Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jail for Judith Miller
The Washington Times ^ | July 8, 2005 | Op-Ed

Posted on 07/08/2005 9:46:11 AM PDT by andyk

You don't have to like newspapers -- and a lot of people don't -- to understand that the jailing of Judith Miller for keeping her word to a source is a sad day for all of us, including those who think it's a good idea to put reporters in their place.

<snip>

Forty-nine of the states, together with the District of Columbia, have laws in place to protect such sources. These laws were not enacted for the convenience of newspapers, but to buttress the guarantees of the First Amendment that are the heritage of all of us.

<snip>

Every one of us, including Judge Hogan and Prosecutor Fitzgerald, are in her debt. She is clearly the best and biggest man in this sordid episode of justice having run off the rails.

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
These laws were not enacted for the convenience of newspapers, but to buttress the guarantees of the First Amendment that are the heritage of all of us.

Wow, even the WashTimes has joined in circling the wagons. Buttress the guarantees? Sheesh.
1 posted on 07/08/2005 9:46:11 AM PDT by andyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: andyk

If they keep putting reporters in jail, even our license plates are going to get biased.


2 posted on 07/08/2005 9:47:21 AM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

By mistake I caught the last minute of the Lou Dobbs show and they had a picture of Miller with the caption "Day 1".

Reminded me of 1978 and an embassy situation back then.


3 posted on 07/08/2005 9:50:23 AM PDT by nairBResal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

She aint squat and she aint above the law.


4 posted on 07/08/2005 9:50:32 AM PDT by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling

lol


5 posted on 07/08/2005 9:51:02 AM PDT by since1868
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: inkling; All

LOL! BTW, I know there is a plethora of articles related to this story, but I thought people might be interested in seeing the conservative WashTimes carrying Ms. Miller's water as well.


6 posted on 07/08/2005 9:51:10 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Maybe if the media printed the truth and quit using all these anonymous sources, I might have more sympathy for them. When a source gives the word that confidentiality is lifted, then the reporter is free to testify and if they don't, they end up in jail. Somehow the Times missed that little gem.

Also the original intent wasn't for the media to report an anonymous source as fact when a lot of time it is spin or outright lies and then have them shielded by the 1st amendment. They bear some responsibility for ethics which is seriously lacking on today's media. They also bear responsibility for insuring they have more than one source that is credible -- something else lacking today.


7 posted on 07/08/2005 9:51:53 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: funkywbr

wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.


8 posted on 07/08/2005 9:52:15 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

And calling that joint she's in a jail is a joke.


9 posted on 07/08/2005 9:52:32 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Reporters are NOT attorneys and have no privaledge to have knowledge of crimes and not reveal that knowledge.

This case is not about the first amendment - it's about being an accessory to a crime. What if one of them had interviewed a murderer then wrote an article all about the murder, then they refuse to reveal their "source". Same thing - they have knowledge of a leak that revealed the name of an undercover operative. That is a crime according to the US Code. Their refusal to reveal their source is the same as protecting a murderer in the example above.

I hope that she stays in jail even after the grand jury is finished.


10 posted on 07/08/2005 9:52:48 AM PDT by msrngtp2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.You will change your tune.I want to know about corruption in Government,If I have to go through a few lies now and then,so be it.


11 posted on 07/08/2005 9:53:50 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: andyk

12 posted on 07/08/2005 9:54:01 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

I have no sympathy. Maybe I would if the media wasn't abusing the system so badly. They use non-existent anonymous sources to write liberal-biased fiction and they get away with publishing classified information.


13 posted on 07/08/2005 9:54:27 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity ("A litany of complaints is not a plan." -- G.W. Bush, regarding Sen. Kerry's lack of vision)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk
She is clearly the best and biggest man in this sordid episode of justice having run off the rails.

They put her in with the men?

14 posted on 07/08/2005 9:54:34 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: funkywbr
The funny thing is that many liberals actually consider her to be a shill for the Bush administration!


15 posted on 07/08/2005 9:55:22 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: andyk

That's because the moron press thinks the law is above them.


16 posted on 07/08/2005 9:55:27 AM PDT by Sonar5 (60+ Million have Spoken Clearly - "We Want Our Country Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk
Reporters Shield Laws were always a bad idea, but today they are totally destructive.

Who, in this day of Blogs is a Journalist?

Damned near everyone.

The Espionage Laws are now nearly useless since anyone can now make a resonable case that they are a journalist and refuse to testify.

