[Changleen]

The Bush administration is on a mission to reduce press freedoms. Why would they want to do this? Are they not an upstanding beacon of transparant democratic government? Do they not espouse freedom and democracy in every speech?

Now members of the NYT have been sent to jail for doing the right thing and refusing to reveal their sources. Remeber the 'constitution'? Anonymous sources are the backbone of real investigative journalism. The Bush administration is seeking to change the norms of journalism, further reducing your already entertainment-centric media into a powerless mouthpiece of spokespeople and repeater of preess releases.

Having previously been caught red handed paying for propaganda to be broadcast as news, GW and co. have shown once again their willingness to trample on the principals that America was built on and that their ultimate goal has nothing to do with freedom and democracy for anyone, but riches and wealth for a select few. 98% of America are there to be used as mindless slave labour to line the pockets of big business.

 

[genpowell71]

So she outed a CIA WMD agent huh? Well here's the question. Do we respect the freedom of the press at the cost of another attack on US soil? Do we let the press continue to run around hiding behind the Bill of Rights while they do what they can to (maybe unknowingly maybe not) subvert US National Security? Alot of people will disagree with me on this. There needs to be a limit as to how far the press and news agencys can go before they start to undermine the efforts to keep this nation safe.

 

[Changleen]

No, She was investigating where the leak might have come from. The leak itself was from a 'senior administration official' who, as it turns out now, is probably Karl Rove himself.

Here - primer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4657911.stm

Part of the reason she is being stamped on, as well as to discourage decent journalism, is probably to protect the leaker.

 

[Changleen]

More from BBC:

Journalists and media observers have greeted the saga with anger and dismay.

"The case is particularly outrageous because... [the] prosecutor is training his guns on the wrong culprits," Robert Kuttner wrote in the Boston Globe on Wednesday.

Many fear the case will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting at home and abroad.

But the story has also spurred soul-searching about the eroding credibility of US journalism following a series of scandals.

"Unless we can recover the public trust, our protests about reporters going to jail will come across as self-serving whining," Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times in April.

'Contempt epidemic'

The saga has prompted many journalists to question the political and legal climate in which they work.

Bill Kovach of the Committee of Concerned Journalists alleges that the case is part of a trend in which the government has sought to control the press's ability to cover its behaviour.

"There have been concerted efforts, especially by the Bush administration, to reduce the availability of information and to tone down the aggressiveness with which the press pursues it," he told the BBC News website.

"This is not just attributable to 9/11, but it appears to be a continuation of three decades of efforts," he said.

No White House spokesperson was available to comment on the matter at the time of writing.

Some US lawyers for the news media say the legal climate has also turned chillier for those seeking to protect confidential sources.

Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres called the Supreme Court decision not to hear the journalists' appeal "retrograde and freedom-curtailing".

 

[Changleen]

Here you go - Super brief version:

July 2003: Valerie Plame's work is revealed by conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak (This is the guy who should be being prosecuted!)

Sept 2003: Department of Justice launches probe into allegations that White House staff illegally blew her cover (and Miller and Copper investigated the same thing independantly)

Feb 2005: Appeals court rules Miller and Cooper must testify about their sources to inquiry

June 2005: Supreme Court refuses to take up the case

 

[Changleen]

Ouch!

Earlier this year, a Pew Institute poll found 45% of Americans believe little or nothing that they read in newspapers. Twenty years ago, just 16% of readers expressed similar doubts.

Apparantly this is because of things like Jason whats-his-name making up stories and Newsweek's retraction of the Koran/Toilet thing. In both cases, the White House did a great job of manipulating the press. In the Jason case, the overriding message was that the press cannot be trusted to print the truth generally, and the second was even more of a coup for them - In the Newsweek case, not only did the press come off looking like over-eager liars, but in reality the abuse of the Koran almost definitaly did happen, but thanks to the hoo-hah made about the retraction, the content and facts of the story themselves were buried. The retraction became the story, and the problem disapeered.

The Govenment wins this little game when no-one believes the press, or when the press has no power to investigate without the fear of sanction. They simply become a distribution mouthpiece for whatever some spokesman is pushing. Right now I've gotta say that sadly the Government is winning.

