Or, indicted, or whatever you do to someone who breaks the law?
This one still confuses me. The justice department is trying to find out who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak. If it is a federal crime to knowingly disclose the name of an undercover CIA agent, then why isn’t the guy who broadcast it to the whole world (Novak) in trouble?
What law are you suggesting Novak broke, specifically? My understanding is that it was not illegal for him to publish the information. The illegality was on the part of the person or persons giving him the information initially.
While it is not an absolute defense, US law enforcement has traditionally tried to avoid falling afoul of the First Amendment (Freedom of the Press, more than Freedom of Speech). The courts have generally interpreted these protections rather broadly in recent decades, and there have been many strong precedents. To cite, one famous example: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers clearly involved “national security” and arguably (i.e. argued by the Federal governemnt) placed thousands of US citizens at risk – in a time of war, no less.
Ellsberg is a rather poor example to use:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Ellsberg/ells.QA99.leak.html
The charges were eventually dismissed, but still.
The investigation is continuing and now includes supoenas for telephone calls placed aboard Air Force One
Certainly the tradition has always been that if a journalist gets some information he or she can print it without fear of legal reprisal. The onus has always been placed on the person(s) who leaked the information to the journalist.
Whether that would hold up in this case I wouldn’t know. But it’s certainly the approach being taken by the investigation.
Novak would not be a target under the law most people are talking about when they talk about the case at hand.
Specifically, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 identifies for prosecution those people “having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent…” (emphasis added)
In the current instance, Novak is the disclosee, not the discloser. (Whether the disclosers themselves violated the law is of course a matter for the special prosecutor).
There’s an additional provision directed at those who engage in 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…” However, I’m not aware of anyone who seriously alleges that Novak falls into that category.
Well, duh! Because his columns generally support the government administration that is doing (or not doing) the arresting.
Interesting theory. Do you have any, you know, actual evidence of that, or are you just trolling in GQ?
His columns are available
here or here
You are welcome to read them for yourself and decide whether you think he supports the adminstration or not.
But with respect, that is not the answer to the question. The question manhattan is asking is, rephrased, “do you have evidence which you could provide to him (manhattan) to support your assertion that the reason Novak has not been arrested is that he is sometimes (or most of the time) supportive of current Administration policies and procedures?”
The reason Novak has never been charged is simple - he didn’t break the law.
The law in question, US Code Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/421.html
specifically prohibits identification of identities of agents by those having authorized access to that classified information or perhaps, under section © someone who discloses the information with the express purpose of impeding foreign intelligence. Novak doesn’t seem to fit the limits of this very narrowly drawn law aimed at renegade CIA staff.
It appears that they could issue a subpoena and order Novak to reveal his sources. From the very conservative magazine, Insight:
The 1972 Branzburg Supreme Court decision ruled that, regarding a press privilege not to reveal sources, no such right exists. From Branzburg, as quoted in the story linked above:
This being the forum for factual discussion. let’s stick to the facts about what the law is and whether there is any evidence that Mr. Novak has broken it. As long as there is no evidence that he did anything illegal, conspiracy theories about what he’s getting away with and why are fodder for Great Debates.
bibliophage
moderator GQ