WP: If the secret's spilled, calling leaker to account isn't easy

[kskiska]

If history is any guide, the investigation into whether Bush administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent is unlikely to lead to the prosecution of anyone.

In more than half a century, only two government employees have ever been convicted of providing classified information to the media, according to a recent Justice Department review of leak investigations and court records. Even now, as the FBI begins its probe into the most recent case, dozens of others remain under investigation and unresolved, according to government sources.

Strict statutory requirements and serious First Amendment issues have consistently stymied efforts to track down and charge leakers in the past, according to legal experts and investigators. The specific statute at the heart of the latest case is so narrowly drawn that any suspect would have to meet at least half a dozen specific criteria in order to have violated the law. Media organizations are also certain to resist any attempts to force reporters to divulge information provided by confidential sources.

Even technical issues -- such as the potential difficulty in tracking outgoing calls from the White House's antiquated telephone system -- could raise difficult obstacles for investigators, according to government officials and outside experts.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37085-2003Oct2.html

[Waistdeep]

1. I like your Freudian slip

misspelling of "leaker" as "leader". Good headline either way.

On edit: corrected own "mispelling"

[kskiska]

5. Corrected. Absolutely Freudian.

LOL

[DrBB]

2. Thing is, all those other leakers

...were dissenting from government policies--often bad ones. They were whistleblowers.

This wasn't a whistleblower leak. This was a leak BY the powerful against the less powerful--a political attack, intended to intimidate and SILENCE dissent, not some noble effort at truth-telling.

Once again, the SlimeBall Administration succeeds in pulling the world inside-out.

on edit: well, not "all" the other leakers. Most of 'em though. And I've NEVER seen anything like this leak before.

[goforit]

3. He most certainly should account for not shooting down planes @ 911!

That was totally IRRESPONSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:argh:

[goforit]

4. Ahh hah!!!!........"Leaker not leader"!!!!

I jumped before I could walk. (oops)

[bpilgrim]

6. antiquated telephone system - lol

yeah, and that tape player we had on nixon must be old as hell by now... and besides it didn't work all that well anyways :evilgrin:

so lets see not many gov folks get busted but PLENTY of regular folk do. maybe thats the problem :shrug:

we should probably ask zinn and chomsky what they remember but i know they can list off tons of regular ones who have.

but shoot, they KILLED CAESAR though for his alledged TREASON :evilgrin:

peace

[MoonAndSun]

7. I think that if no one is ever brought to bear for this crime,

the American people will always hold that against bush*. The polls that were released today from ABC showed IIRC, that 80% of Americans polled said that whoever did this must be prosecuted for it. If no one goes to jail for this, the voters will not be happy with the bush* admin.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. Don't you think the CIA has a tape and/or transcript of everything...

...the Bushies have done up to now? That includes surveillance of the White House, the Executive Office Building, Camp David, Air Force One and Two, the "ranch" in Crawford, Texas, the State Department, the Pentagon, and anywhere else these people frequent?

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there are CIA undercover types working in every one of those places.

The Bushies picked the wrong group to try to intimidate. It's now a game of survival of the fittest, and the CIA has never lost.

[Rose Siding]

9. The CIA has the goods

I just can't imagine this going beyond their internal investigation without all the leads the FBI/Justice will need.

Of some concern, we usually hear about how hard something is before they fail to do it. How many times has rummy explained that "it's very very very difficult to do"?

[Dover]

10. 1972 Supreme Court ruling says Novak must respond to subpoena

Important article from Julian Borger:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1053191,00.html

Mr Novak and the other journalists involved have refused to name their sources. Their lawyers are expected to claim protection from the law under the first amendment of the constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech.

But a 1972 supreme court ruling, Branzburg v Hayes, states "the first amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation".

[robbedvoter]

11. The party of National Security (and personal responsibility) gives up?

I am shocked! How are we gonna get them evildoers if we can'l get them leakers? (BTW: are leakers evildoers or merely mishciefdoers?)