The Buzz: Karl Rove is Guilty

Well, I suppose that that would all have to depend upon whether: (a) there can be rounded up two witnesses to the same overt act of levying war against the United States or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort or (b) there be a confession in open court. - US Constitution, Article III, Section 3, clause 1.

 

We both know that won't happen, so why make such a silly statement?

 

Journalistic privilege is a longstanding argument and this is part of it. How to decide which in the news business should be shielded? Should they be licensed for privilege once satisfying some criteria? What in the world would be the criteria?

 

Originally posted by Ian Anderson

It has been repeatedly stated that this is NOT a case concerning first admendment rights, journalistic integrity, freedom of the press, whistleblower rights, or any other "sacred" protections. The source of the leak broke the law and it is imperative that the individual or individuals responsible are named and prosecuted.

If this case were not polluted by politics and agendas, very few would argue its legitimacy. If a reporter knew the name of a child murderer and refused to divulge the source for prosecution, most people would scream for their heads.

Divulging the information in this specialized scenario does not lessen the journalist's integrity in my book.

 

True, but the press is the only occupation specifically mentioned in the First Amendment. In fact, it's the only occupation singled out for special protection in the entire Bill of Rights. That is at least prima facie evidence that the freedom of the press was supposed to have a little extra First Amendment umph.

 

Re: Re: The Buzz: Karl Rove is Guilty

JoAnne is very bright and knowledgeable regarding high tech education, she's a real asset to the Forum, but regarding politics, her specialty seems to be making silly, emotional statements that she seldom steps in to defend after throwing them out. One could refer to her as a troll in that one narrow area. She's not one generally, though, she otherwise seems decent. I just don't think she's capable of maintaining her dignity in a political debate.

 

Mentioned as an occupation or as a practice? Inclusive of all citizens or exclusive to a guild?

One Matt Welch (a journalist) has headbutted this hornet nest and caused a good buzzing about the blogosphere.

 

Good question. I don't know, it just says: "...the press..." This is a point of contention, some say the freedom of the press is just another way of saying that private citizens have the right to publish what they want and the government has no broad power to infringe upon it. The theory behind this would be that "freedom of speech" refers to verbal speech for private citizens, and that of "the press" refers to the right of private citizens to written speech, to publish it for dissemination, but that this clause has nothing to do with the press as an occupation per se. That makes a lot of sense, but to my mind, it's hard to separate the profession--the most common means and vehicle of publishing these citizens' views--from the private citizens' right to publish them. The former is so necessary to the latter. Then, as now, the journalist profession was pretty much necessary to widely disseminate citizens' view in print.

Others agree with this second view, and think that it singles out the press as a category of job that should be especially protected because of its power to provide a check on the state. Jefferson said, to paraphrase, that if he had to choose between a society with either an organized government or a free press, he's choose the latter.

 

IIRC, he also expressed a disdain for the press in practice.

 

Didn't know that, but not surprising considering the stuff that was printed back then. We have a rather mild and middle-of-the-road press today by historic standards. We just like to think it's so outrageous.

Jefferson said a lot of cutesy things, some of which seem pretty asinine to me. He said of Shays Rebellion, which at the time appeared as if it would threaten the potential of a Constitutional Convention and perhaps the budding republic itself: "A little revolution now and then is a good thing." Of course, he said this from the safety and comfort of Paris, where he was serving as ambassador!

 

Well, if he'd stuck around for the original Bastille Day...

What great timing he had. Got to enjoy the last of the Monarchy and then bugged out to buy Louisiana from Napolean. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

 

You know what, I never thought of that. Don't know what would've become of Jefferson had he still been around in 1793, though I doubt they'd have bothered him much, he'd have probably turned coat on those to whom he was the ambassador and sided with the revolutionaries. I guess he would've gotten a good firsthand a good look at that little bit of revolution.

From what I know of him, Jefferson was a bit cynical for my tastes; he was a thoroughly modern politician. He pretty much turned on Washington, who had appointed him to his cabinet out of principle in spite of their political differences. His view of slavery, from what I've read, was pretty much in line with backwards 18th Century thinking: that they were chattel to be treated as possessions rather than people--yet he still managed to convince people that he was a great champion of the little guy. And he had some rather questionable personal pecadillos, which we all know about.

He was a brilliant politician all-in-all, but I just get the feeling that the guy was essentially a William Jefferson Clinton type who managed to achieve immortality. There are certain Founding Fathers with whom I'm not at all impressed, such as Jefferson and Ben Franklin.

 

Rove

Now that it's becoming obvious that Rove dropped the name, isn't time to start smearing everyone who presses the charge?

Step 1. Deny it (a.k.a. lie):
"That ran counter to what McClellan has been saying. For example, in September and October 2003, McClellan's comments about Rove included the following: "The President knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion," and, "It's not true."(from CNN):

Step 2. Smear accusers:
Stay tuned.........

 

Andrew Jackson was another joker who cynically convinced people he was the champion of the little guy despite being a selfish rich slaveholder.

 

Ted said:

Geepers Ted that's every politician today!!