So9

17 posted on 07/08/2005 9:56:58 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Freedom of speech is supposedly not reserved to newspaper reporters but they act like it is. Now, more than ever, where journalists become political activists and use their position to support political agenda's and persecute the opposition, they must be denied a superior status which entitles them to spew 'facts' without being held responsible for their accuracy. When they abandoned the role of neutral observer they forfeited any right to argue that they are the gatekeepers of democracy.


18 posted on 07/08/2005 9:56:58 AM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Equal protection of the laws means no special privileges for reporters. She can feel free to claim the 5th if testifying would incriminate her, but simply being a reporter does not give her the right to refuse to testify, when for any one of the rest of us we would be subject to the same penalty she is paying now for the same actions.


19 posted on 07/08/2005 9:57:18 AM PDT by thoughtomator (For all you love to survive, Islam must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08
wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.

Conservative or liberal, it doesn't matter. If you break the law, you should go to jail. If you're using your position to protect a source who is breaking the law, you both should go to jail unless you finger who is breaking the law. I'm sick and tired of seeing reporters abuse their privileges to report on drug dealers, murderers, child rapists and even those who illegally release information that is classified.
20 posted on 07/08/2005 9:59:15 AM PDT by kingu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nairBResal

Was she in a jumpsuit?


21 posted on 07/08/2005 10:00:03 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: msrngtp2002

Bingo.


22 posted on 07/08/2005 10:01:05 AM PDT by clarissaexplainsitall (stewed tomatoes are just plain gross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08
President Bush hasn't thrown any reporters in jail. The judge did that. Furthermore, Robert Novak, hardly someone I'd call a liberal, as just as deeply involved in this case as the liberal reporters. We don't know everything that happened in the grand jury proceedings.

And frankly, I don't know where this idea ever came from that journalists are a sacred protected class that should be completely above the law and have a right to destroy people's lives.

23 posted on 07/08/2005 10:01:11 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Total joke! Why would anyone defend a source when that source has lifted confidentiality is what I want to know?


24 posted on 07/08/2005 10:01:43 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msrngtp2002

She's holding out for the 'leakee'... 'Lyin Joe Wilson.


25 posted on 07/08/2005 10:02:31 AM PDT by johnny7 ('Deservin ain't got 'nothin to do with it! -Will Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I think the point was, Judith Miller's got bigger balls than Matt Cooper.


26 posted on 07/08/2005 10:03:22 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@ Cooper = I knew he'd never go to jail!.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: msrngtp2002

I just see an "undisclosed source" as providing news but "not the whole truth". An FBI agent reporting to a newspaper man?? (Nixon). That's not for the good of the country, that's a "game" with half of the info perceived.


27 posted on 07/08/2005 10:03:50 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: kingu
No,MY point is when we have a liberal(Marxist) president I want whistle blowers to come forward about corruption.
29 posted on 07/08/2005 10:04:01 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08

A few lies -- how about made up lies. Did Clinton throw reporters in jail -- no way. Bush didn't throw this reporter in jail either and neither would Hillary or any other President. Some of you on here give Hillary way too much credence as becoming the next President.

I don't put up with lies by the media for any reason. Their job is to report the facts not lies and if they cannot report facts, then shut up!


30 posted on 07/08/2005 10:04:21 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Also the original intent wasn't for the media to report an anonymous source as fact when a lot of time it is spin or outright lies and then have them shielded by the 1st amendment.

You got that right. There's way too much reliance on the use of anonymous sources. I don't know when reporters started incorporating the concept of being shielded from revealing sources into their interpretation of first amendment protection, but it always smelled fishy to me.
31 posted on 07/08/2005 10:04:38 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jpl

No,MY point is when we have a liberal(Marxist) president I want whistle blowers to come forward about corruption.


32 posted on 07/08/2005 10:04:44 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: andyk
Why should freedom of the press be the only part of the First Amendment that survives.

McCain-Feingold ended freedom of political speech (excpet for members of the media), which was what the founders were most concerned about protecting. The right of free exercise of religion has become the right to be free from religion and teh right of religious people to shut the heck up.

33 posted on 07/08/2005 10:05:59 AM PDT by Montfort (President George Allen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

andk, our # 15 is absolutely correct. The left msm hates Miller, in fact some of them blame her reporting as responsible for us going to war in Iraq.

I hope many on this thread will read the following:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437951/posts


34 posted on 07/08/2005 10:06:03 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@ Cooper = I knew he'd never go to jail!.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08
wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.

