Many on left Ass-backwards about Judith Miller

[cloudythescribbler]

On the left, many suggest that Miller should sing, or alternatively that she's tainted, and her case not worth championing. This is to help them remove their heads from their asses.

Judith Miller's refusal to expose sources is NOT about the specifics of this case. It is about the right of the press to protect their sources. Even if it were some hack from FOX, the issue would be the same essential one -- are we going to have the flow of information from 'unnamed' sources to the press or not.
Those who don't see this are either not authentically progressive or are authentically completely confused.

The issue is not who Miller is covering for. People are too quick to think of gangs and mafiosi taking the fall. It is unlikely she hasany information that is going to significantly change the facts on the ground. And frankly, they are ALL a bunch of worthless
bast***s, from W on down, so one more or less, replaced by another W Bush choice, won't do anything. What difference did it make when Erlichman resigned? Or Colson? It was still a corrupt
Administration, and even the VP that replaced Nixon then pardoned him.

The moral of the story is -- if the Administration is a pile of
excrement, rearranging the turds won't change things.

Now, as for Miller, the principle is not which brand of toilet paper
she is using. The issue is that the press not be compelled to
divulge sources. The particulars of this or just about any case are
less important than the fact that sources in general can be confident that they will remain anonymous, so that information about the system will be available to the public.

It's like an issue of legal precedent. The liberals on the court didn't vote through the precedent in the case that set the rule on incitement to violence as illegal speech very strictly because they LIKED the person involved (the KKK) but because the principle was important. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund didn't submit
an amicus brief in support of a plaintiff in a case against the U of Florida alleging "reverse discrimination against whites" on the issue of 11th Amendment immunity because they liked the plaintiff or even the substance of that case, but because the 11th Amendment issue (shielding state governments from 14th Amendment suits in FEDERAL court) was important, regardless of the specific context.

The Miller case is of that kind. ANY time you make a journalist reveal their sources, whether it is in the famous CBS case where the journalist in question said: "It is not that I won't comply -- I CAN'T comply", or even if it were Rush Limbaugh, that's not the issue. The issue is the state compelling the press to reveal their sources, striking in practice at the functional heart of freedom of the press in this country -- AND THAT IS A PIVOTAL ISSUE FOR THOSE OPPOSING IMPERIALISM. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

You can't defend democracy against imperialism nearly as effectivelywithout that freedom of the press. And that kind of a blow tofreedom of the press is an encroachment of the imperialist stateagainst citizens being able to hold them up to the light that we urgently need, and folks, things are NOT getting better in this area. In case you hadn't noticed, in the race betweeen imperialism and democracy in America AND IT IS A MULTIPLICATIVE Zero Sum Game, the imperialists are winning, and this is a crucial battle even though the NY Times, with its infatuation with globalization, may indeed themselves be wrong on many many issues.



And just as you don't have to be Jewish to like Levy's, you don't have to be a left progressive not to see the problem here. This is a basic conflict between the Tory philosophy of government (don't expose us, we'll expose you) and a Constitutionalist view (those in power need more scrutiny and accountability to the public, not less). If you are on the other side of that question, please COME OUT AND SCREAM IT.
But don't pretend that the Judith Miller case is non-progressive or not important TO progressives.

[whistle]

1. What in the world are you talking about......

:yoiks:

[redqueen]

2. You're completely wrong. She's not upholding some journalistic standard

she's a sold-out shill for neo-cons. She's protecting criminals.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Oh, and enjoy your stay. :hi:

[Beaver Tail]

6. Completely Agree

She is not protecting a whistle blower trying to uncover corruption (Wilson was the whistle blower). She is covering up a criminal act.

You cannot enter into a contract with a drug dealer then sue him because he stole your "earnings”. This is the same case. She entered into a contract that assisted in the performance of a criminal act.

[cloudythescribbler]

18. regardless of how you feel about HER, there IS an issue here

And regardless of where you think my head is :hi:

[redqueen]

19. Not just about her. Nice of you to focus on that instead of the point.

Read this...

