I have no sympathy for Judith Miller.

[BurtWorm]

She has information about a possible crime. It's in the public's interest to know what information she has. She does not have a First Amendment privilege as a reporter to protect information about a crime. She has a duty as a citizen to tell what she knows.

[Poiuyt]

1. What I want to know is why isn't Robert Novack being forced

to testify? He seems like the logical one to investigate.

[cally]

3. Many have suggested that he's turning

and testifying. Who knows.

[BurtWorm]

4. It has been speculated plausibly that Novak has worked out a deal

for immunity.

[cestpaspossible]

34. Or he is one of the targets

[seemslikeadream]

2. You were witness to a crime Judy

[BurtWorm]

5. Unfortunately, the "pros" are all circling the wagons to defend her.

It's so freakin' kneejerk.

[jdj]

35. the guy who runs Editor and Publisher isn't

he pretty much spelled it out the other night on one of the shows, they were witness to a crime, like people have said, so it's a different set of standards.

[HamdenRice]

6. What if the actors were different: Pentagon Papers?

I realize that most people on DU don't sympathize with Miller and want to see a prosecution of the leaker -- presumably Rove, or Scooter Libby or maybe even Cheney.

But I wonder whether our desire for prosecution is affecting our opinion of press shield and press privilege?

Daniel Ellsberg broke the law by leaking the Penagon papers to the NY Times. Would you have wanted to force the Times to disclose Ellsberg's identity?

[LynnTheDem]

9. The leak has killed people and forever destroyed Plame's career.

It's cost us billions in ruined info and "assets".

It's left a huge hole in our "WMD" proliferation knowledge (altho it doesn't appear we had any or that if we did, anyone in the WH was or is interested unless it's the "axis of evil"...gawd will bush & his cabal & rightwingnuttery ever f*cking grow up???!)

And this bunch are willing to do it again.

Leaking the PPs wasn't the same situation, imo; it was proof that the US govt was waging a war based (surprise) on a pack of lies & was being dishonest with the American public.

I think for me it's lives were saved because of the PPs leak and lives are lost because of the Plame leak.

But I dunno. Glad it's not up to me to decide this kinda thing coz both viewpoints have valid points.

[trumad]

10. These Ho's are not protecting themselves nor the people

they're protecting the Government. They got it Back Asswards.

[JAbuchan08]

12. That's the main problem,

the main difference was that Daniel Ellsberg was holding people accountable for their actions whereas Judith Miller is protecting someone from being held accountable for their actions.
To the Republican party the "rule of law" is just a tool to be manipulated and twisted anyway that it can be its only duty is to power, not justice. If this case is overturned they don't get prosecuted if it is not, so much the better they can go after any reporter they want regardless.

[BurtWorm]

13. Think about the victims of the crime in both cases.

Who was the victim of Ellsberg's crime? Wasn't it American policy in Vietnam and the liars who were promoting it? The victim in the Plame case is the wife of a critic of the administration's policy.

The First Amendment is in place to protect the press from the power of the government. It's not in place to protect criminals in the government.

[HamdenRice]

21. I understand your points but think of the precedent ...

I think many of your responses go to the effect of the leak. I agree with that sentiment.

But if the press is not allowed to protect the source of the leak in this case, it will not be able to protect the source of a leak that we would like to happen.

In both cases, the leak was a crime. We just want the Ellsberg leak/crime to happen and don't want the Rove leak crime to happen.

Bad cases make bad law.

[BurtWorm]

24. The decision in yesterday's case addresses your point very well.

Particularly the portion written by the Democratic judge (there were two Republicans as well), whose name I forget. He said something to the effect that Branzburg is not intended to discourage leaking in general, only leaking that furthers criminal behavior. And that kind of leaking should be discouraged.

He was vastly more eloquent on this than I am capable of at the moment. I'll go look for the direct quote.

[BurtWorm]

25. Here's the money quote from the decision

which was reported at Salon.com yesterday

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html


"In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime," Tatel wrote. "The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against <Plame's wife,<sic> Joseph> Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires."


The PDF of the full decision is here:


http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

[alphadog]

36. It's "Hard Cases Make Bad Law"

not "bad cases make bad law."

[H2O Man]

23. No comparison.

Daniel Ellsberg's identity was not a secret. The Nixon administration, in fact, began an attempt to prosecute him. The attempt failed when it was found that the White House plumbers had compromised the case by a series of break-ins, including at least one that target Ellsberg.

The closest thing to Ellsberg in this case is Wilson. The only meaningful question is thus: do we want an administration to punish someone like Ellsberg or Wilson for telling the truth? For publicly exposing administration lies?

