Posted on 10/01/2005 6:23:23 AM PDT by Maria S
WASHINGTON -- Accuracy in Media (AIM) said today that Judith Miller's release from jail in the CIA leak investigation demonstrates that her claim about protecting sources was fraudulent from the start.
"Miller has decided to cooperate with a grand jury investigation of possible criminal activity in the CIA leak case," said AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid. "This proves that her decision to go to jail, rather than testify, was a ploy all along."
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
While Mrs' Miller's stunt was just that, protecting sources in a free press is an absolute necessity, and the shield law should remain.
And, Libby gave per permission to quote him over one year ago.
Consider the source. AIM is not exactly a paragon of trustworthiness.
Of course it was a ploy. Remember all the 'whispering' around DC that the source was the great liberal boogyman Karl Rove? The media speculation was SO out-of-hand that members of congress were calling for President Bush to have him resign.
All of this, of course, without merit as it turns out.
My paranoia tells me that she hoped that Congressional pressure would get to a point where Rove, in the interest of ending the bad press on the President, would step aside.
I'm aware of that, but my point was the calling for the removal of the federal shield to protect media sources is a BAD idea.
Although the need to protect sources may arise in the course of normal events, the idea should be applied selectively. A "protected" source with an agenda turns the idea of an open and free press on its head.
Well, the shield never was "absolute," so it can't be absolutely necessary. And there is no serious proposal to absolutely remove it either.
Serious discussions about -any- shield (preservation of confidentiality) law involve balancing a need for criminal prosecution and fact finding with the priviledge of confidentiality.
The whole thing was a crock of crap dreamed up to make the administration look bad.
I agree, I guess that's why she went to jail. A judge said sorry the shield law does not protect you. Testify or go to jail.
I disagree.
If a journalist prints something witout revealing a source, this runs counter to an open society. In our legal system, you cannot be accused of a crime without your accuser stepping forward. In our journalistic system, you cannot print lies about someone (libel). To print a story, implying that someone may have broken the law, but havign no source to back upthe claim goes against these principles.
In the spirit of compromise, I would suggest this: a journalist should be forced to reveal notes and sources to a judge. The judge may decide if the source needs protection. An undercover CIA operative in Syria? The source may remain secret. Howard Dean spreading lies about Republicans? Publish his name.
These decisions should not be left to the journalists or editors. The Free Press is not free to make up lies, nor to play favorites.
Miller went to jail, with her liberal boss's fully complicit encouragement, to artificially pump up the story for dramatic effect in an outrageously cynical attempt to embarrass the Bush administration. Note that Miller waited until after the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita stories had died down, and after John Roberts had been confirmed as Chief Justice of SCOTUS but before Bush had named O'Connor's replacement.
Miller and her bosses planned her jailbreak for a relatively quiet time when the noise of its notoriety would not be drowned out by competing stories.
I really hope this backfires on the Democrats.
---- But, a bigger issue in this case is the basis of criminality. If a possibly treasonous act is being committed ...if the leaking of a purported secret agent is endangering her life and damaging national security; How is it that the 'leaker' could be guilty of a crime and not the journalist that exposes the name to the world? ----
BINGO!!!
Miller was in jail for refusing to testify. It's not against the law to receive confidential information.
I imagine her time in "jail" was not typical.
Most likely, she had TV, access to the internet, a computer, and plenty of time to start working on her book.
For some reason, I doubt she was breaking rocks on a chain gang, which she should have been.
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.