07-05-2005, 08:45 PM | #41 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
in terms of the news coverage, i was thinking that maybe the fact is that karl rove is the luckiest man alive.
think about it--this story breaks on the day after sandra day o'connor resigned. and then there's live8 and then there's a patriotic holiday. if you or i had luck like his, any of us could be running the bush administration. that is the type of good fortune that would make many of us begin to think being on a mission from god or something. but apparently it happens: there are alot of people--lots of parameters, lots of trajectories, the law of averages, etc..overwhelming luck has to be possible, and because it really is distributed by chance, why could karl rove not simply be the beneficiary of some cycle or another? but even still, this turn of events for rove is extraordinary. as of the evening of 5 july, 2005, he is the luckiest man alive.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-06-2005, 12:33 PM | #42 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
07-06-2005, 12:53 PM | #43 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
i dont think anyone is arguing the contrary, folks.
that particular logic--that it is ok to hold people without trial indefinitely for example--is bushlogic. ethical beings do not apply that logic.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-06-2005, 01:44 PM | #44 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Miller has chosen not to reveal her source. Cooper has been given permission by his source to cooperate. Wouldn't that indicate two different sources?
Reporter Jailed for Refusal to Name Leak Source The Associated Press Wednesday 06 July 2005 Times' Miller disobeyed order to testify on disclosure of CIA agent’s name. Washington - A US judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail Wednesday for refusing to divulge her source in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name. "There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," US District Judge Thomas Hogan said. Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom. Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper said. Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again." "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret. Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, told reporters after Miller's jailing, "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity." He called Miller's decision a choice "to take the personal burden of being in jail" rather than breaking her promise of confidentiality to her source. Time Inc. previously surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe. The prosecutor, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, opposed a request that Cooper and Miller to be granted home detention - instead of jail - for remaining tight-lipped about their sources. Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy the court order. Last week, Time magazine said it was delivering the notes of reporter Matt Cooper to the special prosecutor investigating who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. The case is among the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Supreme Court in 1971 refused to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers. The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the reporters’ appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time. Time: 'Chilling Effect' on Press Freedom In a statement released last week, Time said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society." But it also said that despite its concerns, it would turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak. "The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity," the statement said. Novak Says He 'Will Reveal All' Eventually Fitzgerald, the US attorney in Chicago, has been investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame’s identity days after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly undercut the president’s rationale for invading Iraq. Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed. Novak told CNN he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved, adding that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists. Cooper wrote a story subsequently about Plame. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story. Time turned over Cooper's notes and other documents last week, four days after the Supreme Court refused to consider the case. Cooper's attorneys argued that producing the documents made it unnecessary for him to testify. Reporters Could Go to Jail Wednesday Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when US District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify. Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate. In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need. Fitzgerald said it would be up to the judge to decide whether to send Cooper to the District of Columbia jail or some other facility. On Friday, Cooper's lawyers argued against sending him to the D.C. jail, saying it is a "dangerous maximum security lockup already overcrowded with a mix of convicted offenders and other detainees awaiting criminal trials." Miller's lawyers argue that there are no circumstances under which she will talk, but Fitzgerald disagreed. "There is tension between Miller's claim that confinement will never coerce her to testify and her alternative position that this court should consider less restrictive forms of confinement," the prosecutor wrote. Time magazine is part of the media company Time Warner Inc. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress. |
07-06-2005, 03:07 PM | #46 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
I just heard on the news that Miller has a signed affidavit from her source granting her permission to reveal her source. She is standing her ground on principle.
(the was on the Jim Leher Report just a few minutes ago).
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
07-06-2005, 03:37 PM | #47 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
It seems to me that The Prosecution just committed themselves to HAVING to find Rove guilty, because if they don't, how are they going to justify sending Miller to prison? And I'm glad I'm not the guy who squealed to go free, while his female colleague is sent off to prison for having a spine.
As far as I can see, there is only one possible motivation for this case going forward like it has: Somebody wants Rove's head delivered on a platter at any cost. |
07-06-2005, 03:40 PM | #48 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
How can the "prosecution" find Rove guilty, when he's not on trial?
There's a gun there. Why don't you jump it? With regards to the male squealing and the female sticking to her principles, I agree with you 100%. But according to a story I've seen, he's got written consent from his source to testify; ie, they waived their anonymity. Mr Mephisto |
07-06-2005, 03:59 PM | #49 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
The court has NO right to compel a journalist to give up anything that wasn't in the original story. To attempt to seize that right is #1 legislating from the bench and #2 a clear attempt to kill the 1st amendment. |
|
07-06-2005, 04:52 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-06-2005, 06:19 PM | #51 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
Do you think this would be news if Rove were not involved? shakran, you are right - he said he had permission to rat out his source. It looks like his employer (Time) put him in the position where he had no choice because they gave the court his notes (which contained his sources), so he was screwed from the word GO wasn't he? As for the court legislating from the bench, well, the judge ordered the journalists to reveal their sources. I'm not a lawyer (thankfully), but isn't it automatically 'contempt of court' if you don't follow the court's instructions? Elphaba, I think all of us here would be very interested to hear about these alterior motives you speak of. I do wonder if she is ONLY standing on priniciple. Some have been known to voluntarily go to jail to escape something or someone. Do tell! Last edited by powerclown; 07-06-2005 at 06:37 PM.. |
|
07-06-2005, 07:30 PM | #52 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
Just call me the "Cookie Monster" |
|
07-07-2005, 03:26 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
The Plame leak was news long before anyone knew or seriously suspected Rove of being involved. You seem to keep trying to reframe the issue questioning why this would be news...but I have to ask you: regardless of Rove's involvement, should it be news? Do you take the hypothetical of whether this would be news and conclude that it should not be news?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-07-2005, 07:16 AM | #54 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
Why this is about Rove: "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." -Joe Wilson (Plame's husband, and former US ambassador to Baghdad) source - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "In Washington, so-called leak investigations—formal inquiries by the Justice Department into the publication of classified information—are like endless replays of the movie “Casablanca”: the authorities round up the usual suspects, nothing much happens, and life goes on. Without leaks, arguably, the U.S. government could not function. Trial balloons could not be floated, political scores could not be settled, wrongs would go unexposed, policy could not be made. It is against the law to reveal government secrets that might harm national security, but as a practical matter, journalists (protected by the First Amendment) are very rarely pressed to reveal their sources. Leak investigations are launched about every other week in Washington, but only occasionally is the leaker caught, and it has been two decades since anyone was criminally punished." source |
|
07-07-2005, 12:51 PM | #55 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-07-2005, 02:31 PM | #56 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
______________________________________________________________ The Source of the Trouble Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong. By Franklin Foer :snip: The phrase “among others” is a highly evocative one. Because that list of credulous Chalabi allies could include the New York Times’ own reporter, Judith Miller. During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate. For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi’s credibility into question. But never once in the course of its coverage—or in any public comments from its editors—did the Times acknowledge Chalabi’s central role in some of its biggest scoops, scoops that not only garnered attention but that the administration specifically cited to buttress its case for war. The longer the Times remained silent on Chalabi’s importance to Judith Miller’s reporting, the louder critics howled. In February, in the New York Review of Books, Michael Massing held up Miller as evidence of the press’s “submissiveness” in covering the war. For more than a year, Slate’s Jack Shafer has demanded the paper come clean. But finally, with Chalabi’s fall from grace so complete—the Pentagon has cut off his funding, troops smashed his portrait in raids of the INC office—the Times’ refusal to concede its own complicity became untenable. Last week, on page A10, the paper published a note on its coverage, drafted by executive editor Bill Keller himself. The paper singled out pieces that relied on “information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors, and exiles bent on ‘regime change.’ ” The note named Ahmad Chalabi as a central player in this group. ________________________________________________________________ The short of it is that Miller's reputation was seriously damaged. Marching into jail holding her head high may serve to burnish her reputation. Honorable? Perhaps. Cooper's source has released him. Considering the Miller claimed to have talked to sources, but never wrote anything about the Plame case strikes me as very odd. My apologies if this has gone too far off from the original thread. Last edited by Elphaba; 07-07-2005 at 02:49 PM.. Reason: Removed broken link |
|
07-07-2005, 08:54 PM | #58 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
And then maybe charged? Perhaps tried? Who know? Maybe even found guilty? Mr Mephisto |
|
07-08-2005, 03:33 AM | #59 (permalink) | |
Minion of the scaléd ones
Location: Northeast Jesusland
|
Quote:
Right or wrong, it has become taboo to compare Shrub with Hitler*, but comparing Rove to Goebbels is about dead on. Bottom line: If he really thinks we're the devil, then let's send him to hell. * Hitler was better-looking than Bush, he was a better dresser than Bush, he had better hair, he told funnier jokes, and he could dance the pants off of Bush!
