After Hours

General discussion

Locked

CodeWarriorz Thoughts

By codewarrior.wins ·
Tags: Off Topic
blog root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Penn Jillette?s daughter born with a superhero handle - Blogging Baby - www.bloggingbaby.com _

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<a href="http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000327045625/">Penn Jillette?s daughter born with a superhero handle - Blogging Baby - www.bloggingbaby.com _</a> Penn Jillette, of Penn & Teller fame, has named his new baby daughter this. Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette. That?s not a typo. Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette. She was born on Friday, and Penn and his wife Emily are, umm, proud of their little superhero-to-be.
<br />========================SNIP==============
<br />What a stupid motherfucking asshole of a dad this poor girl has..he named her Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette...you ******* ASSHOLE Jillette....**** YOU!<p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/penn-jillettes-daughter-born-with.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

Penn Jillette Is A Hypocrite - Warner Todd Huston

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<a href="http://www.americandaily.com/article/1550">Penn Jillette Is A Hypocrite - Warner Todd Huston</a>But, what struck me the most about this whole little incident is its delineation of the typical, liberal I-am-more-tolerant-than-you line of thinking and the assumption that the left is more in tune with liberty than anyone else. Though, don't get me wrong on one point, I am NOT claiming Penn Jillette is the typical modern leftist, though he runs in that crowd and must feel the pressure to toe their line quite often. Like I said, some of his opinions are quite in line with today's left.
<br />
<br />No, what was funny was that, while Jillette was putting on airs as the protector of our freedom of speech, while he was presenting himself as the arbiter of all our freedoms, he ALSO had speech he would like to see squelched. Proving that no one tolerates all or just any kind of free speech and we all want to see limits on what others say in the public square. Some want to see no holds barred on the radio, allowing the hosts to say what ever pops into their minds at any given moment as Penn seemed to advocate. Yet he also seemingly would stop Mel Gibson from being able to create and sell his movie about Christ as well as say what was on his mind in interviews about the work.
<br />
<br />
</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/penn-jillette-is-hypocrite-warner-todd.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

ABC News: '20/20' RESPONSE TO SPCA

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=879660&page=1">ABC News: '20/20' RESPONSE TO SPCA</a>
<br />
<br />========snip============
<br />
<br />DEAR 20/20 :
<br />
<br />AS A CITIZEN WHO LOVES ANIMALS, IT IS MY CONSIDERATE OPINION THAT YOU ARE A BUNCH OF FAT, STUPID,
<br />MOTHERF'ERS AND ASSHOLES. AND, THAT'S ME BEING POLITE!
<br />
<br />**** you 20/20~
<br />
<br />~CodeWarriorz Thoughts</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/abc-news-2020-response-to-spca.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

Journal Gazette | 07/06/2005 | Why isn?t Novak facing jail like other reporters?

