Valerie Plame, Time, and the NYT

[ctenidae]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={9F727F3D-5F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE}&siteid=google

So, what do you think? Should the journalists be compelled to divulge sources?

On the one hand, I think journalist's ability to keep anonymous sources anonymous is extremely important, since it gives people the freedom to speak up when they need to. On the other, I'd love to see whoever leaked, planned to leak, or authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame's name get strung up from the tallest tree in town.

 

[JimG.]

If it involves a criminal act, yes! In a court of law, the accused has the right to face his/her accuser.

To me, folks who bask in the darkness of anonimity forfeit any right of credibility.

While I agree I'd like to see whoever leaked this info strung up, I also believe strongly that they have the right to face their accuser. To convict someone based on the testimony of "John Doe" is wrong.

 

[dmc]

YOu guys know who people are saying her source is right??

 

[riverc0il]

unfortunately, given the current state of our government, think of how much crap would never been exposed if not for undivulged sources from the media? if we withold the ability to use an annonymous source, so much dirt would go completely uncovered. sadly, i see it as a nessicary evil and people won't talk if they might get exposed.

what would really help the situation is laws stating that employees can not be punished for leaking information to the media. however, many companies have strict policies about talking to the media and it is grounds for dismisal, especially regarding secret information.

in the case of an illegal act and a grand jury putting a case up for trial, i think the right to withold a source should indeed be revoked. by that time, there is so much media coverage, the source can easily go public and not worry about punishment as the positive media given to a whistle blower would likely lead to other opportunities. who wants to work for a job that keeps secrets so bad they need to be leaked to a newspaper? jeez.

 

[Stephen]

OK... how many of you thought Deep Throat was a hero for NOT coming forward with his name.

Sounds like people support anonynimty when it takes down a Republican, and support destroying anonymity when it takes down a Republican. I'm guessing the "Only in certain cases" above is a vote for "As long as it hurts the GOP".

I do NOT support hiding sources who commit criminal acts. If it IS Karl Rove, he should be dropped like a bad habit. I also think Mark Felt should be in the cell next to him.

-Stephen

 

[riverc0il]

was a reporter put to trial for not divulging deep throat's real name? (honest question, i am not familiar with the history). if woodward was put to trial for not giving up deep throat, then i say that's crap. personally, i think deep throat is after the money based on his actions and should have only released the truth after his death. but i support his original silence so long as a criminal trial was asking for deep throat to testify. i see it as a needed evil, republican OR democrat regardless.

 

[ctenidae]

The difference on Deep Throat is the case was persued and prosecuted with evidence that turned up as a result of Deep Throat's talking, not on his evidence alone. I would hesitate to call him a "hero", since he didn't really do anything very brave, but he deserves some credit for exposing the scandal. I don't ahve any problem with him wanting to make a few bucks now, either. He waited long enough, and Woodward and Bernstein have certainly done okay using his information.
In the Valerie Plame case, things are a bit different- one would have expected a firestorm after her outing that would have turned up the evildoers. There's such a tight clamp on access, though, that the fire was contained pretty well, so the only recourse now is to go to the sources. I would not be surprised at all to find that Rove is behind it, being the vindictive SOB that he is. The question then becomes, is this a chink in the armor put up around the whole justification for Iraq issue? I think it may be, and is something that needs to be explored more fully. I don't care if it brings down a Republican, a Democrat, or the Dali Lama himself. If the US was systematically and intentionaly moved to invade Iraq using intentionaly doctored information to reach a pre-determined conclusion, then heads should roll.
When immunity is stripped from reporters, I hope it turns out the source is one of the participants (unlike in the Watergate case)- that wills erve only to keep people from speaking up when they are teh ones who did the deed. If the source was not involved, adn was only an "innocent bystander", then I hope the grand jury keeps their identity quiet, and goes after the real source.

 

[JimG.]

OK... how many of you thought Deep Throat was a hero for NOT coming forward with his name.

