Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Okay, List of reasons why Novak should be TRIED for TREASON

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:18 PM
Original message
Okay, List of reasons why Novak should be TRIED for TREASON
My mistake, I stated what the punishment probably entails, got locked.

Unfortunately for Mr. Novak:

1. September 11 changed everything

2. Non-liberals have been quite vocal about the idea that certain portions of the Constitutional Rights can be waived; relevant to his situation is the First Amendment vs National Security, and the indefinite incarceration of anyone who aids the terrorists, and until Bush took office, outing any CIA covert agent is working against the war on terror. (Despite the spin, the White House regarded the operative as undercover).

3. "There ought to be limits to free speech" - George W. Bush, prior to December 12, 2000.

4. The Dixie Chicks have been pilloried for actually speaking their minds, in a way which causes far less damage to the war on terror than compromising CIA agents' covers

5. We are at war, despite George W. Bush's May 1 declaration "Mission Accomplished" - soldiers are still dying in the "War on Terror" in Iraq, sent there on the idea of weapons of mass destruction. Sadly, their excuse for the war now (human rights violations) is based on something which was ignored by the Republicans for a long time, brought out only when their original premise was exposed as fabrications.

6. Revelation of a CIA operative, in peacetime as well as during a war, is a Federal offense, signed into law by George H.W. Bush

7. A very limited number of people were aware of the role this CIA operative played. I would guess that her husband and the CIA were aware, along with the White House
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Reagan signed the law in 1982
It's been a felony since a U.S. attache in Greece (I think) was assassinated after being outed by bureaucratic enemies in Reagan's State Dept. Pretty sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. people were killed probably because of him.
an ex-cia guy on cnn yesterday says provision c allows for prosecution if you out twice. Plame is one. Her front company
is twice. He wouldn't even have to tell his sources. Just
printing twice this information is treason under the law
created because of Phillip Agee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Write letters to the editor of your local paper(s) explaining what

Novak did and why he and the White House sources should be tried for treason.

-- Write your rep and your senators, too.

-- Calling and FAXes, e-mails, are good, too, but letters are especially effective. They don't have to be long or eloquently written, just be clear about what you want to happen and why.

-- Short letters are probably best -- remember that many people have very short attention spans.

The media WON'T push this issue. Rove and Bush* are trying to play it down. It's up to US, AMERICA'S SUPER DUERS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. List of reasons Novack should NOT be tried for treason:
1. The First Amendment. I don't like what was done, just as I don't like when Nazis march in the US. "I may not like what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

If you think this will pinch the current administration, just think about how badly it will pinch us when the shoe is on the other foot. And you KNOW it'll end up there... Remember when the Operation Rescue bozos lost their case to protest in front of abortion clinics? Remember how "First Amendment Zones" were set up because of it? Remember how happy we were that they lost? Well, we were....right up to the point that we got our asses thrown into "First Amendment Zones" over Election 2000...

"Bad facts make bad law."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
CIA seeks probe of White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the womans husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bushs since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

Rice 'Knew Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday she knew "nothing of any" White House effort to leak the identity of an undercover CIA officer in July, a charge now under review at the Justice Department.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, the top aide to President Bush said, "This has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that is the appropriate place for it."

Rice said the White House would cooperate should the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, decide to proceed with a criminal investigation of the matter, which centers on the alleged public disclosure of the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, but returned to say it was highly doubtful.

A White House smear

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national securityand break the lawin order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

The sources for Novaks assertion about Wilsons wife appear to be two senior administration officials. If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under whats known as nonofficial cover and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilsons wife is such a personand the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like herher career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames. If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a pattern of activities to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilsons wife and had no reluctance about naming her. I figured if they gave it to me, he says. Theyd give it to others....Im a reporter. Somebody gives me information and its accurate. I generally use it. And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come 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.

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Novak reported that his two senior administration officials told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.

A War on Wilson?,8599,465270,0...

White House striking back?

Schumer Urges FBI Probe Into Iraq Leaks

Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives by John W. Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. but that's not what this thread is about...
It's about trying Novacks for treason.

If they catch the guy who leaked without making Novacks reveal the source, fine, try the leaker, he broke the law. But make Novacks reveal the leaker and then try Novacks???? That's a whole 'nother thing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JewelDigger Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. should change your name
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 09:02 PM by JewelDigger
to 'Warning - DoNotBELIEVE' ....

1. The First Amendment. I don't like what was done, just as I don't like when Nazis march in the US. "I may not like what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

You REALLY are awful trying to use the "I may not like what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." in this context!!!

Can you say 'Benedict Arnold'?!?! There's a (at least one) traitor in the house!

edited for clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. For real! There is a HUGE difference here
We're not talking First Amendment right to criticize the government; we're talking about the retaliatory outing of a CIA operative and probably getting people KILLED as a result, simply BECAUSE somebody, in this case the opeative's spouse, criticized the government.

Yeah, I'll defend the Nazis right to march in Skokie. I'll defend the Klan's right to demonstrate in front of the courthouse. But wrapping a murderous felony in the guise of the First Amendment is just WRONG. Nofacts was a tool--a WILLING tool at that!--of BushCo. People need to know that. Nofacts should be held accountable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GoldenOldie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Novak's act of treason???
Novak claimed that he has 40-years of experience as a reporter, with most of that time investigating and reporting from the Washington DC scene. He claimed that he used the term "Operative" very loosely that he was not specifically told she would be in danger. The more Novak attempts to justify his reason for naming anyone working within the CIA without further investigation, the more he appears to be
an incompetant reporter and should be blamed for placing others in danger. Anyone at Mr Novak's level working within DC fully understands who is who - he has 40-years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. And the end result?
Did you support the Operation Rescue decision I talked about earlier? Did you like being herded into a First Amendment Zone during the 2000 fiasco?

I think Novacks was morally wrong to do what he did. But to CRIMINALIZE that behavior would have highly detrimental aftereffects for EVERYBODY. Ask Will Pitt what would result if reporters/authors could be prosecuted for reporting unpopular facts, and were forced to give up their sources. I don't know what he'd say, but from my perspective, it would lead to an unwillingness of people to leak important information that people NEED to know (like the Pentagon Papers), and an unwillingness of reporters/publishers to publish potentially controversial material for fear of being imprisoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. How much experience do you have with First Amendment law?
I have more than a little bit. I studied it under a well-respected Federal Appellate Court judge. And I've seen how "national security" has been used over and over again to try to trample the First Amendment. Ever hear of a guy named Eugene Debs? Fascinating story...BAD caselaw.

Let me ask you this. How long has the Federal Government been trying to stop the release of information they deem as detrimental to national security by the media? Remember the Pentagon Papers case? The crux of the Novacks situation is that they're trying to penetrate the ability of reporters to shield their sources. And some people are calling for the criminal prosecution of a reporter. Extend your logic to the Pentagon Papers case... What result if that case was examined after the precedent you want to set in Novacks? How badly would free speech be chilled if reporters couldn't shield their sources and were put into prison for telling the truth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 16th 2018, 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC