Reporters Put Under Scrutiny in C.I.A. Leak

[Rose Siding]

Walter Pincus, a 71-year-old Washington Post reporter who has earned the respect and envy of his colleagues for the government contacts he has cultivated in more than 30 years at the paper, walked into a conference room at a Washington law firm two weeks ago and read a statement.

"As someone who covers national security and intelligence, I depend on confidential sources more than most reporters," he told Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor appointed to investigate the disclosure to journalists of the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame. "My sources take a chance when they trust me with information that could cost them their jobs or have other serious consequences. In turn, I will protect them."

Mr. Pincus proceeded to answer Mr. Fitzgerald's questions about two once-confidential conversations with administration officials, identifying one person. Mr. Pincus, who says he did so with the officials' blessings, became at least the fourth reporter to testify in the investigation.

Leak investigations are often halfhearted and one-sided enterprises. Suspected leakers are questioned, not always vigorously or under oath, and the source of the disclosure is seldom found. The journalists who could say for sure are almost never subpoenaed.

The Plame case is different..............

http://nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/28leak.html?hp

[whistle]

1. Holding Bob Novak's feet to the fire regarding who his sourse(s)...

...might be is not jeopardizing free speech. It is curbing abuse of executive power and the threat of abolishing our Bill of Rights.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. The sad irony of this

is the media started to eat their own with Dan Rather/CBS and their sources. But when it comes to the WH/Washington crowd, they circle the wagons.

I wonder if whoever leaked Plame's name had any idea how this would pan out pulling us ever closer to a fascist regime with a complicit media.

[KittyWampus]

3. If Your Sources Are Breaking The Law & Endangering The Country

for nothing more than political gain... why should they be protected?

Why is it that Whistleblowers don't seem to have half as much protection?

[Nite Owl]

4. So right

They are supposed to be the ones reporting for the safety and interests of the public not against us like the Plame leaker did. There is clearly a difference and they just won't see that.

[dqueue]

8. Moreso...

I believe it's a felony offense, misprisonment of a felony, to know of a crime and not inform authorities. I'm no lawyer, and misprisonment may apply to a crime not-yet-committed.

Regardless, these people are scum; the deck is stacked against American citizens, and most of the sheeple just don't care.

[Lerkfish]

12. although I agree with your concerns...

if press's ability to protect a source goes by the wayside, then whistleblowers would disappear completely.

If you think about it, I think you'll see why.

I know that the Plame case is a hideous abuse of that protection, but without that protection, we'd have not had Sy hersh's book, nor any of the other leaks that have occurred in our favor against the current administration.

[fearnobush]

5. Question Novak? duh, by leaving him out, you the LAW are Frauds!

So much for justice USA, can't even come up with a good lie as to why not question Novak. Whore media, Whore Justice Dept. The Justice dept is nothing more than an organized crime ring.

[tblue37]

13. I have heard that

the target of a grand jury investigation is usually either not questioned or questioned last.

[w4rma]

6. The heck with those pompous fools who demanded that Rather give up his

sources on a purly political subject while doing the precise opposite on a subject that has put our whole nation's security at risk to nuclear bombs.

I say toss all these bastards in jail for contempt until they give up the name of the felon(s).

[Supersedeas]

7. protecting the Dirty Tricksters is the new media model

[KoKo]

9. Agree with what all have said on this thread, But what's strange about

this article in NYT's is that it seems almost identical to another article about the investigation that was out in the NYT's or WaPO weeks ago! Where are the "new" revelations? What's going on that moves this investigation forward? We already knew about Miller, and Novak still won't say anything...so why report this again?

Something's fishy...what's the point of this article with no new info except as some sort of half hearted defense for reporters not revealing their sources?

I'm becoming so wary of articles in NYT's and WaPo lately...Protecting Judith Miller that Chalabi mouthpiece seems to be so important to them they would try to moan that reporters giving up their sources is bad for Democracy...when in fact what Miller did has just about destroyed ours by taking us into a war we are spending ourselves into massive debt to fund and killing troops who should never be there. It's a crime against Democracy that she used Chalabi. These are things Americans need to know. Press can't be above the law when they depend on Partisan sources for all their info. :-(

[Supersedeas]

11. agreed...slowly developing pattern to lower expectations

[gratuitous]

10. And review the Bush administration's record

Over the past couple of years, they have declassified several items, all to damage the credibility and reputation of their critics. They have even taken the extraordinary step of classifying public testimony months later.

This is an administration that values loyalty above everything, and politics always plays a hand. We have a dozen new coffins coming through Dover AFB every week, but this administration refuses to change course or alter its latest deathless pronouncements because it would be politically damaging.