A New Law, Just in Time

Congress wants to intact a new law to protect reporters from having to reveal their sources. I actually believe this is a great idea, and in general, I agree fully that reporters should not be required to reveal their sources or risk jail time if they refuse. But I say “in general”, because I think there has to be a line at when they must reveal sources and when they are protected, and this proposed new law goes too far in a blanket protection. That line for me is IF the information and report were in the public’s best interest or not. If the news story reveals government or corporate corruption, for example, or maybe a health or safety issue, then by all means let us protect those reporters, because their story reveals things that the public has a right to know about and should know about.

But I have to question ‘Why now?’ for this new law? We already have something like this with ‘freedom of the press’ so why a new law with more protections right now? And with respect to all the conservatives that will jump all over this, I have my opinions as to ‘Why now?’ and toss them out here for discussion as to why now. Your reasons may vary.

Strangely enough, right now we have a reporter in jail for not revealing her source(s) on the White House leak concerning the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame. What this source may tell us is anybody’s guess, but I personally guess that the name Karl Rove will rear its ugly head once again if she talked, and the current administration does not want that to happen. Why?

Well, the other reporters, all of whom seem to have cut a deal of some kind, implicated Rove, at least in some sense, to at the least be involved in this leak. As do some papers revealed in the investigation as well. They have not proved, nor has it been proven, that Rove broke any laws yet, but documents and testimony have been pointing to him as at least ‘being involved’, and that has created a problem for this administration.

We also have George Bush’s original statement, before any evidence came out, that he would fire ‘anyone involved in this leak’ if and when he discovered names. Strangely enough, I am sure at that time he did not expect his long time friend and key advisor’s name to pop up in this investigation. And now with GWB’s story change to now say ‘anyone who broke any laws’ from the previous ‘anyone being involved’ as a reason to be fired, it is even more important to both GWB and Karl Rove that no more evidence points in Karl’s direction, because right now, it is difficult to prove Rove broke any laws, so with George’s “new” policy, he is safe.

So now we have New York Time’s reporter Judith Miller sitting in jail because she refuses to say who leaked this classified info to her. Is it possible that IF she told us who, her story too would point again to Rove, and if it did, could it be worse news for Rove in this ordeal? It is possible, but who knows. But if only there was a way to be sure she NEVER had to testify to who leaked her the name…

Of course that is just speculation, who knows who she would point to, but given her unwillingness to say who, and with this new law to further protector her, we can at least know it is someone VERY important and VERY high up in government. But now, lets add to this ‘who is it story’ a new and QUICKLY created law, running through congress like a bullet train, protecting not only this reporter for revealing her source, but protecting the true source of the leak forever, be it Rove or someone else, from further White House embarrassment. Just who in the government could push such a law through congress so fast? And why push it through now? I believe this says why.

Wow, how convenient and timely that this law is being passed right now when it will protect Karl Rove or another high up in the While House! (note sarcasm!) Who would have guessed that these two things would just happen to take place at the same time. (Note more sarcasm!) Personally, I think the timing is just TOO convenient, and is a perfect way for the congress to sweep this whole embarrassing thing under the covers and let it die. What is sad here is that all law makers, regardless on what side they sit, should be at the least want to protect the laws of the US, and in this case, discover the leak of classified info to the press. But again, politics splits the issue, and the conservatives are doing what they must to protect one of their own. I suspect that if the tables were turned, the Democrats would do the EXACT same thing, protecting one of their own. What happened to doing actualy doing the RIGHT thing instead? Why can we not find law makers who actually care about the truth and the laws rather than political posturing and protectionism?

But the problem for me here is still what ‘best interests’ of the public were served in revealing the name of the CIA agent? How does the general public benefit from this leak? What reason could there possible be for the White House to leak the name of a classified CIA agent to the press, and what public interest was served by printing that name in the newspaper? I can think of no reasons at all. Anyone?

And there for me is the line that was crossed. Yes, by all means we must protect the press and their sources when a ‘need to know’ and ‘public’s best interest’ are concerned. No different from any whistle blower in any company. They should be protected fully. Here, not only did this leak not serve any public interest, but the leak appears to be in retaliation against CIA agent Valerie Plame’s husband for writing and printing an opinion piece which was critical of our current administration, and it did not sit well with someone in high up places. Other than a vendetta, I can see no reason for the leak. Someone wanted to teach Palme’s husband a lesson, and this was a way to do it.

Our government is supposed to hold the identity of classified information in a strict confidence. We need to be able to trust that confidence to trust our government. Just read the laws surrounding classified material, which state that revealing any of that information could be considered treason at worst, and at the least a federal crime. It would say who ever released the info DID break the laws, and should be brought to justice. Will that ever happen? Well, this new law will sure make it harder.

Personally, I do not know if Karl Rove is guilty or not, but the current evidence sure says he was at the least involved, and for me, that should be enough to remove him from, at least, one of the highest government postings there is. Just being involved is bad enough, and it sure would be nice to see George W Bush actually stand behind one of his promises and do the right thing, friend of his or not, and at the least, move Rove to a position that limits his access to certain classified information. But as we are seeing, that is not happening. It seems strange that Republicans impeached a President for lying about sex, but in this case, Republicans simply want an apology from someone who, it is sure looking like, broke federal classified laws, and at the least, helped put a CIA agent into harms way. Can you imagine what they will be demanding if it turns out that a Democrat leaked the name? Think they will still ask for an apology? I guess expecting consistency from any government is too much to ask.

But as for a new law to protect (Judith Miller) the press, from revealing sources, in my view the creation of this law now is total BS and a complete abuse of power by the current government in another attempt to protect their power base, and side step what should be a very important problem to everyone. It is a good idea at the VERY wrong time. Miller’s story, revealing a classified CIA agent’s name served no public interest at all, and in fact, did just the opposite. The government needs the identity of agents to be kept secret to be able to collect the intelligence needed to actually protect the rest of us from harm, and revealing this person’s name actually does harm. In this case, I think the law should not protect Miller or anyone else who leaked or printed such information. I also think the new law should not apply when the source broke the laws of the government in revealing such information, as is the case here. Yes, we might miss some corruption in corporate or government areas by requiring sources to not break the law when the reveal info, and putting the reporters at risk if they print that information that is obtained through illegal means, but in the long run, it is not just the press that needs protecting, but the laws of the country as well.

I am sure many will disagree, and only ask that you try and make reasonable arguments, and leave the personal attacks and flames for another day.

But this is just my opinion, I may be wrong’¦’¦.