conflicted over Miller's imprisonment

[radfringe]

since the news of Miller going to jail for contempt for refusing to disclose sources regarding Plame - I've been conflicted

On one hand I agree with the argument of reporters not being forced to disclose sources and how it is a valuable tool for uncovering hidden information.

On the other hand - Miller has been pretty much just a stenographer for the bush* message and not much of a investigative journalist. Mostly regurgitating whatever the bushies told her to write. So in that respect - she got herself into this mess.

Meanwhile - there's the Ohio paper refusing to print a story because of their sources and they don't want to be sued or dragged into court.
This also can be taken two ways - refusing to print a story for fear of being forced to divulge sources or are they using this as an excuse NOT to print the story because it's damaging to GOPers and bush*?

The big question is - how is this mess going to effect journalism in the future? Again - this can go two ways -- it could force journalists to seek out more than just one "unnamed source" before going to press and pressure journalists to be journalists. Or it could just further erode the "fourth estate" to dictation machines or "info-tainment" shows.

what do you think?

[ck4829]

1. I'm glad she is in jail

Let her stay there.

We must remember, she helped the RW on the road to war.

[displacedtexan]

2. If the child next door tells you about an abusive parent...

would you be conflicted?

Of course, not.

Even if the child next door is confused about the legal definition of abuse, you still have to report it.

Covering up a crime (or a potential crime) is no excuse to hide behind the first amendment.

I think that Judy is basing her "confidential source protection" claim on what KKKar,l et al have told her: "Technically, no crime has been committed."

Besides, had she had a leg to stand on, the string of judges would have supported her, don't you think?

I'm just thinking out loud here.

[radfringe]

7. the comparison is a bit weak

abused child telling you about abuse is quite different than being a "confidential source" for a news story of this type

but I understand where you are coming from

The spin on Miller is one of protecting a source and thereby maintaining journalistic integrity... ok - in theory I agree, but considering her definite support the RW at all costs - it looks more like she's protecting a source not out of journalist integrity but rather for partisan reasons or fear of retribution?

[wurzel]

3. The Republicans always destroy things this way.

They take some thing that has a positive purpose that they don't want. They pervert and abuse it. Then even the original supporters turn against it. And then the Republicans win. This is a pattern.

[asjr]

4. As far as Miller is concerned there may be

more there than meets the eye. The judge was rather hard on her. And he may know more than we do. The Ohio paper may be protecting themselves or BushCo. Is it a right-wing paper?

[Flammable Materials]

5. The fact that we jail journalists should speak volumes.

Not that I'm defending Judith Miller. I'm just saying, is all.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Don't be.

The job of media is not to be complicit in the crimes of government. It's job is to expose those crimes.

[acmavm]

8. Thank you. That's a fine distinction that often gets overlooked in this

issue.

Judith Miller is not a journalist. She's a hack with an agenda.

[kittenpants]

14. I agree completely about Miller, but

like the OP I am a bit conflicted about the legal precedent this sets. WE understand the moral difference between Miller & real reporters, but I'm worried the law will be exploited in order to intimidate real journalists now.

That said, I am ecstatic that Miller is sitting in a jail cell now. She is a horrible person.

[A Simple Game]

13. You said it perfectly. N/T

[joemurphy]

9. Miller's case is exceptional:

She talked to her source on July 6, 2003 -- the same day Wilson's article was printed in the NYT.

1. Fitzgerald already knows who her source was. He apparently just doesn't know what was said or, maybe more accurately, wants confirmation of what was said from Miller.

2. The source, whoever it is, has supposedly already voluntarily come forward and cooperated with Fitz's investigation.

3. The source has signed a "general release" waiving his/her right to insist that any reporters he/she may have spoken to keep the source's communications to such reporters confidential.

4. There is no Federal "Shield Law" and there is no legal basis for Miller's refusal to testify.

5. Miller, reportedly, has stated that: "I won't testify. The risks are too great. The government is too powerful." If she isn't testifying because she's simply "scared" she isn't relying on any privilege she's simply being obstructionist.

6. Miller may have been Rove's source for the information that Plame was a CIA agent. If so, her refusal to testify isn't privileged. She's only protecting herself.

Right now Miller is in jail because she is in civil contempt of a Court order requiring her to testify. Fitz, reportedly, has stated that he may bring criminal contempt charges against her.

I don't think her situation bodes ill for future exercises of the privilege. Lugar and Dodd already have introduced Federal legislation tantamount to a Federal Shield Law. My guess is it'll get passed. Moreover, this case has so many unique aspects to it, I have serious doubts that it will have the chilling effect on whistleblowing that many of the Press claim.

[whatelseisnew]

12. Do you have link(s) for point 1 & 2?

Thought I'd read something on this specificallly but can't find the source.

