Covert Ops???

[reconeil]

Since the laws and penalties for KNOWINGLY disclosing info that would put covert CIA Operatives are so severe FOR ANYONE doing so,...why is it that reporters or journalists have some kind dispensation from being punished for such? I'm alluding to the latest political circus and/or where political oneupsmanship seems to be all that's of interest regarding a dangerous Intelligece Leak,...first, last and foremost.

And besides, and since laws in America are FOR ALL AMERICANS,...why-the-hell let reporters or journalist off-the-hook and/or permitted hiding behind the First Amendment? Hey,...reveal the source of the KNOWINGLY sensitive intelligence YOU EXPOSED Oh Pulitzers, or go directly to jail. Also, no people in their right minds could believe that: "Freedom of Speech" covers treason, espionage, aiding and abetting the enemy and/or putting covert agents and their missions at risk. Could they?

Regardless, I guarantee that if this latest dangerous breach of intelligence were handlled apolitically and/or quite differently sensibly and honestly,...The INITIAL Leak would be found in short order.

After all, no-way-in-hell would reporters or journalists charged with KNOWINGLY blowing the cover of a CIA Operative (mission inclusive) and facing a 30 year or so sentence for doing such,...keep their mouths shut. Hell, and from what I've seen of such on TV, I think it fair assuming that most all of would even turn-in their mothers or: "Turn States" for a reduced sentence or; "A Walk".

Also, and if handling matters THE RIGHT WAY and/or non-politically by The Justice Department,...it most assuredly will save: "We The ($chnook$)" a lot more than just a few buck$. Hey, and believe it or not it's OUR MONEY,...not "Theirs".

Neil

[Gimpy]

I agree..........the reporter in question (Robert Novack) should be ORDERD by the Justice Department to admit the name of this "senior whitehouse source" that allowed the CIA operatives name to become public knowledge! If this is NOT......TREASON........then just what in the hell is??

But, don't look for it to happen any time soon. Robert Novack has been a conservative "mouthpiece" of reporting propaganda for the Bush whitehouse for sometime now. They ("the Bushies") will NOT give him up so easily!

[the humper]

too. Isn't that similar to what others have been discussing and railing about the Patriot Act!!!!!
SF
NC

[reconeil]

The-bottom-line for me, as I believe it should be for all Americans,...is that politics should have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with WHOMEVER publicly discloses sensitive intelligence that puts America's Covert Agents/Operatives and their missions at great risk. Such goes beyond the meaningless and quite silly divisiveness of people called: "Politics".

Thusly, I say: Screw the "Politics" of it all,...and first and foremost jail ANY reporter, journalist or whatever blabbing publicly (in turn KNOWINGLY telling the enemy also) and KNOWINGLY blowing-the-cover of America's Covert Agents/Operatives. After all, and even assuming there was AN ACTUAL official leak to start with (? -no one REALLY knows for sure),...the reporters or journalists are the ones ACTUALLY doing all the damage to America anyway.

Besides, even if there was an: "INITIAL leak" at all(?),...no American put at risk by such breaches of intelligence should give-a-rat's-ass what Party such fools belong to. A Criminal Act against America and all Americans is just that. Who-the-hell-cares (naturally speaking of: "The UN-Connected" only) whether it was a Democrat or Republican Bum doing so. People die because of such.

Neil

[Gimpy]

in print this morning on the subject.

############################

Investigating Leaks

Published: October 02, 2003

Attorney General John Ashcroft has put himself and the president in a very dangerous position with his handling of the Justice Department's investigation into how Robert Novak got the name of a C.I.A. operative for publication in his syndicated column.

After career lawyers conducted a preliminary investigation into the leaking of the officer's name, Mr. Ashcroft chose to proceed with a full investigation within the Justice Department. He did so despite department guidelines that would have permitted him to appoint an outsider, who would serve at Mr. Ashcroft's discretion but could make independent decisions.