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Why isn?t Novak facing jail like other reporters?
<br />
<br />By Carol Marin
<br />
<br />
<br />CHICAGO ? I just can?t figure it out. Why in the world is New York Times reporter Judith Miller headed to jail next week while my Sun-Times colleague Robert Novak is not? Why is a reporter who has written not one single word about a CIA operative about to be sent to the federal slammer while another reporter, the one who actually broke the story, isn?t in similar trouble?
<br />
<br />Don?t get me wrong. I like and respect Bob Novak and don?t want to ever see him in an orange jump suit. Or think about him being strip-searched upon intake to federal prison. Then again, I never even met Judith Miller, and I don?t want that happening to her, either.
<br />
<br />I called Novak in Washington to see if he could help me make sense of all this. ?I can?t say anything,? he said, citing advice of counsel and the pending federal investigation.
<br />
<br />This is a confusing story that centers on two critical and, in this case, competing values: the rule of law vs. the need of reporters to protect their sources. This is, in my opinion, also a story of an over-zealous federal prosecutor and a mostly timid press corps.
<br />
<br />It was two years ago this month that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson tore into the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq, in part, on claims that Saddam Hussein was in hot pursuit of yellow cake uranium from Africa. Wilson said the administration?s claim was bogus because he was the guy the CIA sent to find out.
<br />
<br />It was Novak who then wrote a column citing ?two senior administration officials? who cast doubt on Wilson?s mission. They told Novak it was Wilson?s wife, a CIA operative named Valerie Plame, who sent him to Africa. The implication was that it was a meaningless junket.
<br />
<br />Who were those ?two senior administration officials? and what business did they have outing a supposedly ?covert? CIA operative?
<br />
<br />Enter Chicago?s own U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed special prosecutor to find out. With a federal grand jury at his disposal, Fitzgerald began questioning not only administration officials but members of the press.
<br />
<br />Now, two years later, the investigation is heading to a close. And for some reason that most of us have trouble understanding, two reporters other than Novak are risking jail. Though Matthew Cooper of Time magazine wrote about Plame after Novak did and Judith Miller of the New York Times never wrote about her at all, they refused to identify sources with whom they discussed the matter, and so a federal judge has ordered them to jail.
<br />
<br />As I write this, Time magazine has caved and, against Cooper?s wishes, handed over his notes. Miller is now the lone holdout.
<br />
<br />What no one understands, myself included, is Novak?s silence. Can he confirm he got a subpoena? ?I can?t do that,? he told me. Can he explain the distinction between himself and these two reporters? ?I can?t get into that,? he said.
<br />
<br />For 41 years, Novak built his career and reputation by asking the toughest of questions. Now, the tables turned, he refuses to answer them. Isn?t that, I asked, grounds for criticism?
<br />
<br />?No,? Novak told me, ?because this is a criminal investigation.?
<br />
<br />By any standard, it is a curious criminal investigation. Even the authors of the 1982 federal law that made it illegal to disclose the identity of a ?covert? CIA operative have gone on record saying in this particular case the law does not appear to have been broken. Why? Because, according to federal legal experts Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford, Valerie Plame wasn?t working covertly, and the CIA, when contacted by Novak in advance of his story, never offered any objection to him publishing her name.
<br />
<br />OK, if that?s true, what?s the law that?s been broken?
<br />
<br />It boils down to this. Fitzgerald, in his zeal, has made reporters the criminals here and taken them to federal court to force them to disclose their sources. Though there are reporter shield laws in most states, there is no similar protection federally. By that standard, Cooper and Miller, ordered in court to give up their sources, break the law by not disclosing. With Time magazine buckling, Cooper may not go to jail, but it looks like Miller will.
<br />
<br />Has there been a hue and cry about all of this from the media? Not enough. Not even we at the Sun-Times, in my view, have done enough to trumpet what I think should be our profound outrage at what?s going on. Novak is certainly entitled to protect his legal rights as he sees fit, but this is an issue that affects every working journalist.
<br />
<br />But I fear it?s too late. The damage has been done, or as the Bush administration likes to say, ?Mission Accomplished.? Our profession, which relies on anonymous sources for everything from Watergate to Hired Truck investigations, looks lame and weak and fearful. And any budding Deep Throats, these days, have far less reason to risk a trip to the parking garage.
<br />
<br />
</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/journal-gazette-07062005-why-isnt.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

Penn Jillette?s daughter born with a superhero handle - Blogging Baby - www.bloggingbaby.com _

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<a href="http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000327045625/">Penn Jillette?s daughter born with a superhero handle - Blogging Baby - www.bloggingbaby.com _</a> Penn Jillette, of Penn & Teller fame, has named his new baby daughter this. Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette. That?s not a typo. Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette. She was born on Friday, and Penn and his wife Emily are, umm, proud of their little superhero-to-be.
<br />========================SNIP==============
<br />What a stupid motherfucking asshole of a dad this poor girl has..he named her Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette...you ******* ASSHOLE Jillette....**** YOU!<p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/penn-jillettes-daughter-born-with.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