Legal Analysts Critical of N.Y. Times Reporter's Stance in Leak Probe

[cloudythescribbler]

20. You COMPLAIN about my post, after what you said? what chutzpah!

My point is that no matter what you think of Miller, or the possibility that she might win her case, the threat of forcing journalists to reveal sources is a threat to ALL journalists, as I explained at length in my original post. Your critique sidesteps that point.

But you know that they say about the best defense ......

[redqueen]

21. Did you read the legal analysis?

I know it's easier to blow off what people say and instead focus on ranting, but please. Read the article, then post. It'll help your argument if you could address the points raised in the article.

Would you like me to post them here?

[cloudythescribbler]

27. My point was that it wasn't dispositive vis a vis my argument ...

But post it here if you like. It won't change my basic point that you aren't addressing -- WHICH IS how does it address THE ARGUMENT I MADE? Not just the general picture of Miller or her legal case as some lawyer has written.

[Vincardog]

22. Political operatives shilling for the Mis-Administration are not

journalists. Conspiring to hide co-conspirators is not protecting sources. The evil lying thugs on the right do not deserve constitutional protection to cover their illegal acts. And there is no federal shield law for real reporters anyway.

Stop the lies

[trotsky]

3. I call bullshit.

There's much, much more involved than simply a reporter refusing to divulge a source.

That source BROKE THE LAW. Protecting your sources allows them to avoid repurcussions for WHISTLEBLOWING - i.e., pointing out that SOMEONE ELSE broke the law.

But Miller's source actually did the lawbreaking and compromised our national security AND the "war on terror."

Totally different situation.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Sorry. Can't be nannied into feeling bad for Miller

She has gladly served as a conduit for disinformation way too many times for me to think of her as an innocent journalist caught up in a probe of whitehouse official. You don't know what she's really in jail for. Given her record she could be among the principle indictable parties in this case, and not just a witness that won't talk.
Sorry.

[bushisanidiot]

5. Whoever assisted Novak and getting that story published was an accomplace

to treason. karl rove could have told someone in the hall way that wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but even though it is an act of treason, it didn't necessarily put Plame's life on the line.. what put Plame in danger is the fact that Novak printed it for all to see.

the published story made the crime of treason a far more damaging crime. all of those who participated in the publishing of the story are accomplaces to treason and should do prison time!!!!

stop drinking the freeptard kool-aid, buddy..

[BillZBubb]

7. If anyone has it backwards, it's you...

Miller was supplied information to smear someone as part of a criminal conspiracy. She was not getting information from sources who need protection because they were doing a public service. Quite the contrary, her sources were involved in an abuse of government power. They SHOULD BE OUTED, not Plame.

Miller can rot in jail for my part.

[Kahuna]

8. Yeah right. You don't know what the Miller case is about because

your name is not Fitzgerald.

[Ian David]

9. It's good many of us DON'T agree about it, but we should keep it civil

See related threads:

I think The Plame-Game was a deliberate GOP ploy that backfired
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1925919&mesg_id=1925919

[Kelvin Mace]

10. No reporter should:

1) Protect a source when the source has given permission for the reporter to reveal them (as Rove did).

2) Protect a source that played them like a violin.

3) Protect a source who uses the reporter to support perjury.

4) Protect a source who is subverting the truth, which is what journalism is *supposed* to be about.

Judith Miller belongs in jail. Her support for Rove make her an accessory to treason and an accomplice in crimes against humanity.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Miller is abetting a criminal and therefore

this is not an issue of protecting a source. The rules of confidentiality do not cover criminal acts.

[i miss america]

30. ITA! The protections afforded to journalists to shield confidential

sources in no way extends to cover acts of treason during a time of war.

Judith Miller has rightfully earned her cot in that maximum security jail cell.

[Stand and Fight]

12. No. No. No.

How dare you?