What I suspect you intend to ask is if "whistle-blowers" should be protected. Whistle-blowers expose government crime. They are still protected. This case does not involve any whistle-blower (except Wilson, who was not anonymous). It also sets no precedent: it follows case law which includes a 1972 Supreme Court decision.

[silvermachine]

7. Also hyped up BLT's...

...er, I mean WMD's, props and total respect to Ali G for that one.;)

[madrchsod]

8. judy just maybe an "operative"

for the cia or the saudi/bush klan. she worked for the saudi`s before landing the nyp job. during this investigation fitz found out that her phone records linked to a chicagoland saudi charity that fitz was investgating..seems she may have tipped them off....

[thebigidea]

32. she was giving orders in Iraq to military personnel...

... and threatening them with her "Special relationship" with Rumsfeld.

a neocon tool of the first order.

[radwriter0555]

11. But she's a New Americanazi, so she'll be protected by the bush regime

under any circumstances.

[roguevalley]

14. she's half the reason we are in Iraq. I hope she rots in jail, the

bitch.

[stevedeshazer]

15. Nor do I, however, but, on the other hand, as a devil's advocate

Where is the line between the public's right to know and the right to protect your sources?

I'm very conflicted about this.

For every Judith Miller, there's a Susan McDougal.

[BurtWorm]

17. Your questions are answered in Branzburg v. Hayes

and the court's decision in the Miller Cooper case. The SC has ruled that there is a line, and they marked it in cases just like this.

[stevedeshazer]

19. Thank you

And a link for BurtWorm's homework, if there's anyone else interested.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/branzburg.html

No. 70-85

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

408 U.S. 665

Argued February 23, 1972

Decided June 29, 1972, Decided*

* Together with No. 70-94, In re Pappas, on certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, also argued February 23, 1972, and No. 70-57, United States v. Caldwell, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued February 22, 1972.

Syllabus

The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof. Pp. 679-709.

[BurtWorm]

20. Thank you for posting that,

I was too lazy to go looking for it myself. :toast:

[bvar22]

16. Novak is protecting the terrorists!

He should be tortured IMMEDIATELY until he breaks and snitches on the whole ring of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the White House! The terrorist sympathizers hiding in the White House destroyed an International Network that tracked WMDs and terrorist networks. These traitors have endangered the United States and impeded the War on Terror!

We cannot wait until the Smoking Gun is a Mushroom Cloud!!
Torture Novak NOW!!!



Alberto says torturing Novak and Miller is "OK with me. Can I watch and take video???.....Please???"!

[PA Democrat]

18. I believe that it was George Mitchell of Editor and Publisher magazine

who basically said the same thing: that a reporter can not claim protection under freedom of the press if they have information related to a crime. He was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

[DearAbby]

22. But in this case aren't the reporters part of the actual criminal activity

once they had reported it to the public? just asking to clarify it

[PA Democrat]

26. I honestly don't know

I was just taken by the fact that this guy, who I believe is an editor of Editor and Publisher magazine, would voice that opinion, and he was well aware that both Cooper and Miller chose not to report on this story.

Anyone know if there is a legal precedent on this?

[Disturbed]

27. The legality issue is real confusing...

I can't decide yet. I just wanna know if Judy is being paid by Ahmed Chalabi.

[H2O Man]

28. Actually, we can see it

in simple terms: each time the White House officials called a reporter and exposed Plame's identity, that was a criminal offense. we know they did this at very least six times in a 36 hour period. That means there are six counts, just as if they robbed six banks, there would be six separate charges.

Novak's reporting was not the crime. It was just as illegal to tell Matt Cooper or Chris Matthews as it was to tell Bob Novak. So neither Miller nor Cooper are being asked about what the White House officials told Novak; they are being asked about what the White House officials told them.

There may also be interest in seeing if Miller may have played any other role. She is known to have warned a suspected terrorist front when the FBI was planning a raid. There is a clear blurring of her roles as a reporter and an agent of the Bush administration.

[senseandsensibility]

29. Well, why should you have?

She is not deserving of any, as anyone who is familiar with her "reporting" in the lead up to the Iraq invasion can attest to.

[solinvictus]

30. Send her to Gitmo!

And then have a fake hooker menstruate on her. That'll make her talk.

[thebigidea]

31. agreed.

her martyr act is sickening - as if corporate journalists had some sort of special rights us plebes don't have in regards to coverups...

no different than covering up for a mob boss or a murderer.

which coincidentally, her poor sources are or are aligned with.

as if she was some brave fighter for the truth fighting the eviiil government - she's protecting lawbreakers IN the eviiiilll government!

plus, its schaudenfreude for Chalabi's sake.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[H2O Man]

37. I shed no tears

for Spiro Agnew.