I thought this was an interesting turn of events, just because it's sparked some debate within myself. Freedom of the press...of course, printing information about an undercover CIA operative, out of what appears to be political payback? Not having to disclose who gave you that information. It all seems ethically tricky to me.

anyone want to lay bets that karl rove won't be asked to testify, whatever the outcome?

I think it is too - I'm surprised no one has commented yet.

My understanding is that the "journalistic privelige" is not encoded in either the letter of the law or in legal precendent. The only standing precedent is that the courts have intentionally not subpoeaned journalists in the spirit of keeping this uncodified form of protected speech, well, protected.

It would seem to be in society's interest to continue allowing journalists some measure of protection from being forced to reveal their sources, since it encouraes whistleblowers and anonymous tipsters who might otherwise not come forward. But when it comes to a direct issue of national security, as the Plame case did, I think it is a case where this privelige goes out the window because it's being abused for malicious purposes. I don't know if Novak has been called to testify yet, but we'll see if that fat fuck is willing to go to jail to martyr himself for a despicable partisan cause like this. Either way it's a no win for him - if he rolls over he loses all of his access to government sources and if he doesn't he shows what a craven bastard he really is. Bottom line - he made a huge error in judgement and now deserves to pay the price.

yeah, the principle of "journalistic privielige," is not codified in any federal statutes (perhaps some state statutes - not sure), and most courts have been reluctant to hold that it should be considered common law, becuase it would be cumbersome to apply in some cases (i.e. national security). some legal thinkers describe it as "federal common law," which is kind of a legal fiction that is used to describe a principle that is just traditionally and historically accepted (kinda like congressional plenary power). it is also correct that most courts do not supoena journalistic sources under the rationale of the chilling effect this may have on free speech (although this is not always the case).

it is obviously debatable if burdening a journalist's free speech is necessitated by a compelling interest in national security. here i don't see a "compelling" interest as such, but there are likely implications that i am not aware of.

novak has not been supoenaed to testify, which i find curious, in that he wrote the offending article in the first place. the Times reporter used her discretion and passed on the story i believe. why, i don't not know, but i suspect that she exercised the judgement that novak did not and didn't want to take part in such a low-ball partisian smear campaign. however, it may be indicative of an unreliable source or one she just couldn't confirm - which would speak to her journalistic integrity and against novak's.

just a thought.

[Edited on Oct 09, 2004 by dead_ringer]

Grand Jury investigations are secret, and Novak has never said publicly if he was or wasn't asked to testify.

Imagine a world with Bush out of office and Bob Novak in prison...

Jon Stewart: Bob Novak, "Douchebag of Liberty."
Video

Greg Mitchell:

[Edited on Oct 09, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

grand douchebag of douchebagistan.