IMO Miller is not "Protecting Sources" she is Protecting Criminals

[Toots]

and that is considered a Crime. I am tired of hearing about poor Judith Miller only trying to protect her sources. She is not. She is Protecting Criminals that border on Traitors. She deserves the time she gets and probably a lot more. If a bankrobber were to call up a journalist and tell them they were about to commit a robbery and then did commit the robbery and the reporter tried to protect that robber by saying they were a news source I doubt people would buy it. Why are they buying this BS? To me they are the same thing. If you protect a criminal you are abetting and that is illegal.

[rocktivity]

1. DING DING DING! Toots, you're our grand prize winner!

That's my question--why is she protecting someone who tried to make her an accomplice in a capitol crime? Her job is to protect sources, not criminals. I don't think she's afraid to talk about Rove, I think she's afraid to talk about EVERYTHING.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Berry Cool]

5. Sorry, but not so. Journalists are journalists, even when they're not on

"our" side and we disagree with them.

Think of it like this. Let's say it's 1950. A journalist talks to some people who were once members of the Communist Party for a story. They are loyal Americans but they have a very different political philosophy from what is popular in 1950. Should that reporter be required to divulge her sources because in the eyes of many people, especially in government, they are "traitors" endangering the very safety of their country? Isn't she protecting "criminals, not sources" in the eyes of many people of her time?

Let's go back to today. A journalist wants to do a story on whether the incidence of HIV and AIDS is decreasing amongst users of injected drugs because they are getting cleaner in their habits, using disposable needles, etc. As part and parcel of his interviewing, he ends up talking to some dealers on the street. Should he be required to turn those dealers in? After all, what they are doing is illegal.

My opinion: It does not matter who the journalist is talking to or why. It should be the same as when someone talks to a priest or his lawyer. Freedom of the press cannot exist in any kind of climate in which people--ANY people--on any side of a legal/political/whatever divide are afraid of talking to the press for fear of being "turned in."

And I know that opinion will not make me popular here, but I feel I have to stand by the principle of a free press no matter what...even if I don't like the political views of the reporter or the people she may be protecting.

[jrthin]

12. Not to offend, but this

kind of thinking is absolute and simplistic. Also, your comparison of Rove and a member of the communist party are an apple and orange comparison. The member of the communist party was not offering information to damage another party or person for a vindictive reason. We hope the information being offered by the communist party person is to offer clarity, information and understanding about the communist party. This is certainly not the case in the Rove situation. Try as Ms. Millers supporters might, they cannot offer a reasonable defense of her or her position without bending and straining logic and credulity.

[vickitulsa]

16. But but BUT...

WHY must you say someone talking to a reporter should have the same level of protection and privacy as someone talking to a priest or lawyer? That just doesn't make sense to me, on the face of it, in a practical view. A reporter is NOT a legal aide on retainer and paid to know the law and help his clients. A reporter is NOT a priest, or for that matter a shrink, either, also persons considered to have a right to keep secret the secrets they hear from penitents and patients.

These rights make proper sense for good reasons. I don't see the same reasoning applying to reporters. I believe in a free press, but in this day of tabloid "journalism" when even what were once respectable news purveyors are now simply purveyors of porn and pulp (OMG, did I just say that?), how can anyone argue that reporters should have the rights and protections of attorneys, priests, and psychiatrists?

Perhaps there should be subcategories of the broader field called "journalists." If someone qualifies as a legitimate hard news reporter by passing certain standards (such as not writing stories about Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, or about Jennifer Lopez's butt), then he deserves some protection from being forced to reveal sources in an important criminal case. If not, if what an individual reports is the weather or business news or Hollywood rumors or pornographic crap, then his protected status should be limited.

In a way, it's almost like we need to evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. Which isn't practical, I guess; but to me there is something very wrong with a sort of blanket protection of anyone who calls himself or herself a reporter, giving such persons "inalienable" rights to keep secret their sources even in cases where lives are at stake, perhaps even the survival of nations is at stake.

What about our right not to be further deceived by those who lead our country? If one is only as sick as one's secrets, then how sick does that make our government?



Quote below is from Dwight D. Eisenhower

[rocktivity]

23. The communist and the drug dealer deserve the journalist's protection

because printing what either of them say does not make the journalist an accessory to a crime. Miller was leaked to with the INTENT of hurting Wilson by illegally exposing his wife's CIA status.

:headbang:
rocknation

[vickitulsa]

24. That's an interesting take on it.

I'm still thinking about it. Can't see that it would be practical for reporters to be compelled to deliver the names of drug dealers or communists they've interviewed to the govt for prosecution.

Surely there is some way to sort this so that justice can be done without bringing on the ruination of "reporter privilege" altogether?

[Catchawave]

2. I agree, also what's up with Novak ?

Both experienced journalists and should known the LAW !

[sam sarrha]

7. he said a ..LONG time ago that he took the story to the CIA and they said

that they didn't want him to publish that story...

but since they didn't say he "couldnt" publish it.. he did

[sellitman]

3. I bet she is protecting Dumbya.

Crack her.....and you get rid of junior.