Who the hell do you think you are to say someone is not "authentically progressive" or are "authentically completely confused"? Just because someone does not hold your point of view does not make them any less progressive, any less liberal than you. Just because someone does not agree with your warped logic does not mean that they are "authentically completely confused" -- whatever the hell it is to be "authentically completely confused."

You can come out championing Judith Miller all you want with your "talking points"; however, the very real fact of the matter is that Judith Miller is NOT protecting a whistleblower in the real sense of the word. She is "protecting" someone who broke the law by revealing the name of a covert agent of this country. Judith Miller sits in jail because she has information on a criminal act. Refusing to disclose who told her such information makes her an accessory to the crime in much the same way as someone telling me they had murdered someone and my refusing to disclose the name of the murderer. She is NOT protecting a whistleblower, she is protecting someone who has tried to do damage to a whistleblower -- Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie -- and therefore she is a willing participant in a criminal act. You understand that?

This is not about the First Amendment -- it is about the fact that someone in the White House revealed the name of an undercover CIA operative. That's a crime any way you cut it. Judith Miller is no hero, and while she is not a villain necessarily, she is most definitely no hero. Is it wrong that she is in jail for refusing to reveal her source? Possibly. Why? Because of one simple fact, she never wrote the story. Never wrote the story! Therefore, that is the only clearance I can see coming to this reporter. She knows of a potentially treasonous act and where does her alliance lay? With her source that attempted to USE her for committing a crime! Nuts.

"It is unlikely she hasany information that is going to significantly change the facts on the ground." Outside of the bad syntax, just what the hell does that mean? It is known that there was more than one official in the Bush administration that revealed Valerie Plame's identity, and every one of them deserve to have justice served to them. The people of this country -- in the interest of their national security -- deserve to know who committed the treasonous act of revealing an undercover operative's identity.

We have yet to find out how many others have been compromised or killed as a result of their connection with Valerie Plame. Do you get that? Not only is our national security threatened, people have potentially lost their lives and/or livelihoods as a result of this leak. Judith Miller should disclose her source because her source revealed the identity of an undercover agent and that is a crime. There is no way around that glaring fact, and so long as Miller continues to put her criminal source before the interest of public welfare and justice she is part of the problem, not the solution. In much the same way an attorney can be tried for continuing to defend a person who they know to be guilty, Judith Miller should be held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal the criminals behind this leak. If people were in fact, not only compromised but murdered, her case is all the more tattered. No, I have no compassion for this enabler, this Miller.

So, take your warped view, your insensible logic, elsewhere because I'm not alone in saying, "That dog don't hunt."


ON EDIT: Might I also add that I do not believe that Miller's source was Karl Rove either. Logic dictates that her source is different from Cooper's because she would have been granted the same ability to disclose if her source was in fact Karl Rove. No, Miller's source is someone of much greater importance. Someone whom she is willing to go to great lengths to protect. I would also urge that you keep her words in mind in your "defense" of her:

"The risks are too great; the government is too powerful; the country is too polarized."


Think about that, bub.

[katinmn]

13. The leak was a crime. Why protect the leaker?

I can see it if she was protecting an anonymous source who was divulging information in the national interest.

This case is clearly the opposite. It hurt our country. Now Miller and the NYT are positioning this as a Freedom of the Press and a First Amendment issue and trying to present Miller as some kind of hero.

Not.

[pacalo]

14. I disagree.

Judith Miller has been this administration's journalistic tool from the beginning, & that she's sitting in jail protecting the WH is a testament to that. She won't be answering any questions because "she's afraid - the government is too powerful." As a WH insider, she knows too much & is being asked by a WH outsider for information she's "at risk" to divulge. My belief is that the information Fitzgerald wants from Miller is much bigger than the Plame leak. She's not innocent, nor is she principled.