 

[Changleen]

Russia denounces US behavior:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/07/07/judithmiller.shtml

Russia Says U.S. Journalist’s Arrest Violates Press Freedom

Created: 07.07.2005 14:42 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:42 MSK, 57 minutes ago

MosNews

The Russian Interior Ministry has denounced the arrest of U.S. journalist Judith Miller who refused to reveal her source, Itar-Tass reported Thursday. The decision violates journalists’ rights and the freedom of press, the Ministry said.

Russia sees the arrest of Judith Miller as a restrain on journalists’ rights in the U.S., the Interior Ministry’s press service told Itar-Tass.

“The journalist’s right to keep his sources secret is a part of the press freedom mechanism in a democratic society,” the press service said.

“Keeping the sources secret allows the media workers to do their job, and the right is fixed in internationally acknowledged documents.”

Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter and a Pulitzer Prize winner, was jailed for refusing to identify her source to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.

Judge Thomas Hogan said there’s a “realistic possibility” that being sent to jail might get her to testify, AP reported.

 

[preppie]

There needs to be a limit as to how far the press and news agencys can go before they start to undermine the efforts to keep this nation safe.

Press Freedom is in this case the same as human rights, you just don't touch it....at least not in a -real- democracy.

And your nation is spreading "democracy" all over the world?
Kind of contradictive and hypocritical isn't it.

 

[genpowell71]

Great how democracy is. I have a right to speak my mind and voice my opinion.

I would have thought that you as a European would be all for keeping an eye on governments developing WMDs since the vast majority of you are anti-nuke/bio/chemical weapons. I do think that in this case she should have given up her contacts name. When a leak inside an Intelligence agency talks, thats called a breach of operational security. Hence the term espionage. If names are coming publc about code word classified stuff, thats called E-S-P-I-O-N-A-G-E and S-U-B-V-E-R-S-I-O-N. Last I checked, its a crime in this country. Hence when you are witholding a name of the spy that leaked the name, thats called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Thats not my opinion anymore, thats constitutional law there.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Wow I am not even getting into this debate but your statement here is downright SCARY

Do we let the press continue to run around hiding behind the Bill of Rights

HELLOOOOOOOOOO.... the answer to that question is YES, always and FOREVER please

 

[Snacks]

So she outed a CIA WMD agent huh? Well here's the question. Do we respect the freedom of the press at the cost of another attack on US soil? Do we let the press continue to run around hiding behind the Bill of Rights while they do what they can to (maybe unknowingly maybe not) subvert US National Security? Alot of people will disagree with me on this. There needs to be a limit as to how far the press and news agencys can go before they start to undermine the efforts to keep this nation safe.

Dude, you're high. You think the press repressing sources had anything to do with the 9/11 attack? Check with the FBI there buddy. They had their own agents warning the presidents men about it.

 

[clancy98]

11 posts in *another* "Bush took my baba" thread, 6 by you Chang...


Feeling a little self-important today?


Read some BlameBush... and make yourself some hot tea. (FYI, that site is parody, cause I'm not sure you'd notice...)

 

[narlus]

July 2003: Valerie Plame's work is revealed by conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak (This is the guy who should be being prosecuted!)

someone please tell me why novak isn't on trial??? what did miller actually do? as far as i can tell, cooper wrote an on-line article which was much like novak's. how did miller get into the mix, and more importantly, why is novak immune?

 

[genpowell71]

Dude, you're high. You think the press repressing sources had anything to do with the 9/11 attack? Check with the FBI there buddy. They had their own agents warning the presidents men about it.

I think your looking at the small picture. Myself I'm looking at the bigger picture. We have an agent reporting on WMDs that could be USED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES from hostile countries that dont like us. Nowhere in my post did I say that the Sept 11 attacks had anything to do with repressing sources. You need to step back away from the crackpipe, sober up and think about what I said.

 

[Silver]

why is novak immune?

He's a conservative shill.

 

[Chutney]

Well here's the question. Do we respect the freedom of the press at the cost of another attack on US soil?

In my opinion, yes. Look at the context. The information was leaked to a (fairly) well known reporter. Its not like its a call in hotline with a direct link to the middle east. Many risks are justified in maintaining transparency within the government. Too me, this is one of the many implied checks and balances built into the our democracy.

My question to you: How can we justify protecting what we care about (the good old US of A) on one hand while compromising it with the other?

Do we let the press continue to run around hiding behind the Bill of Rights

In reading past threads, I have had a lot of respect for your arguments whether or not I agreed with them. You just lost my respect. What do you think the Bill of Rights is there for?

