Skip to comments.NY Times Reporter Judith Miller Ordered To Jail.
Posted on 10/07/2004 5:14:08 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Per Foxnews. Judith Miller refuses to name her sources in the CIA Leak Case.
A federal judge has ordered her to jail. She will be allowed to remain free while her case is on appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Couldn't happen to a more deserving rag/hag.
Wouldn't that be the ultimate justice if it was a Democrat who outed Plame? :)
Anyone have more on this?
I'm not very familiar with her.
I read part of a book she wrote about Germs.
Where does she lie politically?
Hooray. Time for a party.
Is there any chance we can have the rest of the media arrested as well?
Don't stop there....jail ALL of the liberal slimes at the NY Times
Me thinks its a Dem source she is protecting?
She wouldn't even have a job at the NYT if she were a Republican. Get serious.
Good. It's always nice to see a liberal have to do time with the "reformable".
Too bad it wasn't Krugman.
Could we get the rest of NY times reporters and editors to go with her!
I agree. Krugman should be in jail!!!
You aren't the first to think of that!
Does anyone have any more info on Miss Miller?
If I remember correctly, she was one of the journalists that had anthrax mailed to her.
Entertainment - Editor and Publisher
Judge Orders Judith Miller Jailed, Sulzberger Promises 'Fight'
1 hour, 8 minutes ago Entertainment - Editor and Publisher
NEW YORK A federal judge today held New York Times reporter Judith Miller in contempt for refusing to divulge confidential sources to prosecutors investigating the leak of an undercover CIA (news - web sites) officer's identity.
U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ordered Miller jailed until she agrees to testify about her sources before a grand jury, but said she could remain free while pursuing an appeal. Miller could be jailed up to 18 months.
"I'm extremely disappointed that I have been sentenced to jail despite the fact that I did not write, and The Times did not publish, an article about (CIA officer) Valerie Plame," Miller said in a statement.
"It's frankly frightening that just for doing my job and talking to government employees about public issues, I may be deprived of my freedom and family."
New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis, asked by E&P about Miller's status at the paper, replied: "Judy's status remains unchanged. She continues to report."
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the Times, said in a statement, "We are deeply dismayed by Judge Hogan's ruling and what it means for the practice of journalism in this country. The government's investigation into the Valerie Plame case has moved dangerously off course. Judy Miller has done nothing wrong. She is not the person who revealed the identity of a CIA agent. Yet she is the one who is facing time in jail while the very people who exposed Ms. Plame remain unpunished. The special counsel should be able to get to the bottom of this case without threatening reporters with jail.
"The pending imprisonment of Judy Miller is an attack on the ability of all journalists to report on the actions of governments, corporations and others. The Times will continue to fight for the ability of journalists to provide the people of this nation with the essential information they need to evaluate issues affecting our country and the world."
Miller said she cannot be an investigative reporter "without the trust of my sources and their confidence that I would protect them. I must, and I will."
Judge Hogan cited Supreme Court rulings that reporters do not have absolute First Amendment protection from testifying about confidential sources. He said there was ample evidence that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special prosecutor in the CIA-leak case, had exhausted other avenues of obtaining key testimony before issuing subpoenas to Miller and other reporters.
Fitzgerald is investigating whether a crime was committed when someone leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose name was published by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak cited two "senior administration officials" as his sources.
Miller's lawyer, Floyd Abrams, said he would file notice of an appeal of Hogan's ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Fitzgerald also has issued subpoenas to reporters from NBC, Time magazine, and The Washington Post. Some have agreed to provide limited testimony after their sources -- such as Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s chief of staff -- released them from their promises of confidentiality.
But, according to The Associated Press, Miller and Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said they would not agree to provide testimony even under those circumstances.
Would like to be a fly on the wall for the humiliating strip search
Reporters, of whatever persuasion in jail is not a good thing
Just ask Martha - Day-Glo orange is perfect this time of year!
Yes - she was heavly slimed by the DU leftys for having written numerous articles that spoke of WMD actually being in Iraq....
I read part of that book as well.
Scary thought, that.
Think before posting, please
Wherever she can get away with it.
I knew somebody would pick up on that!
Well, I can't see her going to jail for a Republican, can you?
If the federales cannot make a case w/o a journalist, they have no case to make.
Freedom of the Press is the last right we have left really free.
Freepers need to "get this" big time.
Well if its so unfair, she should tell the court who those "very people" are.
She WOULDN'T go to jail for a Republican.
This is a Dem source I'll bet.
What is funny?
I'm a journalist myself, and I feel your pain.
I understand where you are coming from.
You made a joke. Silly.
She reports on WMD.
For those who haven't been following this grand jury, TIME reporter Matt Cooper (husband of Clintonista Mandy Grunewald) was also held in contempt by this judge and Tim Russert was threatened with it. Both worked out deals and gave limited testimony. (Though I just remembered that Cooper may have been recalled to give more and is hashing it out again...I'll need to check.)
I always liked Judith Miller. We'll see what she ends up doing.
If the NT times was involved you can count on it either being a democrat or made up. If it was a Republican they would out them just to cast dirt on the Bush Administration.
Martha can cook up some "Humble Pie" for Judith, or vice versa.
I can't see Russert in jail. He'd out the source whether it was Republican or Democrat.
Me, too. The kneejerk response on this thread is astonishing.
The "freedom of the press" in the first amendment does not seem to mention the right of journalists to have anonymous sources. In context it seems to infer that the congress (presumably the federal legislature) can't tell the press what it can and can not say.
However, it does seem there is a more universal right to privacy established in part by the fourteenth amendment, and expanded by judicial activism. But I don't see why this would apply to the press more then anybody else.
Albeit we do not know all the details of this case, it seems reasonable for a judge to rule a member of the press does not have an unlimited right to protect their sources against a compelling state interest.
I don't read the NYT so I don't know much about Miller....but she appears to be a liberal from the comments in this forum.
This is a Nat'l Security case until/unless a lib is asked to help solve the crime.
If a lib is asked to solve the crime...
It will never get solved! That may make it worse, LOL!