Committee to Protect Journalists Speaks With Imprisoned NYT Reporter

[cal04]

Committee to Protect Journalists Speaks With Imprisoned New York Times Reporter
A delegation from the Committee to Protect Journalists met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller - imprisoned for civil contempt for refusing to name a confidential source - and called for her release. Paul Steiger, CPJ chairman and managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, headed the delegation Thursday night that included Tom Brokaw of NBC News and CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper, the CPJ reported on its Web site.

The group spoke with Miller for a half hour through a plastic partition at Alexandria Detention Center. "There's no good purpose in keeping this dedicated, honorable, committed professional in jail," Steiger said afterward. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ordered Miller imprisoned on July 6 after she refused to testify about a confidential source before a grand jury investigating the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. Unless she decides to talk, Miller will be jailed until the grand jury ends its work in October.

Miller praised the detention center's staff and said she is allowed to read and write, but said she has been outside just twice in three weeks. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to protect reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. So-called shield laws already exist in 31 states and the District of Columbia. CPJ is a New York-based nonprofit organization that monitors press freedom conditions in more than 100 countries.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBBNU3ZPBE.html
:puke: honorable, dedicated, and committed professional

[sasquatch]

1. Why hasn't she been shived in Prison yet?

That would be one of the cases in which I would approve of Prisoner on Prisoner violence.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. It's all very simple, really . . .

.
It's all very simple, really . . .

"There's no good purpose in keeping this dedicated, honorable, committed professional in jail" -- of course, of course. Just tell Miller that she holds "the keys to her own jail cell." It's civil contempt of court, meaning that the jailed person must obey the court order to get out of jail, period.

It's not criminal contempt wherein the jailed person is in jail for a pre-determined length of time as punishment as ordered by the court/judge.

S'all. As I said, it's easy.

BTW, freedom of the press does not grant a privilege of confidentiality to press informant sources! Maybe some states grant some kind of "immunity" but not the federal courts. And, all the "news media" hand-wringing and moaning and groaning and pontificating about it won't release Miller from jail, either.

Miller will get out of jail, when Miller obeys the court order. Simple, really. End of story.


.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Really! I didn't know that...

I didn't realize that Miller was in civil contempt of court.

So...there is no way she can get out--unless she talks?

I thought she had a "sentence" and when her time was up--she was free to go. I assumed she just had to do her time and then she could go home--without ever talking.

This is really good news.

I'm surprised that these visiting journalists would be so supportive of her. She knows the names of lying, treasonous, crime-committing government officials. If these journalists had any integrity, they would encourage Judy to do the right thing and shine the spotlight on these dark criminals.

Judy is no victim. She has information about crimes. She needs to reveal that information and quit playing the tortured, jailed victim who never gets to go outside.

Please.

Be a real American Judy. Do the right thing and quit protecting thugs.

[TaleWgnDg]

8. Yup, that's the distinction between civil and criminal contempt . . .

.
Yup, that's the distinction between civil and criminal contempt . . . Civil contempt is one must obey a court order to get released from jail; whereas, criminal contempt is when a judge sentences a person to a pre-determined length of time as punishment.

Civil contempt is issued in attempts to FORCE a witness to be a lawful witness according to law. Here, there is no federally granted "immunity" to a newspaper reporter to allow him/her to withhold news sources. S/he must reveal all on the witness stand. If s/he doesn't, then it's the slammer if the judge so orders.

One caveat: Miller may get out at the end of the grand jury session which expires in (blank) . . . dunno the timeframe. Or Miller may rot some more in jail if the grand jury session is extended.

[Lecky]

3. Sickening

"Miller praised the detention center's staff and said she is allowed to read and write, but said she has been outside just twice in three weeks"

Poor Judy

The more I have read about her and her work, the more I realize what a disgusting lying neocon cheerleader she is. I can't believe there are people who have the audacity to defend this POS "journalist" still. She is a big reason why no one trusts the media anymore. She doesn't work for the people, she works for the government.

[shraby]

4. Someone should "follow her money"

see if she has some stashed in an off-shore account, or a Swiss account. She didn't carry the water for the war out of the good of her heart.

[TaleWgnDg]

7. Uuummm, that's not the issue . . .

.
Uuuuummmm, that's not the issue. That is, the issue is not about "this piece of work" as you say.

Instead, the issue is about a person who will not obey a judge.

A person -- Judith Miller -- who has been ruled in civil contempt of a judge's order. She's been ordered by a court/judge to tell the court this and that about her source of information. There is no "immunity" in federal law to allow her to withhold information from the court, period. So she was ruled in civil contempt of that court.

For you to say something about "this piece of work" is ill-advised. Why? Because what would happen, what would you say if that person "did good" in your eyes. That is, was favorable to your position? Would that, then, change the law about federal "immunity" and "privilege" law?

.

[mrdmk]

9. There are no state laws allowing a cover-up of a crime either! n/t

[Lecky]

11. By now I am fully aware of the issue of why she is in jail

I was going beyond that...

Regardless of what I think is "good", journalists work for the people, they are supposed to tell us the truth. They are not meant to be propaganda agents for the government PERIOD. The New York Times is a highly respected newspaper, people trust its integrity to give us all the FACTS (not propaganda). Considering Miller's past, it greatly disturbs me that there are still journalists out there defending her. I think that's another important ISSUE since most of them are very familiar with Mrs. Miller's prior work. She is very well-known throughout the industry.

...and yes she is a piece of work.

[bullimiami]

6. maybe they should have a committee for honest journalism

instead.

she is a self serving tool, and a propagandist.

[BuyingThyme]

10. If Cheney had handed Miller a gun & asked her to shoot an innocent person,

she would have. And then she'd protect her source (Cheney).

Moot point.