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life. |
|
07-08-2005, 06:48 AM | #60 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
Which journalist are you referring to? Was there a documented conversation between Rove and a journalist pertaining to this case? Do you know what was said? Links? Quote:
|
||
07-08-2005, 08:49 AM | #61 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
where's that last claim from, powerclown?
sounds like an extension of the frat boy prank line on torture--that is, limbaughesque. here is a good overview of where things apprently stand at the moment in this case from today's washington post: Quote:
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-08-2005 at 09:01 AM.. Reason: found something else germaine |
|
07-08-2005, 10:59 AM | #62 (permalink) |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
roach, if rove is in fact the guilty party, why wasn't it made public during the 2004 elections? Some bush-hater, somewhere would have known and shared it with the world.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
07-08-2005, 11:08 AM | #63 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
i don't have an answer to that one, stevo.
the question is playing out now. so it is relevant now.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-08-2005, 05:29 PM | #64 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
I don't think the first amendment should protect these reporters. A reporters job is to report the news not aid and abet a crime. These reporters by taking (even though it was given) confidential information commited a crime. By publishing it they furthered that crime. The first ammendment does not give a reporter the right to participate in a crime and not get in trouble.
|
07-10-2005, 08:45 AM | #66 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Time to stick a fork in him?
Rove, architect of Bush's career for the last 32 years, will employ every excuse that he and his lawyers can think of, primarily that he did not "know" that Plame was a covert agent. Has he met his match in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald? Have the "terrorist" bombings in the London tubes distracted the attention of the public to the extent that Isikoff's new newsweek story will not stay in the headlines?
Quote:
Link to Novak's July 14, 2003 "Mission to Niger" http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030714.shtml Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-10-2005, 09:20 AM | #67 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
Your understanding of the law is flawed. They committed no crime. If you have a government secret and you come and blab it to me, it is YOU who are the criminal. I'm not responsible for what YOU say. Furthermore, once a reporter (or anyone else for that matter) has information, the government CANNOT stop them from publishing it. That's called prior restraint and it's illegal as hell. And by refusing to give up her source, she's protecting the ability of journalists across the country to get the news out. But I will say that it's rather frightening that so many people think as you do, that receiving information and passing it on is a crime. An ignorance of such a basic tennet of our democracy indicates the very real possibility that such freedoms WILL be removed some day and the people will allow to happen. |
|
07-10-2005, 10:08 AM | #68 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
an edito on all this from this morning's new york times.
Quote:
to echo shakran, above: as much i would like to see rove brought down--few people in memory are more deserving of it--i still find time magazine's capitulation to be foul. i dont think conservatives in general want an other-than-free press...they just prefer one that helps them feel more themselves when they watch it--no dissonance to manage, no opposing viewpoints to get in the way of the indentificatory circuit that thier politics are really about (who am i? i am america. who am i? i am america). it is a tightly controlled press that talks alot about how free it is, as if what organizes information is a kind of spontaneity and not a centralized information apparatus. but the foxnews set can believe what it likes about their preferred televisual narcotic--whatever they think about it, i still find it odd to read arguments floating from the right in support of time's actions. i do not understand what conservatives who applaud time's capitulation see as resulting from it--what good is served for them by the erasure of confidentialty, what conection they might see between the protection of confidential sources and an actual free press. i do not think the statements about the interpretation of law are really germaine here...what i wonder about is if the foxnews folk have been convinced that tightly controlled information **is** free information and that the entire system that would sometimes see the press working in opposition is somehow antithetical to it. if this confusion is floating around out there, then we find ourselves facing a new and improved dangerous scenario emanating from the intellectual ooze that is conservative ideology--a new and improved mode of self-immolation--a centrally controlled press that cheerleads the dominant order is a free press. i wonder if any who think time did the right thing could explain what the motivations are for their thinking so. because frankly, i do not see how other motivations can explain this position.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
|
07-10-2005, 11:56 AM | #69 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
shakran,
I wouldn't argue that the reporters did anything illegal. But I do wonder whether you think they did something unethical by placing someone's life in danger... That's my take on it--that they didn't do anything legally wrong but the way in which they went about it, how they chose to report her name and etc. was morally wrong. I think the three of us, shakran, roachboy, and myself are aware of ways to tell about someone without specifically identifying that someone. I think the protection of innocent people (or subjects, participants, sources, whathaveyou) should be of primary importance to journalists and social researchers alike...