Send her to Gitmo!!!

[peacetalksforall]

4. I've been saying this for a couple of weeks. I wonder how some of

those people got a degree and a job if they can't figure out that this case is not your typical whistleblower, wrondoer, journalist-editor threesome. The reporters are in a two way plot with the wrongdoer, depending on their degree of participation. Matthews appears to have talked about receiving a call.

It is very interesting, however, that they say only called six reporters and though we don't know how many, if any, initiated calls - that one of the six was Matthews. He is the person who is always telling us that he is a Democrat, but they felt they could rely on him to spin for them? Did they have a previous 'sharing' of a plot that was a success. Is he the designated NBC recepient? Of does the whouse work on a higher level within the media propaganda network?

[sam sarrha]

6. Protecting her own sorry ass, they'll toss her down well with 2 lbs of C4

:nuke:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. give this poster a Kewpie doll!

[cestpaspossible]

9. check out this findlaw article

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050708_klarevas.html

[vickitulsa]

22. Outstanding commentary article at FindLaw!

And well worth a thorough and attentive read.

Not only is the law settled in this matter, it is "well settled"!

I for one will be very interested to learn how the Miller contempt case turns out in the end. I hope we do get the scoop (ew, forgive my presspun) eventually so we won't forever wonder exactly what Miller's role in all this was.

Or is that is? (I guess that depends on what the meaning of is is...) :headbang:


Quote below is by Dwight D. Eisenhower

[cestpaspossible]

25. It could be that Miller got it from Cheney or Libby gave it to Novak

who had it confirmed by Rove which would make them all members of a criminal conspiracy. And it looks like Novak turned state's evidence.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Judy's The "Telephone Lady"

Gotta give this regime credit for perfecting the plausible deniability...or the "I didn't say that" game. If we play online detective (like everyone else), there are some dots here that seem to connect in a way not very favorable to Ms. Miller and part of the reason she's cooling her high-classed heels in the slammer.

Sure, Rove didn't leak it FIRST (and that's the operative word here)...he had heard or someone had already told someone else or all he was doing was verifying what some other reporter had already heard. This is all part of the game and it involves people like Novak and Miller and Gannon and others who create the smokescreen where the Rove and Chenney smear campaigns can fester and grow...with it ever touching either one of them.

The signal here is that supposedly Rove gave Cooper the green light to testify...and if he gave that to Cooper with all the damning stuff he had come out, why didn't he do the same to Cooper? That's assuming he's the same source. (We know better). Try that one at a wingnut and watch their head explode.

Since Judy's not cooperating at this point...while others have, she's impeding the investigation. And I'll defer to the judge who see this as a "smear on Wilson" and felt her testimony was so important he ruled national security over her free press rights.

Now let's spin and spin some more, since we won't know until the Fitzgerald sings. LOL

Cheers...

[leesa]

11. I agree. She is protecting her "bosses" of the crime family.

[GalleryGod]

13. I Concur, Toots !

That's what Jon Stewart was getting to with Issikoff the other night as time ran out...

[biggertent]

14. Miller can rot in jail for all I care

She either knowingly or stupidly supported the whole Iraq WMD scam right along with the neo-con neo-nazis

[dogday]

15. She talks about the public's need to know, however

there is a point in our nation's security where even we don't have the right to know and she crossed it. She is actually a witness to a crime. She did not write an article about this, so no source is compromised. Did she discuss this with someone in detail? Yes I believe she did....

[ThomWV]

17. Amen! And Very Well Put

I will forever make that distinction and get the word 'sources' out of my language. She is protecting Criminals and not only that but the criminals she is protecting have committed treason against the United States of America. Why is it of any suprise at all that in obstructing justice by protecting these criminals that she has been jailed herself?

[WhiteTara]

18. that's what the judges thought too eom

[B Calm]

19. I agree. She is concealing a traitor that committed a crime against

the United States of America. She should be sent to Gitmo!

[Just Me]

20. She may, herself, be a criminal.

If she actively participated in an organized effort to take revenge against an US Ambassador by outing his wife, a WMD agent, she may be charged with conspiracy.

At this point, I certainly believe she can be charged with obstruction of justice.

[Alien8ed]

21. Protection?

Ms. Miller is protecting herself.

She is neither protecting sources nor is she protecting anyone at the White House. Both of those angles are angles, and she's using them rather well.

But, at bottom, it's far more simple.

The deception in Miller's case is based upon her willingness to go to jail. In that, she appears specifically to NOT be protecting herself. And, as you noted, that's the sympathy play, right there, for all sides to see.

The idiots at 1600 Penn think that she's sacrificing herself to protect them.

Her so-called sources know better, but they don't know whether she spoke to anyone OTHER than themselves, so they are in checkmate on account of that doubt.

Miller, meanwhile, is doing precisely as her combined job descriptions require her to do, for HER OWN protection.

It has happened before, and been got away with, too.

The question is, will it work that way this time?

To that one, Miller does not truly know the answer.

And me?

I'm hoping that it won't.