I'm supportive of laws that protect the rights of "investigative reporters". It's the right thing to do. The question is, when corrupt White House officials use "investigative reporters" for dangerous revenge against those who disagree with their questionable way of doing business, or to whitewash the White House's dirty business, who is going to look out for the People's right to know what's actually going on?

And, yes, it does make a difference when WH officials start resigning as a result of a scandal. In the Nixon WH, the sacrificial lambs were offered when the situation was already out of control.

Here, in Rove's case, he is the major artery of Bush's despicable WH & it's going to work to our advantage, imo. This administration is apparently not going to let him go without a fight, but the problem is, the longer this thing drags out, the more the public will know about just how sleazy this character is. It reflects on this president's judgement & it's going to shine a light on his integrity: He said he'd fire the leaker; the question is, does he "mean what he says" & "does he do what he says", as he so proudly claims.

[i miss america]

29. Hmmm, I don't believe the idiot in chief ever said he'd "fire" the leaker

His exact words were:

"...if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

To me that sounds like there's a presidential pardon or a Tenet-esque Presidential Medal of Freedom waiting for the turd blossom.

[cloudythescribbler]

15. THE CONCEPT OF CHORUSES OF PROTESTATION

How DARE I? I love it! I wonder where people get off daring to ask how DARE I suggest what I think is authentically progressive and not.
You notice how there is this huge chorus of people, more than a dozen in less than half an hour of the initial posting, that all have the same position. Nor does there have to be any coordination for this phenomenon of choruses of protestation, often specifically on positions that are as I would call them, "Red Headed League" progressive. So far (I haven't read through all of each of the many often long threads yet!) I haven't found any that addressed my point about WHY it was essential. NOT ONE PERSON at TPM Cafe put forward a comment like that, curiously, in response to the EXACT same post that has been up longer (and I have posted it in some other venues as well) It is interesting.



There are choruses of protestations in "left" venues. And I certainly will assess what I think is authentically progressive and not. You have choruses of protestation, often with no one arguing the other side, on:

1) Insisting that Tawana Brawley was a Saint of the Left when she was obviously full of it any way you slice it
OH THE CHORUSES AND THE HOW DARE YOUS

2) Denying that the HIV virus is real or that it is a decisive causal factor in the spread of AIDS
AND THE SOPHISTRY IS INCREDIBLE. On WBAI, although Michio Kaku has to his credit run numerous programs of "Explorations" explaining the falsehood of the idea, there are often programs where you will get a dozen or more callers, all at one time with the same protestation

3) Explaining away why there is more activism around animals' rights in a month than around absolute poverty and macro-ecological issues like global warming and the ozone layer in a year
(THE IRONY BEING THAT THE LATTER TWO ISSUES HAVE A MORE DECISIVE IMPACT ON NON-HUMAN ANIMALS THAN THE ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE "EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LOBSTER TAILS" CROWD)

other issues also.
These issues are also characterized, not only by the pursuit of issues in a way often at variance with science, with logic and evidence, with moral consistency, or combinations of these, they are also unbelievably huffy and indignant as a rule. There is, however, a further observation to be made. First, you have a pattern AMONG the issues, with similar interests of a "left" nature pursuing them, and then sometimes, as needed, covering their asses with reference thereto vis a vis other issues within this package (and others). They reflect the same master one serves, but sometimes, as with the Repugs also, it is in the interest of the 'master' that one or more position be soft-pedaled, or silent, or even denied, so as to promote something else. After all, the notion that those making progressive noises about being "against dominion" or against certain figures is itself bogus, but only the more effectively to put forward the AGENDA of dominion. So the interests behind AIDS obscurantism, not less obscurantist or interests than in the case of global warming, just less overt and aboveground, might see fit for some to protestate that they are not subscribers to THAT indignant nonsense, the more effectively to promote some other.