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
07-10-2005, 12:07 PM | #70 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
There was a breach of ethics, but not by those two reporters. It was actually conservative columnist Robert Novak who first wrote about this story. Once the other reporters hopped on board, the story was already out. In other words, it wouldn't be unethical of me today to say that Plame is a CIA spook because it's already common knowledge. I can't hurt her by saying that anymore. When the two reporters in question wrote their story, the secret had already been told by Novak. |
|
07-10-2005, 12:39 PM | #71 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
It's been a while since I followed the story in all its detail, I'm actually not sure what role the reporters had in this incident anymore. Rather than flub names and etc., I didn't draw a distinction between the columnist and the reporters in my mind or post...my bad on not being specific. I was using this specific example to move to a broader case--that the free press is certainly allowed to report anything it wants in my opinion, but it isn't always prudent do so in the ways in which it chooses (I'm trying to carefully word this because to just say that it isn't always prudent to do so would leave the door open to self-censorship).
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 07-10-2005 at 12:43 PM.. |
|
07-10-2005, 02:08 PM | #72 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
This article adds some light on why Cooper and Miller may have been drawn in on this: What Karl Rove Told Matt Cooper By Michael Isikoff Newsweek 18 July issue July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA. Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead. For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did - and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify. The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife. In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA" - CIA Director George Tenet - or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed and suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium from Niger... " Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK. A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa. Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing - and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq. |
|
07-10-2005, 02:37 PM | #73 (permalink) |
Banned
|
I guess that there is no harm in posting this article twice on the same page. I just started a new thread on the subject of the total news "blackout" on coverage of Bush's meeting last year with prosecutor Fitzgerald on this same matter and on Bush's retention of private criminal defense attorney Jim Sharp to represent him related to the interview of Bush in this matter.
|
07-10-2005, 02:47 PM | #74 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-10-2005, 03:35 PM | #75 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Host has raised the issue of where is the "liberal" press. This article speaks to that.
Fearing Legal Battle, Ohio Newspaper Holds Stories The Associated Press Saturday 09 July 2005 Cleveland - The Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest newspaper, is holding two investigative stories based on leaked documents because they could result in the type of court showdown that led to a New York Times reporter being jailed, the paper's editor said Friday. The Plain Dealer is trying to find a way to publish the stories without relying on the documents, editor Doug Clifton said. "It was documentation that would have been illegal to share, so there wasn't any ambiguity about what we had," Clifton said. On Wednesday, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to testify about a confidential source. A prosecutor wants information from Miller as part of an investigation of how the name of an undercover CIA officer was leaked to a columnist. Clifton said the Plain Dealer had decided several weeks ago - before Miller was imprisoned - to withhold the stories because the leaked documents could result in subpoenas and court sanctions, including jail. The stories deal with local and state government. Clifton wrote a column June 30 explaining to readers the importance of protecting sources, and how the public would suffer if reporters' ability to gather news is compromised. He mentioned the potential consequences if the newspaper published the two investigative stories. "I wanted the public to understand that this isn't an abstraction, that this is a real issue," he said Friday. "Things that are important for the public stand in jeopardy of not getting reported because of the state of the law." He said he has never withheld a story because of such concerns. "The climate has always been different," Clifton said. "Let's face it: During the Watergate years with 'Deep Throat,' it was never even thought of. It wasn't even a remote possibility that someone was going to get subpoenaed because of Deep Throat squealing. That has changed so dramatically in the last few years." |
07-10-2005, 03:40 PM | #76 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
