Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Journalistic Ethics The reason journalists don't reveal their anonymous sources is because they want their sources to continue to give them stuff.  I was thinking that perhaps the six (or ten or twelve or however many there are that think this was a shitty thing to do) journalists could come forward and just testify that they were cold-called with information, without giving the name(s) of their source(s).  They could even come forward with the content of the conversation, or at least the on-the-record stuff; after all, that's why they were called in the first place, right?  But of course the journalists will weigh this against the possibility that at some point in the future, some other informant, for reasons currently unknown, will want to give them information to bust something open. Just what got busted open with the leak about Wilson's wife, I don't know.  The only thing I see is a big ol' backfire and a covert agent that's now useless if not in outright danger.  Journalists are stuck between a rock and a hard place.  They may know that this was SUPER-sleazy business, but if they ever want to get information about just-regular-sleazy business in the future, they may just stick to name, rank and serial number. Meanwhile, Joe Wilson.  I so hope he's just taking the high road - as in, I am pretty darned certain that it was Rove, but I cannot PROVE it beyond a shadow of a doubt, so I'm backing off, because I'm an honorable man. It might NOT be him.  There's a 0.01% chance that it's not him.  But I want to clear up any assumptions that other people are making on the basis of my assumptions. And one more bit (for now):  Here is my favorite quote from the articles I've read today.  This is from a Yahoo story. "The focus on Rove brought an odd twist to Bush's travels. When the president boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, he walked up the steps and waved — and not a single camera followed. He looked perplexed. All lenses were trained on Rove at the bottom of the steps." 6:55:24 PM    Here's what I have to say about THAT! []

The law against the leak DifferentStrings has a summary of the law against the revealing of covert agent's names: "The statute includes three other elements necessary to obtain a conviction: that the disclosure was intentional, the accused knew the person being identified was a covert agent and the accused also knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." There's no doubt to me that the disclosure was intentional. You don't cold-call at least 6 journalists and "accidentally" mention her name.  The second point, well, this person leaked her maiden name, which they've said is the name she uses abroad, not here in the states.  It's her cover name.  So he had to know she was covert.  The last bullet is the most difficult, though.  On the one hand, if you know someone's covert, you'd have to assume that the U.S. is concealing their relationship, right?  But the law isn't about assumptions - it's about fact.  So that last part will be a tough nut to crack. The real fun will be when this person is convicted of the felony.  Remember that Ashcroft is pushing for no more plea bargaining.  He wants to throw the book at every criminal, major or minor.  Let's see if he still feels that way if it's his old buddy Karl Rove in the jail cell! 6:36:08 AM    Here's what I have to say about THAT! []