"Journalists" going to jail for not revealing sources to the gov't.

[Postman]

In regards to what???

The outing of a CIA AGENT in retaliation for Joe Wilson calling the bluff of Bush's Niger/Iraq Uranium lie.

MSM trying to make it look as if their Propaganda Spewers are victims instead of SHILLS FOR WAR IN IRAQ.

[The Magistrate]

1. Indeed, Sir

The government knows very well who told this tale....

[bullimiami]

2. not shills for war but covering up a felony and protecting treason

within this administration. probably rove himself.

its the plame case.

[Postman]

4. I stand corrected. You're absolutely correct.

this is the actual crime.

Shilling for war is legal. Otherwise they'd all be in jail.

[bluestateguy]

3. Miller and Cooper will be given another chance to comply

and perhaps another chance after that. But if they continue to refuse, they will be jailed. The Court has ruled, and its time for them to obey the law.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Convoluted Reasoning/Logic at work....One can take the 5th for

oneself but cannot get a pass for others who blew the whistle...?

The FREE PRESS requires protection too....

[SemperEadem]

9. for exposing governmnetal corruption, yes

for covering up governmental corruption, no.

[pgh_dem]

15. Damn skippy, SE!

It is not a function of a 'free press' to provide anonymous pro-administration propaganda, with plausible deniability attached.

I still think Novak made a deal, negotiated through some of his chicago big-wig friends.

I really hope Fitzgerald isn't a turd, that he traded up for a big target rather than muddy the water to protect the admin 'for the good of the country'.

[warrens]

18. I think they get one more chance

And they can get out of jail anytime they want by "curing" their contempt, i.e., telling the prosecutor what he wants to know. There is no protection for over the transom "sources." I have had several people call me out of the blue and ask for anonymity before they tell me anything. I always say, since you started the conversation, I can't make any promises until I know what I am promising.

[understandinglife]

5. Joe Wilson responds: "an act of extraordinary cowardice"

Joe Wilson Responds to Supreme Court Decision

by SusanG
Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 08:46:53 PDT

In response to the Supreme Court's decision today to decline to hear the appeals of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper in regards to who in the Bush administration leaked Valerie Wilson's name to reporters, Ambassador Joseph Wilson responds:


That two reporters may now have to go to jail is a direct consequence of President Bush's refusal to hold his administration accountable for the compromise of the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Wilson.

Had he enforced his edict that all members of his administration cooperate fully with the Justice Department investigation, we would not be where we are today.

Equally, some senior administration officials who spoke to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller today cravenly stand by while the two journalists face jail time because of a conversation they had with them. It is an act of extraordinary cowardice that those officials not step forward to accept responsibility for their actions.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/114653/692

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - One question, my fellow Americans, "Why is Bu$h not already in jail?"

[opihimoimoi]

7. Re the senior administrators: Missing is their charactor and goodness....

NONE....

Exploitation gone Wild, over the TOP.

[Spazito]

8. The link to Dean's article from May 20th that is in one of the

comments on Kos is well worth the read too, imo:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html

[Totally Committed]

10. And, Novak is still free...

(no jailtime for him) and still on CNN after outing Valerie Plame, and refusing to name his "source".

It's just another in the double standards between Democrats and Extremist, RW neo-cons.

TC

[robertpaulsen]

11. That pissed me off this morning.

No mention of the story as far as I could see. Just a scroll at the bottom, with no mention of the fact that this was in regard to Valerie Plame. Typical.

[underpants]

12. We still need two names

Sorry but Novak said officialS told him. I don't think that journalists should go to jail for not revealing their sources but that really is irrelevant here-either Novak lied about the story (and could come out and say it) OR we need two names... TWO names.

Come on, serve it up.

[Arugula Latte]

13. Of course this whole thing is filled with ironies and unfairness...

but the prospect of the White House stenographer Judith Miller going to the pokey does fill me with a warm contentment, I must admit!

That'll teach ya, Judith. Your loyalty to the WH thugs gets you ... hard time?

