Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (213508)	12/17/2004 7:04:57 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1576600

"The consensus seems to be that when he / she crossed the line into playing politics" Which consensus? Rush? The CIA is certainly not of that opinion. On either point.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (213508)	12/19/2004 4:24:25 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576600

His wife is a CIA operative. It is against the law to disclose her identity. The consensus seems to be that when he / she crossed the line into playing politics and lying, they waived her rights to protection. It also appears to be a stretch to say that she was covert. Complain about something with meat. He was a former ambassador. She was a CIA operative. What he does is very different from what she does. Are you not able to separate the two? If a man commits murder, and his wife has no foreknowledge of the act, does the wife get indicted as well? NO! Of course not.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (213508)	12/20/2004 12:43:04 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 1576600

Peter, do conservatives have a problem with obeying the law, or just you?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (213508)	12/21/2004 1:59:31 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576600

The consensus seems to be that when he / she crossed the line into playing politics and lying, they waived her rights to protection. It also appears to be a stretch to say that she was covert. Complain about something with meat. Well, a couple of journalists are about to go to prison if sources are not disclosed. Don't you get tired of being always wrong? US court weighs up journalists’ rights Published in: Legalbrief Today Date: Tue 21 December 2004 Category: Media Issue No: 1242 A panel of Federal Appeals Court judges is expected to make a decision next year in a case that pits reporters' ability to gather information against the Justice Department's right to require their testimony in its investigation of suspected leaks from the Bush Administration. The Washington Post reports the ruling will be the first time in 30 years that a court has specifically addressed whether reporters must break their promise to unnamed sources when a prosecutor is trying to solve a crime. In the case at hand, reporters Matthew Cooper, of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, of The New York Times , can be jailed for refusing to appear before a grand jury investigating whether administration officials illegally identified a covert CIA operative to reporters in the summer of 2003 . The Federal Appeals Court judges have hinted that reporters might be able to refuse to reveal the names of their confidential sources in selected criminal investigations but have no blanket protection against the responsibility to testify before a grand jury. Time and The New York Times appealed the decision of a lower court judge, who found Miller and Cooper in contempt of court for refusing to appear before a grand jury investigating the suspected leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the media. Al