Sir!!! Maybe you should buckle up!!!

Eh Buckle this!!!
Now hear this, Ludicrous Speed GO!!!

You won some of it back. Nice sig.

"They've gone Plaid!!"

Jonathan

 

[narlus]

He's a conservative shill.

but how did Miller end up in the position Novak should be in? goddamn.

 

[reflux]

but how did Miller end up in the position Novak should be in? goddamn.

There is a small rumor that he's complying with prosecutors, but I don't know where I read it.



Why should this Administration care about the Bill of Rights? I believe it was already siht on by the Patriot Act.

 

[stevew]

Why should this Administration care about the Bill of Rights? I believe it was already siht on by the Patriot Act.

And then by Campaign Finance Reform.

 

[Changleen]

but how did Miller end up in the position Novak should be in?

Indeed. I think part of the problem (aside from the fact that the government is intentionally targeting the wrong people as part of the war on press freedom) is that the public don't realise that this is happening and this can once again be partly blamed on the fact that it's a slightly convoluted set of circumstances, especially if you happen to skim the story as GenPowell showed. Most people don't care / watched the 5 second slot about it and have no idea of the actual situation.

It is complete crap that this guy isn't being nailed to the wall along with the leaker, especially if the leaker is in high office as may well be.

 

[genpowell71]

In reading past threads, I have had a lot of respect for your arguments whether or not I agreed with them. You just lost my respect. What do you think the Bill of Rights is there for?

I dont need a lecture on freedoms and the bill of rights. I'm the one that ensures you have those freedoms. Believe me when I say, I know exactly what it is and what its there to do. I also have the right to stand up and say that IN MY OPINION the judge did the right thing in trying to stop an intelligence leak from the CIA. I've seen first hand what leaks in operational security does when it goes wrong. Here and now, this has the potential to blow up in our faces. I call you attention to the anthrax attacks on the house and senate representatives back a couple years ago.

 

[genpowell71]

Indeed. I think part of the problem (aside from the fact that the government is intentionally targeting the wrong people as part of the war on press freedom) is that the public don't realise that this is happening and this can once again be partly blamed on the fact that it's a slightly convoluted set of circumstances, especially if you happen to skim the story as GenPowell showed. Most people don't care / watched the 5 second slot about it and have no idea of the actual situation.

It is complete crap that this guy isn't being nailed to the wall along with the leaker, especially if the leaker is in high office as may well be.

I completely agree. He needs to be thrown to the wolves. He needs to be stretched out over a North Georgia red ant hill and have honey poured all over him. But supposedly he's good friends with that jerk in the white house.

 

[SK6]

Freedom of the press has limitation, like it or not.

When it begins to threaten national security, it is no longer a freedom that can be afforded.

"The needs of the many, far outweight the needs of the few."

 

[Silver]

Freedom of the press has limitation, like it or not.

When it begins to threaten national security, it is no longer a freedom that can be afforded.

"The needs of the many, far outweight the needs of the few."

And there is your justification for totalitarianism. It takes about 5 seconds for everything to become a "national security" issue.

 

[genpowell71]

Like it or not, this IS a national security issue. We're talking a CIA agent that was used to monitor WMDs.

 

[Silver]

Like it or not, this IS a national security issue. We're talking a CIA agent that was used to monitor WMDs.

It's a political issue. Nothing will happen. Worst case, Scooter or Karl or whoever leaked it gets in a bit of trouble, and ends up getting pardoned by Bush before he does any jail time. Then he becomes a right wing radio talk host hero (See Oliver North for your template there...)

 

[MikeD]

There are 2 separate issues here that are getting mixed up:

1) The public release of an intelligence operative's name, which is in and of itself a crime (For which Novak seems to be escaping prosecution, meanwhile denouncing Deep Throat and everyone else he can manage to malign as 'traitors' and 'cowards')

and

2) The investigation into the actual leak by which her name became known to the press, involving Miller and Cooper somehow, about which I'm as confused as Narlus is. I can't find ANY good info on it, just the sorts of news stories that leave you with lots of questions when you're looking for answers.

The source of the leak is presumably INSIDE the same Bush administration seeking to 'limit press freedoms' (Changleen's phrase). So it is totally conceivable that the administration is using the prosecutions of these press members as a diversionary tactic...and ironically, the press might suffer jail time for protecting people inside the same organ that's prosecuting them.

