Libby case sparks calls for journalist shield law

"Many people may find it hard to figure out how he can say on one day he agreed with the jury's decision and then threaten to overturn it on the next."

- WN

Many people might, but not I.

President Bush is the ultimate flip-flopper. Name an issue and he's flipped on it.

But ultimately, the only way to "understand" President Bush is to realize that he's ALL ABOUT President Bush.

He's not about the religious right. He doesn't care about the neocons and he certainly doesn't care about the "loony left."

President Bush cares about President Bush. He will do as he pleases, knowing he will never be held accountable in this world and, frankly, there's very little evidence that he believes in "a next world."

When you realize that, everything President Bush does is actually quite obvious.

I'd like to know more about how a shield law would work, if say, a reporter had information about an emminent attack on the US, but was sworn to secrecy by their source.

Regarding Libby's clemency, let's keep our eyes on where the real story is:

Various Bush Administration people knowingly disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent to:

1. Justify the war against Iraq.
2. Punish Joe Wilson.
3. Produce a chilling effect on any government official thinking about not toeing the line on Bush's policies.

The Bush Administration put themselves & their asperations before US national security. This has produced a chilling effect on anyone thinking about becoming a CIA covert agent. It has also produced a chilling efect on anyone (including foreign governments) who consider working with and/or providing covert intelligence to one of our CIA agents.

Amazing that there's no real constitutional firewall for journalists. And with the Supreme Court jerking violently to the right, the issue may crop up again.

It's just as frightening that there's no specific separation of church and state in our constitution. Yes there are legal precedents and many subsequent writings and interpretations, but the protection isn't there. Zealous leaders have already walked all over this grey area with faith-based initiatives which give away $billions in public monies but have no accountability and essentially no opportunity for non-christian funding. Nuts!

Reporters like Bill Neikirk ask for laws that give special rights to themselves, rights denied to the rest of us peons.

This merely reflects the utter arrogance of reporters, who seek to be our new ruling class of mandarins.

Bud, you couldn't be any more wrong, but then that is why you are a card-carrying member of the Loony Left.

In regard to Judith Miller, since Fitzgerald knew within days that the "leaker" was Richard Armitage, then why did Judith Miller have to go to jail for not revealing her source? In that sense, Fitzgerald did some Nifonging of Miller. In fact, Fitzgerald did some Nifonging in this whole case.
Stick to Chicago and Illinois corruption, Patrick. That is where the real crimes are being committed.

Odd system.
The government jails someone in an effort to prosecute someone else, then the chief gvmnt. official of said 'gvmnt' pardons the convicted 'swell' who then nary serves a day.

Miller HAD to be punished because, after all, she was just a member of the "Mainstream Media", the arch enemy of Republicans, Neocons and conservatives everywhere.

This is a 'solution' looking for a problem.

If I had one ounce of sympathy for either Judy Miller or Lewis Libby, perhaps I would care. Sorry Mr. Neikirk, this is a perfect example when you have corrupt journalists working with corrupt politicians. Perhaps when the press 'corps' starts doing their job instead of carrying water for an administration you might get a little sympathy.

Top Ten Reasons to Impeach President Bush

10. Prevent pilfering of office supplies during last day in office
9. Give Rush Limbaugh a heart attack.
8. Give the Iraqi people an early celebration.
7. Expose Cheney as the real power behind the throne.
6. Screw up Karl Rove’s job search.
5. Wipe that silly smirk off his face.
4. Put a damper on fund raising for the Bush presidential library.
3. To stop all the whining.
2. Chip away at American Idol ratings
1. TO STOP THE MADNESS!

This article doesn’t tell the whole story, and throwing Scooter Libby into the middle of it doesn’t help. It just gets the tail wagging the dog again.

Just remember that every time a new privilege against divulging information crops up, more evidence is suppressed, and our government, and the justice system in particular, is deprived of the truth it needs to operate justly and effectively. Several of the common consequences aren’t good, and some are downright awful. They are:

1. Innocent people go to jail;
2. Guilty people go free;
3. Injured parties remain uncompensated;
4. Those whose tortuous conduct has injured others aren’t held accountable;
5. Corruption and abuse, both private and governmental, remain hidden and entrenched;
6. Hostile interests are granted the secrecy in which to effectively threaten our security;
7. Some public interests are vindicated; and,
8. Some private interests are protected.

As you can see, the application of any privilege against disclosure is always a mixed blessing at best. So, the process of formulating valuable privileges must involve a balance of all personal, social and governmental interests. The balance struck where such privileges exist often includes numerous exceptions, each representing situations in which the public interests outweigh the value of nondisclosure.

Applying these considerations to the case in which Judy Miller tried to withhold evidence, and Scooter Libby almost made it to jail, it appears the journalist shield law is a cause in search of a reason. The primary reason for a journalist privilege against disclosure is to protect the flow of newsworthy information by preventing the “chilling” effect on sources that would result from their disclosure. But Ms. Miller never used any of the information she received from Scooter Libby. Contrary to the intimations of the article above, this factor favored disclosure. Miller couldn’t point to a single line of newsprint that would have been lost if Mr. Libby refused to cooperate from fear of disclosure. So, where was the “chilling effect?”