[Samantha]

17. Please check out my thread on Miller and Operation Mockingbird

in General Discussion. You will find some facsinating information. One item that emerged that surprised me was that she had sources in The Office of Special Plans. That was more surprising to me than Perle and Wolfowitz.

There is a portion of the thread that centers on Cheney's Meet the Press appearance in which he disputed Wilson's views on Iraq's reported attempts to buy Yellow Cake from Niger. Wilson said it didn't happen. Apparently Miller spoke to her "source" the day Wilson's Op-Ed appeared; she subsequently wrote an article on WMD in Iraq that Cheney used to back up his position on Meet The Press. It's all too convenient.

[whatelseisnew]

15. Is this the source for # 1 & 2?

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000973489

Fitzgerald Hits Judith Miller Hard in Tuesday Decision
Judith Miller

By E&P Staff

Published: July 05, 2005 6:20 PM ET

... Fitzgerald noted that these "journalists, First Amendment scholars and opinion leaders flatly disagree with the position Miller is taking at the behest of the New York Times."

He zinged Miller again here: "Special Counsel appreciates that Miller is also someone who thinks deeply. She is an investigative journalist who has won a Pulitzer Prize and authored several books, including one titled 'God Has Ninety Nine Names' that contains a chapter singularly insightful as to the history and orientation of Egyptian terrorist groups. Neither Special Counsel, nor this Court, should lightly conclude that Miller will spend months in jail without thinking more deeply about the issues discussed above and, in particular, thinking about whether the interests of journalism at large and, even more broadly, the proper conduct of government, are truly served by her continued refuals to obey this Court’s order to testify in an investigation in which she is an eyewitness and her putative source has been identified and has waived confidentiality....

[joemurphy]

16. I got it from the Washington Post

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902832.html?sub=AR>

Yesterday, Hogan questioned the reporters' assertions that they are keeping a promise not to identify a confidential source. In appellate court filings, Fitzgerald has indicated that he knows the identity of Miller's source and that the official has voluntarily come forward.

"The sources have waived their confidentiality," Hogan said. "They're not relying on the promises of the reporters. . . . It's getting curiouser and curiouser."

[sendero]

10. She did not publish...

.... the information in question. Therefore, the person who gave it to her is not a "source", period.

In this capacity she is merely a citizen who is believed to have information relevant to a criminal investigation and is refusing to cooperate with a grand jury.

Didn't Susan McDougal go to jail for the same thing?

I have not one shred of sympathy for Ms. Miller, nor one iota of concurrence with the "journalistic privilege" argument. Some seem to have an exagerrated idea of what that privilege includes, just as they do about the myth of doctor-patient privilege.

[Samantha]

19. It is not exactly the same thing

McDougal went to jail because she would not talk. Starr wanted her to say she had sex with Bill Clinton. McDougal contends she never had sex with Bill (I believe her). Starr had another witness lined up to say McDougal did have sex with Clinton. Susan did not want to lie about Bill and say they had sex; however, if she told the truth, Starr was going to prosecute her for perjury (on the testimony of the lying witness, ironic isn't it). Since she was in a no-win situation, she decided to say nothing and faced the civil contempt charge. The title of her subsequent book is The Woman Who Would Not Talk.

Miller on the other hand says she is protecting the identity of a source. There has been a very large inference from the court that the rights of reporters to conceal the identity of anonymous sources is trumped by the fact a crime of a much larger magnitude -- a breach of national security -- has occurred. Allowing the reporters to conceal the source of the leak also allows facilitiation of the disinformation surrounding the national security breach. In more simple words, scissors cut paper.

[dalaigh lllama]

11. Wasn't it Fitzgerald who said

This isn't about protecting a source that's a whistleblower. It's about protecting a source who was retaliating against a whistleblower.

Poor lil' Judy can whine about the first amendment all she wants. What she and her cohorts did went further to quash first amendment rights -- their rule: speak up and you'll be sorry.

[johnfunk]

18. Conflicted? You won't be after checking this out...

... as it puts a whole new spin on what Fitz wants:

Fitzgerald
had been investigating three Islamic charities accused of supporting
terrorism -- the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation,
and the Benevolence International Foundation. But just before his
investigators could swoop in with warrants, two of the charities in
question got wind of what was coming and, apparently, were able to
destroy a good deal of evidence.

What tipped them off were calls
from two reporters at the New York Times who'd been leaked information
about the investigation by folks at the White House.

One of those two reporters was Judy Miller.

Ruh-roh!
Can
you
say
TREASON?

I'm not the only one who contends that this is about a whole lot more than Rove's leak. this is arguably about violation(s) of the Espionage Act and the betrayal of our national security by politically-motivated traitors in the white house.