Redstate

a criminal leaker and a whistleblower whether the substance of the leak revealed a law was being broken?  In other words, while the Times would like to sit on its high horse and say it can deem what is "ethical" and what isn't, the other parts of their criteria is what the law will judge.  If a thorough Federal investigation into Wilson's activities found his actions illegal or unconstitutional, the charges against Libby should be dropped.  Similarly, if an invesitgation into the NSA's eavesdropping procedures (information which we, rightfully so, are still only speculating about but which should be made available to investigators) finds any illegal or unconstitutional actions, the leaker should be free as well.

I just want whoever broke the law to go to jail.  Period.

Under this standard, a leaker can't leak anything unless a jury has already convicted someone of wrongdoing.  After all, only a jury gets to make those verdicts.

That would seem to suggest that 'whistleblowing' is never something that can be done safely, because it asks the leaker to know in advance whether the relevant people will be indicted and convicted of the crime.

the FACT that no law was broken in the "Plame/Wilson leak" makes a difference.  After three years of investigation, the best the SP can do is a perjury charge related to GJ testimony with no charges, I repeat - no charges, related to the actual "leak".

But then again, why would the Times be concerned with the facts of a story?

The NYT legal team swore in court filings that Plame was not covered under the NOC laws.

This editorial is simple a cynical attempt by the NYT to continue to mislead.

to properly whistleblow.

The NYT induced people to go around those procedures.

All to sell a friggin' book.

whistleblower without breaking the law.  You might violate an "ethical guideline" or a "rule" without actually breaking the law.  Either of those types of violations might cost you your job, but would not result in criminal prosecution.  I would offer the Watergate leak by "DeepThroat" as an example.  The leaker broke no law.  He was not prosecutable.  Would his superiors at the FBI and DoJ "gotten even" for the leak, you bet.  That's why we have "whistleblower" laws.

With respect to the NSA leak, this one is a criminal matter.  We have very strict, very serious laws on the books related to leaking classified information to people who are not appropriately cleared and have no "need to know" the subject information.  It's called National Security.  

In this case I hope DoJ takes the opportunity to make an example of this type of lawbreaker.  I hope the "reporters" in question, and their editors, are called before a Grand Jury and if they don't give up their sources, they go to jail.  And stay there until they do.  When the sources are found, they should be prosecuted to the full limit of the law and hopefully will never see the outside of a prison yard again.

that a legitimate whistleblower is someone who:

1.  Leaks information about someone breaking the law.
   
2.  Is familiar enough with the law allegedly being broken to know with reasonable certainty what actions violate it.
   
3.  Is familiar enough with the alleged actions to know the law was broken, and has personally witnessed and/or retained hard evidence to these actions.

Does this sound appropriate?  Or am I missing something?

Most make their living exploiting the misfortune of others. All editors are former journalists, ergo most editors are insecure scum. They neither know nor care for right or wrong as long as  they can pursue their agendas. Consequently, the NYT position is consistant and to be expected.

stuff that is not true does not make it so. It is against the law to out CIA agents. And this does not fall under whistleblowing either, since Plame has not broken the law herself.

Libby wasn't indicted on any counts relating to this. He was indicted in relation to the coverup of his involvement. That is still illegal even if there is no underlying crime.

It is not at all clear that any law was violated in the leaking of her identity. It is not clear that she was covert. And the wording of the law places a very high bar... you have to KNOW the person you are outing is covert.

You know, it always amazes me about them talking about the president "breaking the law"... well, isn't he part of the institution that MAKES the laws? Unlike the judges who are appointed, and the liberals support making laws... seems kind of backwards to me.

And did we not elect our president to protect us? Isn't he doing that? Aren't the people who are leaking this endangering us, not to mention breaking the law? Seems to me we should hang them on the capital mall.......

And let Bush do his job..

by the particular law that the moonbattery wants Rove toasted for.  There are very specific requirements to be covered by the law and she came up to exactly none of them.  Working at Langley doesn't measure up to being covered.

Had she been covered, there would have been an indictment.  By the way, the NYT noted in their brief related to Judy going to jail that Plame was not a "covert" agent covered by the law.

I would add that the "whistleblower" follow the standard of procedure defined by the whistleblower statutes.  That does NOT include giving information to the NYT.

In addition, if the "wb" breaks the law in the process - like giving classified information to the news media - they should be fully subject to prosecution, without regard to the substance of their allegations.

verbiage.  Note quoted 2nd para re Plame: "the question there was----and in doing so violated a federal law against unmasking a covert agent".  If I am still capable of reading English is the Times saying there is still a question as to breaking a law and unmasking Plame.  Yes, that's what they are saying!  Although Machine Gun Parachutist Plame did unmask herself for Vanity Fair and was not a covert agent,trivial I know but.  To continue; Spying on American citizens", I bring it up only to discard it as being too contemptible for human consumption. Moving on; 3rd para,2nd sentence; note the phrase."hyped pre war intelligence".  Push history aside for a moment and discard hype prior to almost any war does this justify a rogue agency and rogue employee and a lying husband to set up a concerted effort to discredit an administration with a mission that deliberately ignored the president's words .  "british intelligence", "Africa".  Niger not being Africa anymore than Providence is North America you may get the idea.  But the Times is an expert on hype so perhaps we should pay some limited attention.  Law to the left is both flexible and expendable, that's what makes them both dangerous and apart from occasionaly bathing, uncivilized.