Rove Scandal: Who's Lying Now? - Yahoo! News

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050715/cm_thenation/36799/nc:742">Rove Scandal: Who's Lying Now? - Yahoo! News</a>
<br />The Nation -- Who's lying?
<br />
<br />ADVERTISEMENT
<br />
<br />
<br />ZIP code where you park at night.
<br />
<br />Do you currently have auto insurance? Yes No
<br />
<br />Have you had a U.S driver's license for more than 3 years? Yes No
<br />
<br />Has any driver in your household had 2 or more accidents or moving violations in the last 3 years? Yes No
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />That's the question to ask after both The New York Times and The Washington Post published front-page articles that reported that Karl Rove did speak to conservative columnist Bob Novak before Novak wrote an article revealing the CIA identity of Valerie Wilson and that Rove had confirmed to Novak that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA.
<br />
<br />Each account is attributed to a single unnamed source. The Times identifies its sourced as "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter." The Post cited "a lawyer involved in the case." And the account provided is one that apparently would help Rove fend off a criminal charge. Both newspapers say that Novak called Rove on July 8, 2003 (six days before Novak published the piece that outed Valerie Wilson), that Novak said he had learned that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA (he referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), and that Rove confirmed that he had heard that, too. Each story says its source claimed that Rove had learned about Valerie Wilson's CIA position from other journalists.
<br />
<br />The point here is to show that Rove was not peddling the information, that he had not received it from a classified source, and that he did not have reason to know that Valerie Wilson was working at the CIA under cover. Under the relevant law--the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--it is only a crime for a government official to disclose identifying information about a covert US intelligence officer if the government official received that information from a classified source and is aware that the officer is a clandestine employee of the CIA. Consequently, Rove defenders can cite the account planted in the Times and the Post and claim that he did not violate the law because he had heard about Valerie Wilson from a journalist (not a classified source) and because there is no indication he knew of her covert status.
<br />
<br />This might work. But, of course, it is up to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to determine if Rove or anyone else (remember Novak cited two sources) broke the law or engaged in perjury or obstruction of justice. And there is no telling if this account is indeed accurate. But this new disclosure does lead to an obvious conclusion: somebody has lied.
<br />
<br />A week after Novak wrote this column, he told Newsday that his sources came to him with the information: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." Was Novak lying when said that? And before the infamous Matt Cooper email was revealed by Newsweek days ago, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told Newsweek that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Now, the official pro-Rove line is that he confirmed for Novak that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA. Was Rove's lawyer lying when he said that?
<br />
<br />******
<br />
<br />Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Rove and the Plame/CIA leak and other in-the-news subjects.
<br />
<br />*******
<br />
<br />But the more significant question is, who lied at the White House? As has been much noted, in 2003, press secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly said that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak. Confirming the leak for Novak would certainly count as involvement (as would passing it on to Cooper three days later but when this classified information was still not public).
<br />
<br />So who didn't tell the truth at 1600 Pennsylvania? Did McClellan know of Rove's involvement and knowingly peddle a false story? McClellan has claimed he talked to Rove before publicly clearing him of involvement. Does that mean that Rove lied to McClellan? Perhaps. McClellan is not considered to be a true member of the White House's inner circle. But who else did Rove talk to about this in the White House? If anyone else knew of his involvement, then that aide stood silent while McClellan misled the public. Moreover, did Rove tell George W. Bush? If so, Bush then allowed McClellan to lie for Rove. If not, then Rove disregarded Bush when Bush said he wanted to know what had happened.
<br />
<br />Here's the bottom line (based on the Rove-friendly leaks): Rove permitted the White House to lie for him. What's unknown is who else in the White House realized the Rove-was-not-involved line was a lie. And the latest accounts also show that Rove did share classified information--Valerie Wilson's employment status with the CIA was classified--with two reporters. Bush has previously said he would fire anyone who leaked classified information. Rove has practically admitted leaking classified information. What Bush will do about that?
<br />
<br />This story put on Friday may help Rove avoid a criminal charge. But it still causes (or should cause) serious problems for him and the White House. It indicates that both misconduct and a cover-up of unknown size did occur. Rove or his legal team must have concluded he was in a rather bad spot if they needed to pass this account to the media, for it supports a hard-to-deny conclusion: Rove leaked and then hid behind a lie.
<br />
<br />******
<br />
<br />Now I'm Smeared as the Leaker: To see how I was sideswiped by an absurd and stupid conservative attack (meant to defend Novak and Rove), visit www.davidcorn.com. You won't believe how low a rightwinger will sink.
<br />
<br />*******************
<br />
<br />
</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/rove-scandal-whos-lying-now-yahoo-news.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