Clancy, you need to come out from behind the cover of your favorite website and actually say something once in a while, instead of just sneering at those you disagree with. It's a standard tactic, I realize, to divert attention from potential issues and wrongdoings, but it doesn't actually work too well here.

Just because Bush DOES get slammed by his opponents for outrageous or unjustified things (as do all high-level politicians) doesn't mean all criticism or analysis of the administration or the political climate is de facto "blaming baba." (That phrase alone is another perfect use of playground diversionary tactics...VERY effective with turning mass idiotic opinion around, but not for a real debate or discussion.)

MD

 

[Changleen]

Just because Bush DOES get slammed by his opponents for outrageous or unjustified things (as do all high-level politicians) doesn't mean all criticism or analysis of the administration or the political climate is de facto "blaming baba." (That phrase alone is another perfect use of playground diversionary tactics...VERY effective with turning mass idiotic opinion around, but not for a real debate or discussion.)

Playground diversionary tactics = Child ego state. Perfect example. Whereas Mike's post was a great example of the Adult ego state at work. Good stuff Mike. I guess that's me slipping into parent right here.

 

[Changleen]

Like it or not, this IS a national security issue. We're talking a CIA agent that was used to monitor WMDs.

Yes, but keep on the scent, remember that it was the Administration itself who compromised this person.

 

[MikeD]

I guess that's me slipping into parent right here.

****ing western paternalist...we will eliminate you in our anti-colonial marxist revolution. Prepare to be liquidated.

 

[Changleen]

****ing western paternalist...we will eliminate you in our anti-colonial marxist revolution. Prepare to be liquidated.

I tremble in the face of your mighty armies... Oh, wait....

 

[SK6]

Hmmm, system of checks an balances........tends to wash stuff like this out. And lets face it, if it REALLY was a national security issue, I mean REALLY, we would have never heard about it.......

 

[genpowell71]

Yes, but keep on the scent, remember that it was the Administration itself who compromised this person.

Hence the problem of finding who it was that opened his/her (for the gender conscious) traitor. I have nothing against the NY Times. I enjoy reading it when I'm in that neck of the woods. But in this case there is a bigger agenda here not just the freedom to not tell who the source is that leaked the agents name.

 

[Changleen]

Hence the problem of finding who it was that opened his/her (for the gender conscious) traitor. I have nothing against the NY Times. I enjoy reading it when I'm in that neck of the woods. But in this case there is a bigger agenda here not just the freedom to not tell who the source is that leaked the agents name.

If it was Karl Rove, I would think that you've got very little chance of ever getting it confirmed before the story goes cold.

 

[genpowell71]

No matter what you call it, its still a breech of National Security and the judge did the right thing in jailing her for contempt.

 

[MikeD]

No matter what you call it, its still a breech of National Security and the judge did the right thing in jailing her for contempt.

Seems a little suspect when the man who actually exposed Plame's name to the public is walking around scott-free, no? Especially considering that man's role in the mass media...

Regardless of who Novak has cooperated with in this investigation as to the source of the leak, he's still openly guilty of that first crime, which in my eyes is far more eggregious than a journalist who's shielding her anonymous sources.

MD

 

[Changleen]

Exactly.

 

[MikeD]

Exactly.

Well, GP71 DOES have a point in that Novak's misdeeds don't negate any misdeeds on anyone else's part, but in my (obviously our) humble opinions, the focus of the investigation is all wrong, and thus warrants us to question why they're worried about small, distracting potatoes instead of the big picture.

MD

 

[clancy98]

Alright, the liberals are explaining my wicked and just plain republican "tactics"

you guys got me all figgered out...

Please see Changleen' "parent/child/adult" thread

 

[MikeD]

Alright, the liberals are explaining my wicked and just plain republican "tactics"

you guys got me all figgered out...

Please see Changleen' "parent/child/adult" thread

Wait...am I a liberal??

Oh, no!

Damn, somehow we are now on to me trying to defend myself against being labeled with a one-word epithet instead of discussing the issues at hand! It's CRAZY how that happens, isn't it?

MD

PS If you're seriously calling me a liberal, you have no idea what that word really means, other than a convenient and loaded term for slagging on someone who's in disagreement with the Republican Party on a particular issue. But to discuss that would, again, be a diversion from the real issue. (See how effective those diversionary techniques are?? We're now discussing the definition of liberal rather than the Plame case...)