Should President Kerry have Novak arrested for treason?

[ButterflyBlood]

Poll question: Should President Kerry have Novak arrested for treason?

I say yes. Then maybe we could get the "douchebag for liberty" to talk and then be able to lock up everyone else involved in the Plame leak as well.

[Syrinx]

1. absolutely not

But the leakers are another matter entirely.

[HarveyBriggs]

10. No.

There are so many, so far ahead of Novak on the list of people to try for treason.

For starters, should Bush be turned over to an international war crimes tribunal?

Harvey Briggs

[Dookus]

2. of course not

Novak broke no law.

It is not the job of journalists to protect the government's secrets. It will be a very sad day indeed when journalists are jailed for publishing the truth.

[cynatnite]

11. What About Responsibility?

I think the press should be protected but this just seems different to me.

Outing this woman put her life at risk.

Geraldo Rivera gave away troop positions when the invasion was in full swing.

This is just me, but it seems like journalists should also exercise common sense and responsibility for their stories and the information they divulge.

Sometimes it seems like some care more about the stories in order to be first with the headline than about the impact their reporting could make, IMHO.

Cyn:)

[Dookus]

15. The responsibility

for protecting government secrets lies with the government.

Novak broke NO law. Somebody in the government did.

A reporter should never be punished by the state for telling the truth.

[cynatnite]

19. At What Cost?

I'm saying we shouldn't give a journalist a free pass for divulging information which puts peoples' lives at risk.

What Novak and Geraldo did was put peoples lives at risk. They weren't reporting on corruption or anything like that. Novak outed an undercover operative. He should be punished just as much as the leakers should. Geraldo gave away military positions on LIVE TV in the middle of a war.

Informing the public for the benefit of the public should be protected, but not at the expense of peoples' lives.

I don't think this is as black and white as you make it out to be.

Cyn:)

[Dookus]

21. Yes, it is black and white...

A free press is a free press or else it's not a free press. The government, given all its resources and power, can worry about defending its own secrets. If some slip out, the government is responsible, not the press.

Stop and think for a minute... what if the government decides that the news from Abu Ghraib was an important military secret and prosecuted any reporter who revealed such news? Would you support that?

[cynatnite]

22. I See What You're Saying

But the problem is when the information costs lives by revealing it.

I'm talking responsibility and someone somewhere should hold these guys accountable for releasing information that puts peoples lives at risk.


During the invasion, a reporter in Baghdad was fired for an interview he did. His objectivity was questioned and he lost his job.

Geraldo gives out troop positions on live TV and last I heard he still has a job at Fox.

I guess I just can't see the justification in it.

With all the talk of holding the press to a standard of objectivity rather than being the administration's propaganda machine, I just don't think we should give them that much of a free pass as to let them put people's lives at risk in order to get the story or be first with the story.

I agree free press is important, but not without some responsibility on their part.

Cyn:)

[Dookus]

23. yes

responsibility is important... but should it be encoded in law?

Isn't it obvious that MOST reporters could be prosecuted under any laws you could construct? Telling the truth should NEVER be prosecutable. EVER!

How anyone could think so is beyond my comprehension.

[kestrel91316]

3. Yep................

and ship his sorry a-- off to Abu Ghraib for them to give him the treatment. He will cough up the name of the leaker PDQ.

[Dookus]

26. then let's ship off Seymour Hersch

for telling secrets.

Do you have ANY fucking idea how dangerous an idea it is that journalists can be jailed for telling the truth?

[DCdem87]

4. Absolutely

we should have him arrested for treason. Too many of these republicanazis get away with murder and no one even knows about it. More recently there is the example of the gay governors....the governor of texas has a gay affair and no one says anything about it except on DU, but the DEMOCRATIC governor of new jersey has a gay affair and it is all over the news....these dumbass republicans get away with murder!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. The Constitution says no.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html

What Novak did was wrong, but it was not treason according to the Constitution.

[TheDebbieDee]

6. No, he should not have him arrested..............

President Kerry should have that douchebag emptied, instead! :^0

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. No.

But I still think he should be subpoenaed to testify. This is not a case of first amendment protection. The "sources" potentially committed treason and the safety of the nation outweighs their protection.

I couldn't care less if nobody chose to talk to Novak again because he talked. This is too important.

[Rowdyboy]

8. Novak is an ass, but he hasn't broken any laws...The leakers did!

Give blame where blame is properly due.

[blondeatlast]

32. Yes he did, there are several legal definitions of treason posted

in this thread.

Edit: typos

He committed treason, as sure as I'm sitting here.

And if he'll do it once, how often will he do it during a Dem presidency?

[depakid]

9. Novak probably can't be prosecuted

under the current federal statutes- although since we don't know the facts, that isn't set in stone- he could conceivably be part of a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 or the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982.