SCO bullish despite email revelations - ZDNet UK News

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39209254,00.htm">SCO bullish despite email revelations - ZDNet UK News</a>SCO bullish despite email revelations
<br />
<br />
<br />Renai LeMay
<br />ZDNet Australia
<br />July 15, 2005, 15:35 BST
<br />
<br />
<br />Tell us your opinion
<br />
<br />The SCO group has denied that an internal email has undermined its case against IBM that Linux contains copyrighted Unix code
<br />
<br />
<br />SCO rubbishes 'smoking gun' email The SCO group has dismissed claims that an email that refuted suggestion that Linux contained any copyright infringement is damaging to their case against IBM
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />The SCO Group has slammed as "inaccurate" suggestions an email from one of its own engineers showed Linux did not contain copyright Unix code.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />The 2002 email, published by Groklaw as part of its ongoing coverage of SCO's copyright infringement claims against IBM and Autozone, was sent to a senior vice-president at the company by an in-house engineer and later forwarded on to chief executive Darl McBride.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />"At the end, we had found absolutely nothing ie [sic] no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever," engineer Michael Davidson wrote of his and an external consultants' attempts to find copyrighted Unix code in Linux.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />However, SCO said in a statement this afternoon, "it would simply be inaccurate ? and misleading ? to use Mr Davidson's email to suggest that SCO?s internal investigation revealed no problems."
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />SCO emailed the media a memo sent in 1999 from that external consultant, Robert Swartz, to SCO's Steve Sabbath, who was at the time the company's general counsel. The memo details Swartz's initial findings which ? according to SCO ? demonstrate there is cause for concern as to whether portions of protected Unix code were copied into Linux.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />"This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's email is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying, which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation, as the memo itself points out," the company said. SCO also pointed out its legal wrangling with IBM dealt with more recent versions of the Linux code than were mentioned in the memo.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />"Even more importantly, this memo shows that there are problems with Linux. It also notes that additional investigation is required to locate all of the problems, which SCO has been continuing in discovery in the IBM and Autozone cases," said SCO.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />SCO sued IBM in 2003 for more than $1bn (?570m), alleging that IBM had misappropriated Unix technology to which SCO claimed intellectual-property rights.
<br />
<br />
</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/sco-bullish-despite-email-revelations.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

Journal Gazette | 07/06/2005 | Why isn?t Novak facing jail like other reporters?

