Leak investigations are often halfhearted and one-sided
enterprises. Suspected leakers are questioned, not always vigorously or
under oath, and the source of the disclosure is seldom found. The
journalists who could say for sure are almost never subpoenaed. The
Plame case is different. This is largely because, unlike most leaks,
the disclosure of an undercover intelligence agent's identity is a
felony. The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, moreover, may have been
motivated by politics. And the investigation inside the government, in
which the president, the vice president and many other officials have
been questioned, seems to have been both exhaustive and inconclusive.
The only remaining witnesses to the crime are the journalists who
received the information about Ms. Plame, leaving them to make
agonizing choices against a backdrop of diminishing legal protection.
In recent years, courts have become increasingly skeptical of a
journalistic article of faith: that the benefits to society of the
information provided by confidential sources outweigh the costs to the
justice system of allowing reporters to protect their source. [more ]
Article originally appeared on (http://brownwatch.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.
]