[craychek]

14. It's illegal even when freespeech is applied

The freespeech law specifically does NOT apply to people revealing identities and personal information of active undercover agents because doing so is like signing their death warrent. The irony I find here is that these guys that are in jail now DIDN'T break this law. They are currently in jail for contempt of court for obstructing an investigation into who leaked this information to the press. Yet the guy who actually released it to the public is out free. WTF?!

[Postman]

16. Bolton?

I read on DailyKos.com a story that suggested the vindictive John Bolton may be the one who let it be known about Valerie Plame.

One of the sticking points preventing Bolton from being confirmed as UN Ambassador is that the Dems want to know who the people were that Bolton was pressuring/threatening/etc., etc. on intelligence reports/intercepts regarding Iraq.

I went on their site to try and find it. No luck.

[seemslikeadream]

17. Bolton Pushed Niger Yellowcake Story

March 14, 2005
JOHN BOLTON PUSHED NIGER-URANIUM FIASCO AT STATE -- Then Tried to Hide his Tracks and Staff Lied to Congress

I just received this March 1, 2005 letter written by House Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman to Representative Christopher Shays who chairs the Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Security.

Waxman is basically blowing the whistle on the administration's extravagant use of "sensitive but unclassified" designations on official acts to block public access to and transparency of government policymaking.

On pages 5-7, Waxman reveals that John Bolton promulgated the Niger-Uranium fiction at the State Department despite rejection of this claim by State Department and CIA intelligence analysts.

Waxman then argues that not only did Bolton and his people then try and conceal Bolton's role in pushing the Niger-Uranium agenda by marking the material "sensitive but unclassified" and blocking it in case of a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department actually LIED TO CONGRESS about John Bolton's role.

I think Senator Hagel might want to reconsider his support for the Bolton nomination now. . .

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000370.html

Waxman letter

Concealment of a State Department Official's Role in the Niger Uranium Claim

In April 2004, the State Department used the designation "sensitive but unclassified" to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

On December 19, 2002, the State Department issued a fact sheet entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council." (9) The fact sheet listed eight key areas in which the Bush Administration found fault with Iraq's weapons declaration to the United Nations on December 7, 2002. Under the heading "Nuclear Weapons," the fact sheet stated:

The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?

It was later discovered that this claim was based on fabricated documents. (10) In addition, both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claim as unreliable. (11) As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet.

On July 21, 2003, I wrote to Secretary of State Colin Powell, asking for an explanation of the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, in creating the document. (12) On September 25, 2003, the State Department responded with a definitive denial: "Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John R. Bolton, did not play a role in the creation of this document." (13)

Subsequently, however, I joined six other members of the Government Reform Committee in requesting from the State Department Inspector General a copy of an unclassified "chronology" on how the fact sheet was developed. (14) This chronology described a meeting on December 18, 2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton "for help developing a response to Iraq's Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press. According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton "agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation," a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.

This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation "sends email with the fact sheet, 'Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc.'" to Mr. Bolton's office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version "still includes Niger reference." Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that

he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.

The Inspector General's chronology was marked "sensitive but unclassified." In addition, the letter transmitting the chronology stated that it "contains sensitive information, which may be protected from public release under the Freedom of Information Act" and requested that no "public release of this information" be made. (15) In fact, however, the chronology consisted of nothing more than a factual recitation of information on meetings, e-mails, and documents.

This is not a constructive reformer out to promote American interests in a dignified manner in the world's most significant multilateral institution.

There are many administration jobs that John Bolton may be completely appropriate for -- but the one that he has been nominated for is not on that list



Also - State's Bolton Says Iran "Dead Set" on Building Nuclear Weapons


State's Bolton Says Iran "Dead Set" on Building Nuclear Weapons

Iran is continuing to pursue the production and possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, despite being a signatory to international treaties banning them, said Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton.

In his prepared testimony before the House International Relations Committee June 24, Bolton said, "We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire the most destructive weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or beyond."

The under secretary presented evidence such as U.S. intelligence findings in the biannual "721 Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technologies Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advance Chemical Munitions," reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and statements by Iranian officials in order to back up his statements to the committee.

The under secretary described in detail the basis for the Bush administration's strong belief that Iran has a clandestine program to produce nuclear weapons, despite being a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty.
http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040630-04.html

more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3898738#3898972