And another indignant issue is often the indignance at raising the issue of Authenticity itself. And especially in the way raised here. Or just try emitting peep to the effect that Israel is held to more stringent scrutiny than other countries, although their atrocities are quite significant and substantial vis-a-vis the Palestinians, but there are few who will fully recognize the rights of the Palestinians without being impossible to talk to in that way, while others are impossible in that they grossly understate the urgency of that concern. Either it's apartheid or there's nonsense about how Palestinians who live under Israeli rule are 'better off'. But the notion of severe oppression of a different order of magnitude than South African apartheid is an empty spot, because there is no chorus of protestation agenda that is behind that view. And the outrage that can be expressed is often really something, whenever someone deviates, let alone is as chutzpah laden on an issue as I.

But the Judith Miller case is quite clear cut. If she "commit a crime" or if she was "complicit" in the wrongdoing of the REpugs (two very different arguments to produce the same cachet/'feeling rule' response) the point is that ALL journalists who choose to protect their sources are put in danger when you make ANY reveal their sources. This is an easy one so I am insistent, and I notice, as on AIDS obscurantism, depending on the venue, a unanimity with little even equivocation on the issue -- and little deviation.

Yes where there's smoke there is fire -- the smoke of choruses of protestation indicate some kind of fire. What kind is that?

[trotsky]

16. What the hell are you smoking?

Who here characterizes Tawana Brawley as a "Saint of the Left"?

Dismissal of the claim that HIV isn't real, or doesn't cause AIDS, is like the dismissal of the claim that the Holocaust didn't really happen. It's there, it's a fact.

And finally, I don't know how you quantify the amount of activism done on a particular cause, but I think you're way off. Do you have any hard data to back up this claim?

And since all you've done on this thread is bloviate about how important your opinions are, and take the Rush Limbaugh tactic of argumentation ("Since my opponents reacted harshly to my statement, it MUST be true!"). Contribute something useful or just go away.

[cloudythescribbler]

17. I'll answer your questions but not go away

Tawana Brawley and AIDS HIV -- you can listen to WBAI for such choruses from time to time. T Brawley is reported to speak to enthusiastic crowds on the lecture circuit, and will refer to the scam (any way you slice it) she tried to pull as "something happened to me ..." To cheers. (This was reported in the NY Times) It is also from time to time on WBAI. Just call up any one of a number of programs likely to be relevant and say as a caller you think she was a fraud and (if there's time for a response, like after midnite) hold out for a response. You could call Gary Byrd at 7pm on Fri nite at WBAI.org (EST) and ask him about it on the air, or In the Moment (3:30 - 6am EST early Fri am) and they will familiarize you with these things and might even have better sources for you offhand (also on HIV). They might not agree with the notion that Tawana was right and a heroine or that HIV is bogus, but they will be familiar with the debate.

HIV denial is not only a major issue in venues like WBAI (though well refuted by Michio Kaku), but a MAJOR MAJOR issue in South Africa, and Mbeki felt compelled for a while to bow to this powerful undercurrent of opinion expressed, but later shifted back to the scientific view.

Is it denial? Yes. Is it a social reality that it goes on? Yes.

As for animals' rights -- you can look at the DU and activist board. The hottest topic was about a puppy mill for a while. I did one personal examination over a period of years in the Bay area CA. In a month (many different non-special months) over a period of several years, the "Action for Animals" calendar listed more events than I could find, (not being such a calendar for such) on macroecological issues AND the politics of absolute poverty per YEAR for years in the late 80s in that region. The pattern is repeated in many venues, including DU. You could propose some animals rights issue and I'd propose something about absolute poverty. And we would see which one gets more enthusiasm for pursuing the issue (the animal rights thing MUSt be reasonably timely, genuine, etc).

As for Rush Limbaugh, I've heard these kinds of facile analogies to the right many times. I certainly am NOT arguing that rejection per se is proof of anything, and think that for all your invective ("Bloviating", "what are you smoking?" -- sounds like the freepers at National Ledger.com and you can go to their forum and check) there really is nothing to the argument. And my application of it is accurate -- see how easy it is?