Consider also the fact that Ms. Miller’s informant wasn’t a private person who acquired private information from a vantage point private or personal to himself. He was an assistant to the Vice President and, therefore, the source of information which he acquired from a position of public trust. Very few newspaper informants are similarly situated. Thus, it was not likely that outing Scooter Libby would result in any general or overall “chilling effect” on the flow of newsworthy information.

Consider next the fact the government was then in the process of investigating governmental leaks from the White House. The information Ms. Miller revealed, along with what was already known, made it likely that her informant had some personal knowledge of the circumstances under investigation. At this point, the government had proof that the identity of the informant could assist them in pursuing that investigation, and they were unlikely to get the same or similar information from any other source. Just remember how secretive Darth Cheney has proven to be.

The kicker, however, comes from the fact that Scooter Libby waived, in writing, any confidentiality regarding the communications between himself and Ms. Miller long before she ever went to jail. Ms. Miller decided, along with her lawyer, that she wouldn’t accept his written waiver because it came from his lawyers and not from Libby himself. If she was that interested in protecting confidential sources, then it seems it would have been prudent for her to contact Libby directly or arrange for some further assurance or clarification of the situation. Libby’s lawyer was astonished that she didn’t do just that. It is understandable that someone might wish to protect confidential information. But to suggest that a shield law is needed to protect a communication that is not at all confidential is ridiculous.

If someone wants to suggest that a federal journalist shield law is at all necessary, the Miller/Libby matter is no anecdotal evidence of such a need. The press and media have flourished in this country from its very beginning, and they have never had any particular protection for their informants. To change that rule now would risk a great deal of injustice for a negligible benefit to the news media. It’s not worth it.

More hypocritical BS from shotgun dickie and his bootlicker chimpy...

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/03/comparing_lewis.html

Let's see. Since there is currently a separate way that is used to deal with journalists and media I think it has already been established that their livelihood requires for them to be treated differently than "us regular peons." I think you can not deny them "special rights or treatment" and you can not grant them excessive "special rights or treatment." The middle ground is necessary bc it concerns the nature of their work(in a way it does not "us regular peons"), and I think it is always a good thing to evaluate if any advancements and changes in the world we live in might require questioning if certain laws are still relevant to a reasonable degree or not. That is what this piece is about. Point to me where William Neikirk is ASKING he be given special rights to laws us regular people don't? No where. Assumed on the premise of association? Absolutely. So tell me then is every article written by a journalist a topic they advocate? No. Anyone who has read that much into it is already reading too much into it and missing the point. The only mandarins (btw I like that word) are the ones that let the media hinder their ability to live. If you think the media is more than it is you automatically, by acknowledgment, give away your right to intellectually autonomy. Facts will always be facts in light of what the media says. Take comfort in that, and the fact everything in the media is taken with a grain of salt. We're not a nation of drones.

RE - the uber-rightists on the fringe of American mainstream - more mush from the wimps.

As to the shield law. As an ordinary citizen I must say, the line between a journalist and the guy selling girls gone wild is a blur. Are there any journalists left? If there is one, could you please gather and make public some very important information. A list of each different group responsible for the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians along with the number of deaths attributed to each individual group. This could help streamline our efforts in Iraq by identifying the biggest threat to Iraqis, allowing us to focus all our efforts on removing them first. Instead of focusing all our energy on a group of people who until recently, had no clue what AlQueada was, and is more likely than not, last on the list anyway. Thank you

(they want to kill you) Someone told me (I will protect you) that the government (they want to kill you) uses something like (I will protect you) subliminal messages (they want to kill you) to control the thoughts (I will protect you) of ordinary citizens. (they want to kill you) I told him (I will protect you) that could never (they want to kill you) happen in a society (i will protect you) with a free press. And I was right.

Barry,

Governmental agencies and entities such as the Whits House press office and others make desisions all the time about who is an "accredited" journalist and who isn't.

You can be pretty sure that we bloggers here on The Swamp won't be tagging along on Air Force One any time soon.

Bruce,
How different would America be today if the NY Times had not published the Penatagon Papers because they feared the government would put padlocks on their doors and the reporters would be imprisoned? Why are you pro-Fascism? Why do you support Saddam Hussein's policies?

Snitramc, remember when you posted as John E.??

