had been faxed from).
Also I remind you that while many of you may not like what Novak did, he is a receipeint of the coveted Congressional Medal of Douchebaggery and thus deserves some minimum of respect.
Let’s look at Novak’s case. He had to know that outing Plame as a CIA agent was a serious thing. Treason, even. Yet he went along with it. So he’s in effect PaRTY to the crime. How does this make him somehow less liable here?
I mean, the fact that the information is treasonous in nature … giving away the name of a U.S. covert op … makes NO DIFFERENCE if the info is accurate?
I guess then if a U.S. newsman prints the plans to U.S. nuclear weapons and the locations of U.S. submaries, it’s OK so long as the info is accurate and not faked? Shouldn’t have to give up his sources, then? Is that what you are saying?
I’m really, really puzzled by this defense of Novak’s actions.
My defense, such that it is, of Novak isn’t based on a legal arguement. What he did was certainly party to something illegal, and as such a court would certainly be right subpeona him and imprison him if he refused to squeal*. But from a journalistic ethics point of view, you’re not supposed to name a source even if that source did something illegal. I believe that one journalist already spent some time behind bars for not saying who Novak’s source was.
If your source willfully misleads you, on the other hand, then I think that ethically, your less obligated to keep their identity a secret. So while CBS may have less of a legal obligation to reveal their source, they also have less of an ethical obligation not to.
All this maybe moot however, as I still haven’t heard anything about CBS caving to legal pressure to reveal their source. Does anyone know why they did so.
Perhaps there is some sort Presidential medal of Dumbassitry that can be awarded to Dan Rather for his inspiring efforts in that field.
*this may be moot too, as I believe several people were subpeoned in the Plame case, and that the source had finally given one of the reporters premission to talk. Thus Novak is off the hook.
Novak’s not off the hook. He was a party to treason. Novak stays on the hook until it drags him to the jail cell he belongs in. And if the right thing to do for Rather was to reveal his sources, it’s the rigth thing to do for Novak, too. Perhaps you’d care to address my question about it being OK for Novak to print U.S. atomic secrets, so long as they’re accurate. Haven’t heard anything but crickets chirping in response to that.
Now I’m uncertain whether you think he should go to jail because he won’t say who his source is or because he himself outed Plame. If its because he won’t come clean about his source, and I’m correct in that he already squealed (or was given premission by his source to squeal), then he is in fact off the hook.
As far as the second case, I belive that the law forbiding the outing of CIA agents only applies to those with authorized access to classified information. Thus Novak didn’t actually break that law just by publishing the article, and therefore won’t go to jail for it.
I think I’ll have to leave you with the crickets on the atomic secrets thing, as its really hypothetical (can you imagine an op-ed piece on the position of our nuclear subs), again involves not wheather its kosher to hide your source after the fact but what you can legally print in the first place, and would invoke a whole seperate body of anti-espionage laws that I dont really care to look up.
What happens to Novak if he refuses to testify when called as a witness in the trial of the person with authorized access who leaked the information to him? I think a person can be held in contempt of court for a long, long time.
This is all a silly hypothetical since the source came from within the Bush White House and will become invincible.
Am I to understand from the above that Novak was legally able to print the information on Valerie Plame’s identity? I’m pretty sure he wasn’t, although I will happily accept sufficiently supported instruction to the contrary, should anyone care to provide it.
In the event that I am correct, my view is that the discussion has always involved the question of what you can legally print in the first place. But perhaps that isn’t the discussion that you want to participate in. AFAIAC, Novak is not on any hooks on the journalistic ethics front, but criminally, he’s still there. Of course, buying lenient treatment from prosecutors in exchange for cooperation has a long and honorable tradition in this country…
Well the OP only talked about hiding the source, not printing the material in the first place, so regardless of what the law says, I think its this discussion is (well, was) about revealing sources. Nonetheless, here’s a quote of the law in question:
A second law pertains to those who reveal an agents name " in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States" (essentially a spy). Since Novak is neither a gov’t official with authorized access to classified info nor can his article be characterized as spying.
Additionally, while the supreme court has not upheld the right of jounalists to withhold sources, it has upheld their right to reprint classified information.
Above should have read "since Novak is neither a gov’t official with authorized access to classified info nor can his article be characterized as spying * he can’t be charged under this act *
Zoe, people have already been held in contempt for not revealing thier sources to the investigating attorney (the source contacted several journalists, not just Novak). The fact that Novak has not been held is the reason I think that he already came clean and thus will not be jailed for this either.
As you point out, your link does not seem to have any provisions that would straightforwardly apply to Novak. The delimiting phrase appears to be “having had authorized access to classified information.” The text (to my reading) places Novak in the category of “individual not authorized to receive classified information.”
I’ve no idea whether the U. S. C. places any responsibility of non-disclosure on individuals not authorized to receive classified information.
Anyway, thank you for what corrective instruction you have provided.