[trotsky]

24. I don't even understand what you're trying to say anymore.

Are you upset that people DON'T have a reaction to Tawana Brawley, or that they do? Are you upset that people react negatively to the HIV deniers, or not?

And your quantification of the activist issues is lacking. Based on what you perceive to be "the hottest topic" on a select number of message boards? You've got to be kidding me.

You haven't addressed a single post about the TOPIC of your original message, which was why Judith Miller should have to reveal her source. Instead, you used a post-and-run technique to generate a reaction, and once the reaction occurred, criticized it instead of remaining on YOUR supposed topic.

If you've got a problem with message boards, I suggest you avoid them. They're loosely regulated, are affected greatly by anonymity, and have an unpredictable mix of people on them. They are what they are. And no amount of self-righteous sermonizing by you is going to change anything.

[cloudythescribbler]

25. Let me patiently try to explain this again

I am trying to patiently answer your questions, not "self-righteous sermonizing"

My point is YES, I think Tawana Brawley and the HIV denial crowd are full of it. Did you actually read through the post or just glance at it? I understand many people do the latter, but to not pay close attention and then spout invective is an unfair waste of my precious time in answering you.

So I cite those two as examples of issues that are bogus but have 'choruses of protestation' supporting them. If you didn't gather that, how would you be in a position to judge that this was 'self-righteous sermonizing?' I mean, you're trying to have it both ways. If it was incomprehensible gibberish to you, then that's one thing. If you thought it was too moralistic that's another.
But the two have a (no doubt asserted) tortured coexistence.

I did not argue that animals' rights was focused on based on the 'hottest topic' on a few message boards. That is "studied obtuseness" as I call it, a classic tactic of freepers. So are accusations of bloviating and moralizing. The latter could be
sincere but the former is not. Indeed, when someone makes a misrepresentation of someone's argument like that, it is instantly a red flag for the kind of "red-headed league progressive" that I am talking about.

I made an assertion about animals' rights as an issue overall. I cited a large sweep review over years of a major activist area of the US -- the Bay Area CA. I mentioned WBAI.org and some people you could discuss the matter with who would confirm to you its centrality in organizing. I also mentioned DU's own board in passing. Yet you tried to claim that the latter was my WHOLE case. I thought from your initial questions that(giving you the benefit of the doubt) you were a newbie, but now it seems you are a left freeper. Please I hold the moral if not the epistemological standard of good faith and a certain modicum of civility. By that I don't mean saying words like "ass" but in not engaging in distortion of what the other person is saying or pretending not to understand what has been stated plainly.

You could say that people arguing in bad faith and practicing "studied obtuseness" is part of what happens on message boards. Although they never admit that this is their philosophy and that this is what they engage in, both are true of freepers. Maybe you were merely careless, but it sure is a red flag.

So I have answered your questions -- yes there are MANY MANY admirers of Tawana Brawley, and you could confirm that if you wanted and had the time. The same is true of HIV denial, as I said. And the same is true of the vast animals' rights "equal rights for lobster tails" (as I call it) movement. Someone unfamiliar with the left in the US might not know this, even if they are a Trotskyist. But I have explained them. Now the question is, do you agree, do you approve, do you disbelieve but don't want to check out? Or do you just whine and vituperate about "righteous sermonizing"?

I also note the freeper tactic of telling ME what MY topic was or is. I could start on one issue and answer some ancillary question. My post in response to you was a lengthy answer specifically addressing YOUR points and objections. But a freeper has an agenda, will always protestate (coined verb, so don't start in on that) and will always say that the problem is you.

There is a slender chance that my evaluation is wrong, that you misunderstood and were just feeling sore. But then again there is a slender chance that W Bush is the second coming. But I'm not betting on it. I know what I expect and if I am right, mostly I'll just post some stuff about freepers, much of it written by OTHERS in response to this kind of answer.

I am annoyed by your approach, and don't hide that, but I did carefully and patiently answer what seemed to be petulant "questions" and "observations". They are not inherent in message boards any more than freepers are inherent in message boards.