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Why isn?t Novak facing jail like other reporters?
<br />
<br />By Carol Marin
<br />
<br />
<br />CHICAGO ? I just can?t figure it out. Why in the world is New York Times reporter Judith Miller headed to jail next week while my Sun-Times colleague Robert Novak is not? Why is a reporter who has written not one single word about a CIA operative about to be sent to the federal slammer while another reporter, the one who actually broke the story, isn?t in similar trouble?
<br />
<br />Don?t get me wrong. I like and respect Bob Novak and don?t want to ever see him in an orange jump suit. Or think about him being strip-searched upon intake to federal prison. Then again, I never even met Judith Miller, and I don?t want that happening to her, either.
<br />
<br />I called Novak in Washington to see if he could help me make sense of all this. ?I can?t say anything,? he said, citing advice of counsel and the pending federal investigation.
<br />
<br />This is a confusing story that centers on two critical and, in this case, competing values: the rule of law vs. the need of reporters to protect their sources. This is, in my opinion, also a story of an over-zealous federal prosecutor and a mostly timid press corps.
<br />
<br />It was two years ago this month that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson tore into the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq, in part, on claims that Saddam Hussein was in hot pursuit of yellow cake uranium from Africa. Wilson said the administration?s claim was bogus because he was the guy the CIA sent to find out.
<br />
<br />It was Novak who then wrote a column citing ?two senior administration officials? who cast doubt on Wilson?s mission. They told Novak it was Wilson?s wife, a CIA operative named Valerie Plame, who sent him to Africa. The implication was that it was a meaningless junket.
<br />
<br />Who were those ?two senior administration officials? and what business did they have outing a supposedly ?covert? CIA operative?
<br />
<br />Enter Chicago?s own U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed special prosecutor to find out. With a federal grand jury at his disposal, Fitzgerald began questioning not only administration officials but members of the press.
<br />
<br />Now, two years later, the investigation is heading to a close. And for some reason that most of us have trouble understanding, two reporters other than Novak are risking jail. Though Matthew Cooper of Time magazine wrote about Plame after Novak did and Judith Miller of the New York Times never wrote about her at all, they refused to identify sources with whom they discussed the matter, and so a federal judge has ordered them to jail.
<br />
<br />As I write this, Time magazine has caved and, against Cooper?s wishes, handed over his notes. Miller is now the lone holdout.
<br />
<br />What no one understands, myself included, is Novak?s silence. Can he confirm he got a subpoena? ?I can?t do that,? he told me. Can he explain the distinction between himself and these two reporters? ?I can?t get into that,? he said.
<br />
<br />For 41 years, Novak built his career and reputation by asking the toughest of questions. Now, the tables turned, he refuses to answer them. Isn?t that, I asked, grounds for criticism?
<br />
<br />?No,? Novak told me, ?because this is a criminal investigation.?
<br />
<br />By any standard, it is a curious criminal investigation. Even the authors of the 1982 federal law that made it illegal to disclose the identity of a ?covert? CIA operative have gone on record saying in this particular case the law does not appear to have been broken. Why? Because, according to federal legal experts Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford, Valerie Plame wasn?t working covertly, and the CIA, when contacted by Novak in advance of his story, never offered any objection to him publishing her name.
<br />
<br />OK, if that?s true, what?s the law that?s been broken?
<br />
<br />It boils down to this. Fitzgerald, in his zeal, has made reporters the criminals here and taken them to federal court to force them to disclose their sources. Though there are reporter shield laws in most states, there is no similar protection federally. By that standard, Cooper and Miller, ordered in court to give up their sources, break the law by not disclosing. With Time magazine buckling, Cooper may not go to jail, but it looks like Miller will.
<br />
<br />Has there been a hue and cry about all of this from the media? Not enough. Not even we at the Sun-Times, in my view, have done enough to trumpet what I think should be our profound outrage at what?s going on. Novak is certainly entitled to protect his legal rights as he sees fit, but this is an issue that affects every working journalist.
<br />
<br />But I fear it?s too late. The damage has been done, or as the Bush administration likes to say, ?Mission Accomplished.? Our profession, which relies on anonymous sources for everything from Watergate to Hired Truck investigations, looks lame and weak and fearful. And any budding Deep Throats, these days, have far less reason to risk a trip to the parking garage.
<br />
<br />
</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/journal-gazette-07062005-why-isnt.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

Penn Jillette?s daughter born with a superhero handle - Blogging Baby - www.bloggingbaby.com _

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<a href="http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000327045625/">Penn Jillette?s daughter born with a superhero handle - Blogging Baby - www.bloggingbaby.com _</a> Penn Jillette, of Penn & Teller fame, has named his new baby daughter this. Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette. That?s not a typo. Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette. She was born on Friday, and Penn and his wife Emily are, umm, proud of their little superhero-to-be.
<br />========================SNIP==============
<br />What a stupid motherfucking asshole of a dad this poor girl has..he named her Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette...you ******* ASSHOLE Jillette....**** YOU!<p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/penn-jillettes-daughter-born-with.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

Journal Gazette | 07/06/2005 | Why isn?t Novak facing jail like other reporters?

