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 ...
You are mixing apples and oranges on this thread.
Ms. Miller's source doesn't really want to be outed.
Gee, wonder why?
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.
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.
I do not want a judge to make that distinction.
She whipped up a lot of hysteria post-9/11 appearing on Oprah and all the TV shows. A lot of what she said about WMD turned out not to be true.
One of her main sources was Chalabi. I believe he's been largely discredited since then.
I'm glad she's sitting in prison. Reporters must talk in court just like the rest of us. If they didn't have professional legal accountability they could print whatever they liked...even more than they do now.
Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times who is Ms. Miller's boss, got it exactly right: Her decision to go to jail rather than betray a confidence
The source has signed a waiver releasing her from her promise of confidentiality. Yes, I know the reporters claim this administration coerced the waivers, but that is complete B.S.
Interesting link, thanks.
Well, I'm afraid that when a possible crime has been committed (like in this case, which is why there's a Special Prosecutor and grand jury proceedings going on), the judge is the person who is responsible for making those kinds of distinctions. That's just the way our system works.
Judith Miller's source has lifted confidentiality?
It's not clear what crime, if any, Ms. Miller committed. Indeed, it's not even clear there was a crime. She was jailed by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan because she refused to say whom she had talked to
First, it's not just Judge Hogan. There's a unanimous 3 judge Appeals Court ruling that upheld the citation and the full panel and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn it.
As to "refused to say whom she had talked to", I don't think this is correct.
The Appeals Court ruling (page 6) refers to her subpoena asking for information about a "specified government official". While the ruling omitted the name to keep it secret, I got the distinct impression the actual subpoena names the official, therefore they don't want to know "whom", they want her to discuss the substance (including what was said about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium).
What a disappointment the Washington Times is in this case. Look at this:
He persuaded the judge to take it out on somebody, and Judith Miller was elected.
Judge Hogan no doubt felt the majesty of his authority slighted, and was easily persuaded by Mr. Fitzgerald to rescue him from the tangles of what is obviously a botched investigation.
This editorial is positively surreal. Again ignoring the numerous judges who have read volumes of documents on the case---many redacted for public reading---that explained why Fitzgerald requires her testimony and more than just Judge Hogan agreed that he has demonstrated it.
The President isn't throwing reporters in jail (besides--if the lefty theory that someone in his circle is the real criminal, why would he be coercing reporters to spill the beans, hmmmmmmmmm? but I digress since it was clear from day one that the President and his supporters had done nothing wrong).
Judges (many) have looked at the evidence (which is more than the idiotic Plame name) and unanimously agreed the reporters' testimony is required in this case.
If I have to go through a few lies now and then,so be it.
I believe you when you say you are willing to accept lies.
LOL. It's called "contempt of court", the usual citation handed down when a person refuses to obey a judge's order during judicial proceedings. It couldn't possibly be more clear.
I hope you read my informative posts that will correct your base of knowledge about what the facts are.
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.