Factual scenario: A government employee leaks classified and/or confidential information to a member of the press to assist that journalist’s investigation into an on-going controversy concerning alleged impropriety by the President of the United States or his close associates.The press is shameless, as Powerline notes:
Question: Is the governmental employee who released the information evil or a hero?
Answer: It depends. If employee’s name is W. Mark Felt, apparently the employee is a hero. If the employee’s name is Karl Rove, apparently the employee is evil.
To begin with, the Times has a bit of a problem denouncing leaks, as it admits: "Far be it for [sic] us to denounce leaks." No kidding; the Times has carried on a guerrilla war against the Bush administration for the last four and one-half years, relying largely on anti-Bush leaks by Democrats in the CIA and the State Department.Remember, many observers and journalists -- including The New York Times -- say the White House leaker (Rove or not) committed no crime. (Others disagree--especially with a target in sight.) In any event, Rove (and others in the White House) already waived Executive Privilege and told investigators long ago.
But the Plame "leak" is different, somehow:But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary.Yes, we certainly agree with that. That's why our opinion of Joe Wilson is so low. He leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. He "peddled disinformation," falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to "harm a political adversary," President Bush. The Times didn't mind that particular disinformation, however, since it fit the paper's political agenda. In fact, the Times has never issued a correction of the misstatements in Wilson's op-ed. On the contrary, today's editorial links to Wilson's 2003 piece and repeats its central allegations, without even mentioning that Wilson's op-ed has been found to be fraudulent by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee!
Powerline's right:
Who was it who "outed" these CIA employees, blew their cover and perhaps endangered their lives? The New York Times, of course! In an article that was based largely on leaks by former CIA employees, who were out to embarrass the administration. Ah, but that's the "good" kind of leak--the kind that exposes the Agency's real covert operatives, not the kind that tries to correct lies told by Democratic Party loyalists in the pages of the New York Times.Or, as Joe's Dartblog says, "The paper of record wasn't concerned with our success in the War on Terror, or the lives of overseas operatives then. It is now."
Wilson lied--a fact that Dems and the MSM (redundant, sorry) forget. Rove (were it him) didn't--and is vilified. In the history printed in New York (heh!) and filmed in Hollywood (not heh!), terrorists are the hero.
As previously noted, "treating similarly situated persons differently is the very definition of bias." See Melody Music Inc. v. F.C.C., 345 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Q-friggin-ED.
4 comments:
You're back. All is at it should be and the universe restored to the natural balance.
Good post.
Brain's still foggy. California -- cloudless sky, 1:1 personal trainer ratio, confusing "despite" and "because" -- will do that: and I was born there.
This is too easy!
Felt exposed a coverup hence he is a hero.
Rove was trying to discredit a possible threat to the fine work that he and Cheney el al were doingto justify taking the country to war. You remember, "Saddam was an immentent threat...in 45 minutes he could attack...better to be safe and get him before we get one of those mushroom clouds!!
Well Wilson was throwing water on their hot little attack plans so he had to be dealt with and Mr."smear" Rove knew just how to handle it.
Ron:
There are three fatal errors in your argument:
1) You can't read: Specific "intent" is an element of the crime in both Federal criminal provisions you cited. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) states:
"Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it."
Moreover, § 794 applies only to information provided to a foreign government (or a representative thereof).
2) You can't think: The intent standard makes criminal leaking where the official "has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." The relevant information is Valerie Plame's employer. Even assuming her CIA role wasn't public when the alleged leak occurred, the disclosure would injure the United States only if Plame's job and work were a secret. And that depends on whether she was a covert agent, or so recently a covert agent that her job title was considered confidential.
Put differently, your argument is entirely circular. Yes, some CIA staffers are "undercover." But most are not secret agents; they can, and will, admit that they work for the Company. The United States suffers no injury upon the disclosure of the identity of employees in the latter category. In other words, if Plame was not a covert agent, nor had been one in the past five years, the need for secrecy had expired, making subsequent disclosure lawful.
3) Irrelevancies remain irrelevant even in ALL CAPS: The case you cite is the D.C. Circuit opinion denying claims for a "reporters privilege." It's true the publicly available opinion was redacted. But it's also true that White House staffers, including Rove, already testified before the grand jury (the President having waived Executive Privilege). That testimony was taken two years ago, after Rove himself granted the journalists permission to tell Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove!
If Administration officials confessed to have leaked, Fitzgerald wouldn't have gone after the journalists for contempt--Novak already testified. In view of Novak's testimony and Rove's release to the reporters, it's reasonable to presume Administration personnel would be disinclined to lie, knowing that their political opponents in the media might already, but in any event could, quickly expose any untruths. This is confirmed by Rove's contemporaneous writings, already public.
Conclusion: Go back to Moonbat central. You can return only after learning logic and law.
Post a Comment