I'll be the last person to argue that no mistakes have been made by journalists. But then you can say that about any profession. Pilots have shown up to fly their planes drunk, but we don't villify all pilots because of the mistakes of the few. The far bigger problem with journalism today is twofold: 1) massive corporations owning media outlets. Let's say my station is owned by GE (and some are). And now a certain model of GE washing machines has a design flaw that causes it to go into its spin cycle when the lid's up. Several people have already been injured by the washing machines, and GE's trying to cover it up. Right there you have a major conflict of interest. A station general manager who breaks that story is NOT going to be looked upon kindly by the GE corporate brass. That doesn't even get into the fact that megacorporations are generally slanting toward the republican side of the political spectrum because republicans advocate policies which will help them make more money. That means a conflict of interest in any story that involves politics. 2) The public is so busy accusing journalists of bias that the journalists are bending over backward to try and prove that they're not. This means the journalists are no longer reporting facts, they're reporting soundbytes. If bush comes out and says "the sky is purple" you'll see that on the evening news. But you will NOT see a reporter saying "He said the sky is purple, but he's lost it because the sky is blue, here I'll prove it to you." Now in that case the journalist would NOT be displaying a bias. He'd be informing the public that Bush is not telling them the truth. But if we tried that with a real world scenario - say, a journalist coming out after Colin Powell made his WMD speech to the UN and saying that his evidence didn't add up (which it did not), that journalist would be accused of bias, even though he'd only be reporting the truth. The mission of journalism is to protect the innocent and hold the powerful accountable for their actions. Speaking personally, I really don't care which party is in power. If they screw up, it's my job to tell that story, and I will do that. But the public has to realize that sometimes that means I will say things which, while true, are things they don't like hearing. The proper reaction to that is to go after the person that did wrong. Shooting the messenger only makes the problem worse. |
|
07-10-2005, 04:42 PM | #77 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
lol, anyway, I'm divided on whether journalists should do this. I used to get upset when they didn't report that a contradiction between the claim and the reality existed, but then I came to realize that perhaps it's the reader's responsibility to come to a conclusion--even if it's wrong. And I coupled that thought with the notion that objective truth (and reporting--see my sig) isn't what we'd like it to be; that is, rather than disputing whether it exists, I am at least comfortable acknowledging that one isn't likely to be accurately relaying objective Truth due to language, perspective, inclination, & etc. So where does that leave me: I had to try and reconcile these thoughts with, and I share your view on this I think, what I considered to be irresponsible journalism. That they actually have an obligation to relay the facts as we know them. At least, they should remind the audience that such facts contradict such and such or whether there's a lack of evidence for the assertion. By relaying an inaccurate assertion as if it were truthful and accurate, the journalist gives credence to the statement and, in my mind, such complacency means they then share responsibility... ...so the example I came to think would work within these contraints would be, bush says the sky is purple. However, evidence points to the fact that it is actually blue, we've always held this to be the case, and we invite you to go look for yourself...[maybe even throw in a hearty "it's this reporters professional opinion that bush is lying" (or mistaken, as the case may be)].
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-10-2005, 05:14 PM | #78 (permalink) | ||||
Tone.
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's the press's responsibility to give the accurate facts to the reader. It's the reader's responsibility to decide what to do about it. When Bush was pushing the WMD issue, it was the press's responsibility to call bullshit on it. We didn't, and that was a grave error, because if we had, perhaps the people would have made a different decision, knowing the real facts. Had the press said "wait a sec- he's saying there's WMD's but there's not a shred of evidence to support it and in fact if you look at the evidence he's showing you can see it's crap" they'd have been doing their job. Had the press then gone on to say "and we should vote the sonofabitch out of office for it!" then we'd have been displaying a bias. Quote:
Quote:
That's exactly what the press should be doing, and it's exactly what they're not doing. |
||||
07-11-2005, 07:36 AM | #79 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Turns out it was Rove after all.
Surprise surprise Quote:
Personally I think this will blow over. I have a strong dislike for Rove, from my limited knowledge of his spin and political fixing, but I don't necessarily see this as negatively affecting his position within the curren administration. Roll on the reactionary calls for his trial on "treason". When will calmer minds prevail? Mr Mephisto |
|
07-11-2005, 07:59 AM | #80 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
the right apparently thinks that if rove presents his case as directed at a legal process up front that it can skirt the political damage this case can and should do to it.
as an individual endowed with the same legal rights as anyone (albeit skewed in that all american way by power and money--so in fact someone like karl rove has more legal rights than someone like me or you, mr mephisto), rove should be tried and the trial would determine whether he is or is not guilty of a crime. the political question is seperate. rove should resign. there should be political pressure brought to bear that would force him to resign. this matter can and to my mind should serve as a lightning rod, a space across which the bush administration is held to account for the politics of impunity that it has practiced since 9/12/2001.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
Tags |
case, karl, plame, rove, source |
|
|