Sounds like people support anonynimty when it takes down a Republican, and support destroying anonymity when it takes down a Republican. I'm guessing the "Only in certain cases" above is a vote for "As long as it hurts the GOP".

I do NOT support hiding sources who commit criminal acts. If it IS Karl Rove, he should be dropped like a bad habit. I also think Mark Felt should be in the cell next to him. -Stephen

Mr. Felt was no hero.

Doesn't matter to me if it is a Republican or a Democrat...criminal is criminal.

Not only do I not support hiding sources who commit criminal acts, I don't support hiding sources who give information about those who commit criminal acts. Good lord, one of the basic rights of the accused in our judicial system is the right to FACE THEIR ACCUSER. Don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to even think about a system where that right is denied. I don't like the war in Iraq, but I don't want to live like I'm in Iraq either.

No, I don't support anonymous sources in these cases. Neither does the federal government...there is no federal law protecting anonimity of sources be they from the media or otherwise. Those laws are all on the state level and since the Valerie Plame case is federal, there is no such protection.

 

[ctenidae]

I went back and forth on the third poll option, whether it should be certain of federal. Probably should have stuck to federal.

 

[ctenidae]

Interesting:
Separately, the White House correspondent for Time magazine, Matthew Cooper, said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source consented in a "very sudden development" Wednesday morning.

One wonders what that "very sudden development" was. Immunity for the source? I wonder if Cooper's source is different from Novack's, and why Novack isn't being jailed.


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE}&siteid=mktw&dist=

 

[dmc]

Sounds like people support anonynimty when it takes down a Republican, and support destroying anonymity when it takes down a Republican.

Who would those people be?

 

[pizza]

I do understand the implications here, but I've gotta believe that when the government resorts to coercion to get any information out of anybody, it's not that much different than a principal suspending a kid who didn't cheat for not naming a person he observed cheating.

And we're not even talking about children! We're talking adults.

 

[ctenidae]

And we're not even talking about children! We're talking adults.

Are you sure?

 

[riverc0il]

i think coercion may be justified when we're talking about finding the truth in a criminal case. i think if it's limited to criminal trials, a bad precident is not being set, but rather a good precedent of making a case for not breaking laws and dragging the law breakers through the streets (i.e. bad media and then onto a jail sentance).

 

[pizza]

How many times have we seen a law and order character say "will you testify?"

People are not coerced into testifying in normal criminal cases, but when the government is the victim it's ok?

 

[riverc0il]

by coercion (to make sure we are on the same page with that word), i am stating if a reporter is witholding a name from a grand jury in a criminal trial (in which the victim is the gov, a person, company, corporation, or anyone), i say coerce the release of a name by threat of contempt and prison time. again, only in a criminal trial and specifically i am referring to a reporter witholding a source that is key to identification of the truth, innocence, or guilt or an accused.

 

[JimG.]

How many times have we seen a law and order character say "will you testify?"

People are not coerced into testifying in normal criminal cases, but when the government is the victim it's ok?

This is such a conundrum for me because I have such a basic view of justice: those who break the law must be punished. And I mean MUST.

So, for me, even if they are scared of retribution, I think anyone who has information about a crime should be encouraged/forced to testify in person, face to face.

To clarify (because this is my little fantasy), the governing body responsible for the trial is also responsible for protecting the witness (and has the authority to do so by whatever means) and would also
construct laws that were reasonable.

Quite a fantasy, huh?

 

[dmc]

This is such a conundrum for me because I have such a basic view of justice: those who break the law must be punished. And I mean MUST.

Well - I guess you won't be invited to ride the chair with Karl and I next season...

 

[JimG.]

This is such a conundrum for me because I have such a basic view of justice: those who break the law must be punished. And I mean MUST.

Well - I guess you won't be invited to ride the chair with Karl and I next season...

Remember the "reasonable laws" qualifier .

 

[dmc]

This is such a conundrum for me because I have such a basic view of justice: those who break the law must be punished. And I mean MUST.

Well - I guess you won't be invited to ride the chair with Karl and I next season...

Remember the "reasonable laws" qualifier .