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Why isn?t Novak facing jail like other reporters?
<br />
<br />By Carol Marin
<br />
<br />
<br />CHICAGO ? I just can?t figure it out. Why in the world is New York Times reporter Judith Miller headed to jail next week while my Sun-Times colleague Robert Novak is not? Why is a reporter who has written not one single word about a CIA operative about to be sent to the federal slammer while another reporter, the one who actually broke the story, isn?t in similar trouble?
<br />
<br />Don?t get me wrong. I like and respect Bob Novak and don?t want to ever see him in an orange jump suit. Or think about him being strip-searched upon intake to federal prison. Then again, I never even met Judith Miller, and I don?t want that happening to her, either.
<br />
<br />I called Novak in Washington to see if he could help me make sense of all this. ?I can?t say anything,? he said, citing advice of counsel and the pending federal investigation.
<br />
<br />This is a confusing story that centers on two critical and, in this case, competing values: the rule of law vs. the need of reporters to protect their sources. This is, in my opinion, also a story of an over-zealous federal prosecutor and a mostly timid press corps.
<br />
<br />It was two years ago this month that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson tore into the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq, in part, on claims that Saddam Hussein was in hot pursuit of yellow cake uranium from Africa. Wilson said the administration?s claim was bogus because he was the guy the CIA sent to find out.
<br />
<br />It was Novak who then wrote a column citing ?two senior administration officials? who cast doubt on Wilson?s mission. They told Novak it was Wilson?s wife, a CIA operative named Valerie Plame, who sent him to Africa. The implication was that it was a meaningless junket.
<br />
<br />Who were those ?two senior administration officials? and what business did they have outing a supposedly ?covert? CIA operative?
<br />
<br />Enter Chicago?s own U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed special prosecutor to find out. With a federal grand jury at his disposal, Fitzgerald began questioning not only administration officials but members of the press.
<br />
<br />Now, two years later, the investigation is heading to a close. And for some reason that most of us have trouble understanding, two reporters other than Novak are risking jail. Though Matthew Cooper of Time magazine wrote about Plame after Novak did and Judith Miller of the New York Times never wrote about her at all, they refused to identify sources with whom they discussed the matter, and so a federal judge has ordered them to jail.
<br />
<br />As I write this, Time magazine has caved and, against Cooper?s wishes, handed over his notes. Miller is now the lone holdout.
<br />
<br />What no one understands, myself included, is Novak?s silence. Can he confirm he got a subpoena? ?I can?t do that,? he told me. Can he explain the distinction between himself and these two reporters? ?I can?t get into that,? he said.
<br />
<br />For 41 years, Novak built his career and reputation by asking the toughest of questions. Now, the tables turned, he refuses to answer them. Isn?t that, I asked, grounds for criticism?
<br />
<br />?No,? Novak told me, ?because this is a criminal investigation.?
<br />
<br />By any standard, it is a curious criminal investigation. Even the authors of the 1982 federal law that made it illegal to disclose the identity of a ?covert? CIA operative have gone on record saying in this particular case the law does not appear to have been broken. Why? Because, according to federal legal experts Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford, Valerie Plame wasn?t working covertly, and the CIA, when contacted by Novak in advance of his story, never offered any objection to him publishing her name.
<br />
<br />OK, if that?s true, what?s the law that?s been broken?
<br />
<br />It boils down to this. Fitzgerald, in his zeal, has made reporters the criminals here and taken them to federal court to force them to disclose their sources. Though there are reporter shield laws in most states, there is no similar protection federally. By that standard, Cooper and Miller, ordered in court to give up their sources, break the law by not disclosing. With Time magazine buckling, Cooper may not go to jail, but it looks like Miller will.
<br />
<br />Has there been a hue and cry about all of this from the media? Not enough. Not even we at the Sun-Times, in my view, have done enough to trumpet what I think should be our profound outrage at what?s going on. Novak is certainly entitled to protect his legal rights as he sees fit, but this is an issue that affects every working journalist.
<br />
<br />But I fear it?s too late. The damage has been done, or as the Bush administration likes to say, ?Mission Accomplished.? Our profession, which relies on anonymous sources for everything from Watergate to Hired Truck investigations, looks lame and weak and fearful. And any budding Deep Throats, these days, have far less reason to risk a trip to the parking garage.
<br />
<br />
</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/journal-gazette-07062005-why-isnt.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Related Discussions

Related Forums