English, Featured, Media, Print

The Freedom of Speech

The “U.S. vs. Libby” lawsuit did not only put an administration and its actions in the wake of the Iraq war on trial, but featured many stars of the political media landscape on the witness stand.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former top aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney was on trial for purgery and obstruction to federal investigations, but with Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Robert Novak, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, some of Washington’s most influential journalists were questioned about their involvement in the leak of a C.I.A. undercover agent.

In March 2002, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, is sent on a trip to Niger on behalf of the C.I.A. He is ordered to look for evidence that Niger sold nuclear technology to Iraq. Shortly after his return, Wilson explains that there was nothing to that story. Still, President Bush will use it as an argument to defend an invasion of Iraq in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. He announces that British intelligence has gathered evidence that Iraq bought significant amounts of nuclear explosives in Africa.

In July of 2003, Wilson publishes an op-ed column in The New York Times with the title “What I did not find in Africa” and erodes Washington, especially the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney and his aide Scooter Libby.

A few months prior to that, in Mai of 2003, Libby and Rove react to an article by N.Y. Times writer Nicholas Kristof, who reports that an unknown ambassador has visited Niger and could not find any connection between this country and Iraq.

In an attempt to discredit Wilson, Libby and Rove talk to several reporters and leak the name of Wison’s wife, C.I.A undercover agent Valerie Plame, who reportedly sent him on this trip. After those 15 famous words of President Bush in his State of the Union, the administration blamed the C.I.A. for the mistake.

Libby learned of this connection in May of 2003 by a state department official, but claimed during the first hearings that he lost his memory about those talks because of the flood of information that came in during this period of time.

In June of 2003, Libby talks to N.Y. Times reporter Judith Miller several times about Valerie Plame’s identity, so the charges. Leaking her identity would be present a felony.

A week earlier, Bob Woodward, writer for the Washington Post, talks to Secretary of State Richard Armitage and becomes the first to learn about Plame’s identity. Armitage admits these talks with Woodward and is not charged due to inadvertence.

Armitage will also talk to Robert Novak, who will later become the first journalist to publish the story. Bob Woodward, until this day, remains the only person involved in this issue, not to have written a single article about it. He never saw it as an important enough topic. Later on, Woodward will talk to Scooter Libby about the Wilsons.

In July of 2003, Wilson’s op-ed column is published in The New York Times and Dick Cheney gets involved in the dealings. He writes notes next to the article, questioning if the C.I.A. has done this sort of thing before: Sending an ambassador on a covert mission. He also asks in these notes if his wife might have been the one that sent him.

Scooter Libby, shortly after, talks to Ari Fleischer, then Press Secretary of the White House, about the issue and the connection to Plame and adds, that not many people would know about this. Ari Fleischer confirms this talk, but Libby claims he has never talked with Fleischer about Plame.

Thereafter, Libby meets with Judith Miller for a second time and asks her to refer to him as “former Hill staffer”, if she wanted to publish the story. This identification, and Miller’s decision not to reveal it, will put her into jail for 85 days, until Libby reveals himself to be the anonymous source. A source, that only appeared in Miller’s notebook and was never published in an article.

After his talk to Miller, Libby will also have a conversation with Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press. Libby now claims that he learned about the identity of Valerie Plame in this conversation. Russert denies ever talking to Libby about Plame. Shortly after, Libby also talks to Matt Cooper, writer for Newsweek, about Plame, claiming that he had heard about the rumor himself.

Later on, Libby will tell the grand jury, “I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn’t know it as a fact. I thought I was — all I had was this information was coming in from reporters.”

On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak publishes the story that reveals the identity of Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. agent and wife of Joseph Wilson and causes a federal investigation on weather administration officials leaked her identity.

Judith Miller, who has notes about Valerie Plame, refuses to identify her sources and refers to a shield law which exists in 30 states and Washington D.C. Because the leak of an undercover agent is considered a crime, and Miller may be aiding the perpetrator, she is sentenced to jail until she reveals her source.

Now Judith Miller sees herself as defender of a whole profession. She demands her rights to protect a source, because those are vital to investigative journalism. Such a protection should exist to not scare away potential whistle blowers, no matter if a source is a good, or a bad one.

Branzburg v. Hayes announced in 1957 that a journalist had no right to protect a source if a criminal investigation depended on it. Still, the importance in this 5-4 decision was put on the minority dissent of Judge Powell who explained, that every case needed to be treated individually. He acknowledged that Branzburg v. Hayes did have its limits.

Judith Miller knew who she granted anonymity and knew, that she protected an administration that not only went to war with false information, but tried to discredit the ones who wanted the truth to be heard. One of these people is now on trial on accounts of obstruction and perjury.

Freedom of Press and protection of sources are vital for a free democracy. Without it, there would not have been a “Deep Throat” or Jeffery Wigand. However, those sources ought to be protected to serve one goal: the public’s interest.

It is questionable if the protection of Scooter Libby served in that interest. Especially in the months after the original invasion, it would have been of great importance to uncover the wrongdoings of administration officials.

Journalists need protection to do their work. But they should always remember that they do this work to serve in the public’s interest. With freedom of speech comes great responsibility.

Discussion:

1) Is Judith Miller right in arguing for protection of sources, no matter if they are good or bad ones?

2) Do you think journalists should have a special right, just as doctors or lawyers, to protect information in order to serve the public?

3) Where are the dangers in a town as Washington D.C. where every journalist depends on background informations and off-the-record statements by politicians?

Additional Information:

> Branzburg v. Hayes
> First Amendment Center on Shield Laws
> New York Times timeline about “Plamegate”
> MSNBC article about Libby’s actions

Works Cited:
Seidman, Joel. “Backstory: How the CIA leak case began” MSNBC.com 12 Jan. 2007. 11 Mar. 2007