Yep. And the short sighted around here just don't get it. But they will.
35 posted on 07/08/2005 10:06:05 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jpl
And frankly, I don't know where this idea ever came from that journalists are a sacred protected class that should be completely above the law and have a right to destroy people's lives.

And neither do I. In fact ethics is sorely missing in journalist of today so why should they be above the law. We saw perfect examples in the last election cycle of outright lies reported as fact.

36 posted on 07/08/2005 10:06:23 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Hillary or not I want to get info on corruption in government.Clinton tried to start investigations on conservative reporters(Gertz)he was not successful.China,China,China.
37 posted on 07/08/2005 10:07:00 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08
wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.

If they're refusing to testify based on anything other than self-incrimination protections of the 5th amendment, then I'll lock them in myself.
38 posted on 07/08/2005 10:07:29 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: msrngtp2002
This case is not about the first amendment - it's about being an accessory to a crime. What if one of them had interviewed a murderer then wrote an article all about the murder, then they refuse to reveal their "source". Same thing - they have knowledge of a leak that revealed the name of an undercover operative. That is a crime according to the US Code. Their refusal to reveal their source is the same as protecting a murderer in the example above.

Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner.

Ms Miller needs to say where she is until she gives up the criminal ... this IS NOT a First Amendment case

39 posted on 07/08/2005 10:07:40 AM PDT by tx_eggman (Does it hurt when they shear your wool off?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Always smelled fishy to me as well. Anonymous sources have become the standard instead of the exception.


40 posted on 07/08/2005 10:07:49 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
They put her in with the men?

I guess it was supposed to be a compliment, albeit a very, very odd one.
41 posted on 07/08/2005 10:08:25 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08

You are mixing apples and oranges on this thread.


42 posted on 07/08/2005 10:08:48 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Total joke! Why would anyone defend a source when that source has lifted confidentiality is what I want to know?

Ms. Miller's source doesn't really want to be outed.

Gee, wonder why?

43 posted on 07/08/2005 10:08:51 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Let's get one thing straight: she is an excellent reporter and is extremely knowledgeable about the Mideast and WMD's particularly chemical and Bio weapons.
She believed that Saddam had WMDs and has excellent sources in the Mideast, as she is usually on the money. Although she writes for the NYT her articles are usually factual and do not show a political bias.
44 posted on 07/08/2005 10:11:10 AM PDT by ozdragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08
No,MY point is when we have a liberal(Marxist) president I want whistle blowers to come forward about corruption.

Believe me, so do I. But you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone who talks to the press "off the record" is a legitimate whistleblower exposing legitimate corruption in government. Some people who talk to the press off the record are irresponsible rumormongers and conspiracy theorists, and some of them are outright liars and charlatans, and these people deserve absolutely no protection whatsoever.

45 posted on 07/08/2005 10:13:19 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
Who, in this day of Blogs is a Journalist?

I was thinking this same thing when I read this article. No one can even agree on a definition of the press (re: campaign finance reform), but the press should be shielded from revealing sources?

Unless someone can make an argument that the original meaning of "freedom of the press", as enshrined in the US Constitution, was intended to convey special protection for concealing anonymous sources, I've got no sympathy for Ms. Miller.
46 posted on 07/08/2005 10:13:38 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ozdragon

You didn't have time to read my link, so you knew all that on your own. Congratulations! Most folks just assume she's one more left-leaning msm whore.


47 posted on 07/08/2005 10:13:44 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@When Nothing Could Be Further From The Truth.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
She can feel free to claim the 5th if testifying would incriminate her, but simply being a reporter does not give her the right to refuse to testify

IMHO, it doesn't get much clearer than this.
48 posted on 07/08/2005 10:15:57 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
No. Bill Gertz had a leak who told Gertz about secret dealings with DOD,Hughes and Lorel and China.The leaker "leaked" classified material.The leaker did this because Bill Clinton was jeopardizing our national security.Clinton wanted Gertz to reveal his source.Clinton wanted to throw the Patriot who leaked,and Gertz in jail.
The Government,whether Republican or Democrat I do not trust.This happened all the time under Clinton.We must have true Patriots willing to leak when our government goes beyond the consent of the governed and endangers the people.
49 posted on 07/08/2005 10:16:02 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jpl

I do not want a judge to make that distinction.


50 posted on 07/08/2005 10:16:43 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson