There’s been quite a bit of recent chatter on whether or not the person(s) who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative will be caught by government investigators.
The easiest way to find out who leaked the information would simply be to ask Robert Novak and the other journalists, if any, who disclosed it to them.
Undoubtedly, any journalist so ordered would assert that he or she did not have to disclose the source because it’s protected by a First Amendment “reporter’s privilege.” That is, the First Amendment interest in aggressive news gathering and dissemination justifies granting reporters the right to keep news sources confidential.
Would a claim of reporter’s privilege hold up in the Plame investigation? A ruling by the D.C. District Court earlier this month suggests that it would not. In Dr. Wen Ho Lee v. U.S. Department of Justice the court ruled that Dr. Lee could depose several journalists in order to find out who leaked personal information to them from his Department of Energy files.
Lee is not completely analogous to the Plame situation. But because the latter is a criminal, rather than a civil investigation, an even stronger case might be made that the privilege should be rejected.
Of course the journalists might simply refuse to divulge their sources, regardless of a court order to testify. But the government might Constitutionally have the authority to order such testimony, if it so chooses.
Via The Spy Game.