The President is not part of the institution that makes the law. That is Congress. Constitutionally, the President, and the Executive Branch, has the responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3

being ignorant of what is true, thanks in no part to the left's continued insistance on their idea of a KnownFact(TM) supported by blowhards in the MSM, is a continuing moonbat problem.

All you have to do is look up 50USC15 §426(4) for the definition of a covert agent.  Plame was most definitly not covered according to that statute.

Unfortunatly for the NYT, there is also 18USC37 §798 which states:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--

1. concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government;
2. concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
3. concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
4. obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes--
   

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

There is no equivocating.  In the eyes of the law, no crime occured by giving up Valerie Plames name in conjunction with trying to set the record straight because she did not meet the criteria of a covert agent.  However, those that leaked information about a classified government communications operation did break the law, and the NYT was complicit because they published such information.  

"There are very specific requirements to be covered by the law and she came up to exactly none of them.  Working at Langley doesn't measure up to being covered."

The validity of those requirements were meticulously outlined by a Republican independent prosecutor of high standing.  He determined that they were violated.

Further findings regarding the case remain in limbo due to an alleged obstruction of justice that will hinder any future investigation until the matter is resolved, either by vindication or cooperation.

To say otherwise is a talking point.

There is not an indictment because the prosecution has yet to determine who was the original leaker who did it with intent to leak.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the leak. As I said... it is the coverup that the indictments stem from, not any actual wrongdoing in the leak.

It all amounts to "The propriety of the lead depends on whether we like whose ox is being gored."

Interesting that the Times claims for itself the authority to determine propriety - if anyone else did that, they'd be screaming about how self-serving any such decision would be.

knows the law a least as well as you. :) And if he think that the Plame agent status was covert it is mostlikely is.

However, those that leaked information about a classified government communications operation did break the law, and the NYT was complicit because they published such information

Its not breaking the law if you report a breaking of another much more important law. Thats whistleblowing. Even my Republican mother-in-law does not believe that there should be warrantless spying.

Meanwhile, calling something as KnownFact(TM) does not make not true. It also does not mean its indisputable.

Maybe because the special prosecutor can't figure out if (1) the statute applies and (2) if there was an intent to leak?

We don't much like folks getting banned then coming back for seconds. Ta ta.

...cannot pick and choose which laws are to be obeyed and which laws can be ignored. Fair enough-- that is a standard that I can accept for all Americans, not just for the President.

Do you think that there is no basis for confidence between reporters and sources?  And if you feel this to be the case generally for all Americans, do you also feel there's no justification for confidence in conversations between citizens and their lawyers, doctors, priests, etc., when such conversations may reveal violations of law to those professionals?

it's whether the source should have the right to confidentiality in all instances.

Example 1:  Watergate & DeepThroat.  DT broke no laws by leaking information to the WaPo.  He certainly would have been fired had his name been released at the time.  Situations like this are what the "Whistleblower Laws" are all about.

Example 2:  NSA Leaks.  The individual(s) who leaked this information broke the law.  They gave highly classified information, during time of war, to the NYT and they published it.  Without regard to whether anyone in the Administration broke a law or should be prosecuted, the leakers should be found, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to the maximum punishment the law will allow.  If a case can be successfully prosecuted for treason, they should be executed.  That includes the leakers, and if convicted, the reporters and editors of the newspapers in question.

Any time the "whistleblower" breaks the law, he should be subject to that law.

Guess that's why Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby on perjury charges.  No mention of 50USC15 §421.

Also, try to read the actual law once again.  Do you see any exception to that law for whistleblowing?  No?  Then try reading 5USC23 §2304(b)(8).

(8) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of--

(A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences--

(i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,

if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or

(B) any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences--

(i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;

You'll note that (8)(A) prohibits just any type of release when the information is specifically against the law or subject to an executive order.  The next section specifically mentions that no action can be taken if the concerns are taken to the Special Counsel or Inspector General.

The KnownFacts(TM) of the left that you keep insisting on in both your posts are these:  Valarie Plame was covert (according to the law, she wasn't) and that a whistleblower has the right to take classified information to the NYT because their conscious tells them to (as the above cite from the USC shows, that is not the case).

And in case you missed the discussion a couple of weeks ago, a KnownFact(TM) is a talking point of the left that, even when strongly suspected or proven to be incorrect, has already taken on a life of its own as being true and thus keeps being repeated over and over by the left and the media.