Most authorities who have visited the issue think that 1st Amendment considerations prelude his prosecution, but there's no question in my mind that under any standard he should be fired from CNN for his activities- the fact that he's still there is an affront to everyone in the intelligence community. What he did- in a time of war- is utterly dispicable and inexscusable.

[autorank]

12. !!!Unindited co-conspirator!!!

Hey, let's split the difference. We have so little free press right now, as much as I'd like to see RN in a Pelican Bay like facility, I value a glimmer of freedom more. At the same time, he needs to go down. How long would the media run him as a named unindited co-conspirator to a treason charge. Keep him free to wander the countryside in shame (LOL).

[DemWitch]

13. If Novak was complicit in the leak

eg. he knew she was covert, then he is just as guilty as the people who gave him the name.

[blondeatlast]

33. Absolutely. nt

[depakid]

14. Another way Novak could be prosecuted

is if he has given material false or misleading statements to federal investigators or the grand jury.

I can't believe I didn't think of that in the first place... I must be getting rusty.

This has actually been discussed before and seems to have some merit:

http://www.alternet.org/story/17857/

The statute of limitations on these cases used to be 5 years- so depending on what ultimately happens in the Plame case, a Kerry Justice Department could still indict Novak for his actions.

[Dookus]

16. I doubt Novak lied

He probably just refused to answer. That should not be prosecuted.

Seriously, people, stop and think for a minute - do you want the government to have the power to imprison journalists for telling the truth?

[depakid]

17. If he lied or misled

federal investigators in the course of their investigation, then he should be prosecuted just like any other person- as was, say, Martha Stewart.

In addition, I think motive is important here- prosecutors should consider that he intended to harm two people who were either employed or acting on behalf of the United States government. It's not like we're talking about a whistleblower or Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case....

[Dookus]

18. we are talking EXACTLY

about a Daniel Ellsberg-type case.

If Seymour Hersch published some government secrets in the New Yorker, would you want him prosecuted? NO journalist should be jailed for telling the truth - EVER. Forget the politics of the individual journalist involved and consider the principle.

[cynatnite]

27. You Are Right

No one should go to jail for telling the truth, but telling the truth shouldn't come at such costs.

I do think this is such a hazy issue where one has to find the balance between telling the truth without putting other lives in danger.

For as much as we value these things it doesn't negate the fact common sense and responsibility must be included as a part of that.

Irresponsible journalism even in the name of truth shouldn't be accepted, but after thinking about this, you're right.

Cyn:)

[Princess Turandot]

20. I think that a reporter revealing the name of a CIA operative..

which puts peoples' lives in danger, crosses a dangerous line vis a vis freedom of the press. While clearly the original 'leaker' breaks the law, I don't think the 'reporter' should be protected as well in a case like this. I don't think that the Founding Fathers were thinking about the press revealing the war plans of the Continental army to the British when they established the 'freedom of the press'. I think they probably expected them to behave in at least a semi-responsible fashion. (of course, they probably never anticipated the impact of the 24/7 cable & internet 'news' barrage, where filling time & space for $$ drives the reporting of 'news'.) If an American reporter published that the location of the D-Day invasion was going to be on the Normandy Beaches, because he had the information, and knew it to be 'true', should that have been covered under 'freedom of the press'? Personally, I think that would have been a crime. If certain forms of hate-speech & the classic 'screaming fire in a crowded theatre' don't pass muster on freedom of speech, there have to be times when the press are subject to a similar standard.

I also think that what makes me think Novak, as well as many of the other op-ed type 'press', might be culpable of something, is that most of them are really not investigative reporters. They don't spend months researching stories; they are primarily windbags voicing their own opinions, occasionally supported by a fact or two.

[eridani]

24. No! Arrest the LEAKER for treason, dammit! n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. The President has no authority to do so.

Please refer to the class notes from American Government 101.

[Dookus]

28. Thank you CL

people who espouse the arrest of Novak have absolutely no fucking idea how dangerous that idea is.

If a journalist tells the truth and can be arrested for it, we are all truly fucked.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. I'm continually amazed at how so many posters here do not understand...

...the fundamentals of how our system of government works, and who also seem to lack a basic understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. At times, it's frightening to remember that these folks are 'activists'...

:scared:

[blondeatlast]

30. Novak needs early retirement! From Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law:

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trEz-&noun
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French treison crime of violence against a person to whom allegiance is owed, literally, betrayal, from Old French traïson, from traïr to betray, from Latin tradere to hand over, surrender
: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance —trea·son·ous /-&s/ adjective

Novak DID commit treason, it's very clear (so did Geraldo).

If he won't be tried, we can sure as hell destroy his career before he does it again--if this is what he does to his enemies, what happens when Kerry is President???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2204536&mesg_id=2205882

[blondeatlast]

31. Novak will doom the country during a Kerry presidency if this is

how he deals with his enemies.