Instead, Mr. Ashcroft has decided to leave the investigation under the authority of the department's counterespionage office. That office employs career lawyers who routinely investigate this sort of leak and have the security clearances to do so with dispatch. Still, Mr. Ashcroft has chosen a risky course. He has to allow his lawyers to conduct their work unfettered. Mr. Bush has promised full cooperation. Any hint of political interference by Mr. Ashcroft or obstructionism from the White House would be disastrous and would leave the president and his aides at the mercy of Congressional Democrats, who would surely respond swiftly and angrily.

So far, some of the White House's actions are not very reassuring, including the 11-hour lag between the time the Justice Department notified the White House that it was under investigation and the time the White House ordered its staff to preserve records. The F.B.I. has also chosen to take its part of the investigation out of the hands of the Washington field office, which would normally handle it, and keep it within the headquarters staff.

The leak investigation has already prompted calls from Democrats in Congress to re-enact the lapsed special prosecutor law, under which a judicial panel can appoint an independent investigator who cannot be fired by the attorney general. While this page has strongly supported that law, we have seen how tangled up an administration can get under the unrestricted power of an independent counsel, like the meandering Kenneth Starr during the Clinton administration. We do not believe that this case merits having Congress reopen now the issue of possibly resurrecting that law, an effort that would only lead to partisan fistfights and would delay an investigation that should proceed swiftly.

The law under which the Justice Department is operating prohibits the naming of an undercover intelligence operative ? in this case, the wife of Joseph Wilson IV, a retired career diplomat. Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The Times, published on July 6, that said he had investigated Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions at the request of the C.I.A. He wrote that he believed the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence when it asserted that Mr. Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger, in Africa, to foster a nuclear weapons program. Mr. Novak identified Mr. Wilson's wife in his column on July 14 and said administration officials had told him that she had suggested sending Mr. Wilson to investigate the Niger story. The administration was ultimately forced to admit that the information about Niger was wrong.

As members of a profession that relies heavily on the willingness of government officials to defy their bosses and give the public vital information, we oppose "leak investigations" in principle. But that does not mean there can never be a circumstance in which leaks are wrong ? the disclosure of troop movements in wartime is a clear example.

There are important First Amendment issues at play. But in writing this law, Congress specifically barred prosecuting a journalist who got the name of a covert operative from a government official. Consistent with that, the Bush administration should not use the serious purpose of this inquiry to turn it into an investigation of Mr. Novak or any other journalist, or to attempt to compel any journalists to reveal their sources. The Justice Department should focus its attention on the White House, not on journalists.

If someone at the White House, perhaps acting with institutional sanction, revealed the name of a C.I.A. operative to undermine the credibility of Mr. Wilson and thus stifle dissent over Iraq policy, that in itself would be a serious assault on free speech and an egregious abuse of power. In such a case, the blanket denial that Mr. Bush issued this week would put him dangerously close to the territory in which the cover-up eclipses the offense.

#############################

However, I must STILL agree with Neil---when a reporter REAVEALS the name of an "operative" in the CIA (or other intelligence agencies) in the "media"..........they should be subject to the SAME criminal prosecution as the individual(s) who revealed it to them!

:cd:

[reconeil]

Also, thanks for the lengthy and recent article displaying the political and/or show-biz aspect of what should instead be considered serious business that warrants jailing, hanging or whatever for ANY perp or perps KNOWINGLY making such sensitive info public. Hell, even reporters further reporting of what was illegally exposed in the first place,...aren't necessarily without sin in my eyes. After all, maybe some bums missed the first critical info advertised publicly.

And besides, if all politicos are REALLY interested in is what Party: "The INITIAL leak" came from, what better way of doing so than trying the first public blabber-mouth perp first. Don't believe that Novack would be that hard a nut to crack under cross-examination. Do you?

Then, any Party affiliation will come to light, and everyone in politics and/or Officialdom will be happy again, and can all get back to their perpetual jobs of campaigning. "We The (Schnooks)" as usual will fend for ourselves, and as usual hope for the best and/or never getting to see ourselves on TV or in The Obituary Column.

Neil