Anyway,in regard to your Top 10 Reasons to Impeach Bush:

Top Ten Reasons to Impeach President Bush

10. Prevent pilfering of office supplies during last day in office. (you mean like the Clintoons stealing dishes and other White House belongings when they left?)
9. Give Rush Limbaugh a heart attack. (Rush is fine, but no Bush impeachment will send thousands of Loony Leftists to hospitals for the mentally deranged, always a good thing to get you weirdos off the streets.)
8. Give the Iraqi people an early celebration. (hmmm, the Iraqi government and most Iraqi people do not want us to leave anytime soon. They want a chance to have freedom and a better life.)
7. Expose Cheney as the real power behind the throne. (More one-note stupidity on the Left. "Darth is in charge!" "Smirky McFlightsuit!" My, can you folks even think for yourselves?)
6. Screw up Karl Rove’s job search. (Oh, Karl will be making millions no matter what and helping more Republicans win through the years, which will send even more Leftist Loons to the mental wards!!!)
5. Wipe that silly smirk off his face. (You mean like the silly smirk on Clintoon's face all the time? Or perhaps Al Gore III's constant silly smirk??)
4. Put a damper on fund raising for the Bush presidential library. (Impeachement didn't hurt CLintoon's presidential library fundraising.)
3. To stop all the whining. (Ahhh, you finally admit the Left does nothing but whine!! That's the first honest thing you've ever said or wrote!)
2. Chip away at American Idol ratings. (Wow, that's a good one!)
1. TO STOP THE MADNESS! (You mean the madness of the Loony Left constantly calling for his imprachment? That's the second honest thing you've ever said or wrote!)

JohnD

4. Put a damper on fund raising for the Bush presidential library. (Impeachement didn't hurt CLintoon's presidential library fundraising.)

I am afraid you are wrong, why do you think he needed to sell pardons for Marc Rich and his crony ?

This really is bizarro world. To protect our citizens from being dominated by the government we institute a free press.
Today, we want to protect the government's right to use the press to assist in the act of dominating the people.

And the costs of litigation "are weighing heavily on journalists and news media corporations, which seriously threatens the flow of information to the public," the committee said.

Hmmm, where did I hear this load of crap before?

And the costs of litigation "are weighing heavily on doctors and health care corporations, which seriously threatens the flow of health care to the public," the committee said.

Boy oh boy, that committee sure does get around.

It's been a long time since watergate. There have been many psuedo-gates since then. These days most every news organization just dishes out the same sanitized, fit for our consumption, version of the news. What journalism? I am quite convinced, neither this type of press nor Judith "toe the party line" Miller warrant protection.
If a journalist is kept from information that the public should have (wake up stupid) that "is" the story, it's front page it's huge, and the person telling it should be protected, not the people hiding this information.

Kenny Bunkport,
Maybe our constitution should reflect that of Rhode Island, where freedom of religion springs appropriately from "freedom from religion".

Barry,

Sounds like the right formula. But it's tough to trust an "island" that isn't an island. ;-)

This has been interesting, if you ever find a way to inform me as to why my comments are not being posted, send me a line, till then, good luck

8. Give the Iraqi people an early celebration. (hmmm, the Iraqi government and most Iraqi people do not want us to leave anytime soon. They want a chance to have freedom and a better life.)

Johnny Torture why do you lie constantly?

"BAGHDAD, May 10 -- A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html

"BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

Andy, I stand corrected! You are right, Clintoon sold pardons and himself to raise cash.

He is quite the expensive lay though for Denise Rich to pay him all that money!

Hey, isn't prostitution illegal????

As R Rayguns said - there you go again. "It's all Clinton's fault!" "Clinton was worse!" I didn't like the man, but you neo-connies have to start living in the present. Willie has been out of office for almost a decade. It is time for shotgun dick and his boot licker chimpy to take the blame.

Johnny D,
Dems do remember the Clinton pardons and were angry. That is why so many voted against Al Gore. You should be thanking us. Your party leader is wrong and you cannot admit it. Pathetic.

President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence highlights some interesting connections between Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, a former fugitive from justice, an ex-president and two leading 2008 White House hopefuls.

Before entering government, Libby was a private attorney who represented billionaire international commodities trader Marc Rich.

Rich was indicted in 1983 by then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal dealing with Iran during the American hostage crisis.

Rich fled to Switzerland. He also occupied a spot on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for many years.

Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is now a leading Republican presidential candidate. He endorsed Bush’s decision to spare Libby jail time even though he had tried to put Libby’s client behind bars.

“After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct,” Giuliani said in a written statement Monday evening.

Rich’s fugitive days ended when former President Clinton pardoned him in January 2001, a move that prompted a congratulatory call from Libby to Rich.

What a bunch of farkin' hypocrites!

I'm not a legal scholar but I don't think his pardon or commutation was legal either. Yes he has Executive Priviledge but not in a treason case. Or maybe he is the first President to make sure a person who lied to a Grand Jury relating to his office go free. Boy all criminals wish they could call that guy to get out of jail; then we wouldn't have to call a lawyer or expect due process. During the trial, just fire your defense team, and pull out that ol' Executive Privilege paper out. Thats basically what happened. So I don't think his communtation will last, as the federal judge may order him back to jail, at least for one day. Until Bush pulls out another commutation paper out of his desk drawer. He only has one left, and that may be for Karl, Harriet. or Dick. So we will see who will get the next one.