[trotsky]

32. Your condescension is so very appreciated.

I will tell you what your topic was when it is clear from your initial post that you were only talking about Judith Miller and what you deem is the only true "progressive" position, that she not be forced to reveal her source.

Then a number of people responded that not only were you wrong about Miller but it was wrong to proclaim your position the only real "progressive" one.

From that point on, you did not refer to Miller at all but instead continued your attack on others and what you perceive as some flaw in them.

Attack me some more, insult my intelligence again if you wish, but the facts remain:

1) Your initial post was obviously intended to goad others into a reaction, not generate a discussion.

2) You then attacked everyone who disagreed with your initial post - but didn't defend your assertion at all.

I truly have no idea what you were trying to accomplish, other than disrupt and demonstrate how NOT to behave on a message board.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

23. Miller needs to be fired, not martyred

She tipped off suspected terrorist organizations by calling their funders, warning them of an impending raid, in 2001 after the attacks, thanks to a leak from a government official.

She heavily promoted forged evidence to justify an illegal war, based on her relationship with Chalabi and the White House.

She WITNESSED a crime, in action, when someone leaked Plame's name to her.

She is a National Security Risk, and part of an organized crime ring.

[cloudythescribbler]

26. she is a venue for those who want to promote the Tory doctrine ...

of seditious libel -- libel against the state where the greater the truth the greater the libel. The issue is should a reporter be forced to name her sources, as a number of states already protect them from, to some extent?

[noamnety]

31. Here's the issue

She's harboring a dangerous criminal.

If someone called her and said they were planning to break into my house and murder my child, and then the next night someone broke into my house and my child was murdered, I would want damned well want her to name the source.

Unfortunately, the crime committed here was more serious than that.

[cloudythescribbler]

28. There are a variety of opposing reasons, coalescing on vilifying Miller ..

(as well as myself) as the single consistent principle here.

SHE'S A CRIMINAL SHE'S A SELLOUT REPUG

SHE HAS A WEAK LEGAL CASE
SHE'S ESTABLISHMENT, NOT COOL

YOU'RE A BLOVIATING MORALIZER together with I CAN'T MAKE HEAD OR TAIL OF THIS GIBBERISH

etc.
THEN THERE"S THE
quietly noisy relaxed intensity (sorry Albee) 'compromise' position
"SHE'S AN ANTI AMERICAN CRIMINAL SELLOUT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT"

etc

[Tommymac]

33. Thanks for the informative discussion.

I just read the whole thread and didn't see it that way at all.

I read the OP, and several great factual rebuttals of it (after separating the wheat from the normal message board off topic chaff).

Ms. Miller is in jail for a good reason - even a republican appointed judge who advocates extremely liberal interpretation of the shield law agreed with Prosecutor Fitzgerald that Ms miller should be held in contempt.

Her source was the criminal; Joe Wilson was the whistleblower. Whistle blowers deserve protection; criminals don't.

[burythehatchet]

34. Judy Miller is in jail because that's he safest place for her to be right

now. She said as much. She will sing, but she will do it from behind bars, and I believe her testimony will be the final nail in Rove's coffin. What a lovely phrase "Rove's coffin"

[Ready2Snap]

36. As a matter of law

Last week Norman Pearlstine, the Time Editor-in-Chief, and Cooper's boss,
said on Charlie Rose that the reporter's right to withhold sources
ends when the source is revealing involvement in a criminal act, period.

We give judges the last word, and invest in them the power we do
because it is their office to dicern and uphold the law, on a case by case basis.
Not knowing what he knows, we have to defer to his judgment.

After the recent and ongoing assault on the judiciary
by the demented religious right and their political lackeys,
it should not be hard to see his point.

Pearlstine said, "WE ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW," and not complying
with the judge's order was putting yourself above the law.
Thus he ordered his reporter to comply.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

38. Locking

Title is inflammatory flamebait.