« Combat Barbers | Main | London Bombing Updates: »

Thoughts on law and journalism from one who is neither, part I

Damn, yesterday was a good day for me. First, I discussed the nature of treason, and then the army announced they were holding five Americans suspected of aiding the terrorists in Iraq. Next, I discussed how nothing is free, in a matter dealing with lawyers and law cases. Then a reporter goes to jail to protect a source in the Valerie Plame case, while another gives up the source.

What's the connection, you ask? I have two answers for that.

First, the Plame case. I find it supremely ironic that the one journalist currently behind bars is one that never actually wrote a story about Plame. But that puts me in mind of a legal term I heard years ago: "best evidence."

The definition as I recall it is that a court should always seek the "best evidence" when seeking the truth. That's why hearsay is not allowed in most cases. The best witnesses are usually considered those who were closest to the event, and paying attention at the time. Reports and testimony about a gun or fingerprints are also good, but they take a back seat to actually having the evidence in question to present to the jury.

In the Plame case, it's a very simple question. The first person to publicly "out" her as a CIA operative was Robert Novak. He has the "best evidence" as to who in the government revealed her CIA connection. Yet no one, it seems, wants to ask Mr. Novak who his source was.

But that doesn't keep a lot of the left from demanding Karl Rove "pay" for this. Rove even signed a statement releasing any journalist to whom he has spoken from any pledge of confidentiality, but still no one has (to the best of my knowledge) asked Novak if it was Rove.

When the Plame story first broke, I was outraged at the time -- as were a lot of people. And I still am. Politics are politics, but there are some things that are beyond the pale.

I understand that there is some question about whether any laws were technically broken, and it's looking like they were probably not. So criminal charges are not likely brewing. Besides, I don't quite grasp how the person who told Novak violated a law, but Novak's publishing it wasn't.

But it was still a reprehensible, contemptible act, and I would like to see whoever did disclose her identity to Mr. Novak fired from government service. But I'd also like to see Novak himself face some consequences himself.

And I think it's a fair comparison to the Sandy Berger case, where a former National Security Advisor actually stole and destroyed highly-classified documents from the National Archives. He paid a $10,000 fine and lost his security clearance for three years for actions that others might spend years behind bars on charges of espionage.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thoughts on law and journalism from one who is neither, part I:

» Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with It is time for a Federal Shield Law for Journalist

Comments (2)

"...Yet no one, it seems, w... (Below threshold)

"...Yet no one, it seems, wants to ask Mr. Novak who his source was."

This from Time.com:

"Novak’s status continues to be a mystery; neither he nor his lawyer, Jim Hamilton, will talk about their contacts with prosecutors. Lawyers for other witnesses in the case have concluded that Novak is cooperating, since he has not been held in contempt."

Jay - there is one thing ab... (Below threshold)

Jay - there is one thing about this whole "outing" that has bothered me from the start. I remember Joe Wilson stating that Novak talked to him prior to the story being published and telling him what he had found out about his wife. No where in that statement did Wilson say anything about asking, begging, pleading, or threatening Novak not to out his wife because it would put her in danger as he claimed. If that were my wife and I knew she could be put in danger I would have been all over the guy to not print the story. Apparently he never protested the publication. If he had and Novak, knowing the implications, published it anyway, then Novak is just as bad as the leaker. Maybe not legally, but just as bad in my opinion. However Wilson apparently is not mad at Novak for endangering his wife. I find that all rather strange unless it is just political anyway (duh). It becomes even more strange when Plame says she wants to continue in her CIA career and avoid the spotlight and then appears on magazine covers with her husband.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy