"I have a person in front of me," Judge Hogan said, "who is defying the law."...There being no federal journalist's privilege, the judge had to punish Miller, but he didn't have to say that. His effort to strip all dignity from her as she made her grand gesture backfired and made him look small.
Ms. Miller, who conducted interviews but never wrote an article about the C.I.A. operative, joins a line of journalists who have accepted jail time rather than betray their sources' confidences. That tradition, according to Judge Hogan, does not deserve respect.
"That's the child saying: 'I'm still going to take that chocolate chip cookie and eat it. I don't care,'" the judge said.
७ जुलै, २००५
Reporter Miller goes to jail; judge mouths bad metaphor.
I respect civil disobedience, defying the law for a cause. Part of it is accepting the consequences, as Judith Miller is doing. It's a very powerful image, a person going willingly to jail for a principle deeply believed in. It can work to produce a change in the law.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४१ टिप्पण्या:
This silly thing has been going on for a year and could been have being taken care of in an afternoon. This is what the courts should have done:
Have a federal grand jury subpoena all the news hacks who said they received leaks on this affair, Make they repeat their stories and make them reveal their sources. If they do not, put them in jail and fine them $100,000 a day which must be paid out of their own pockets.
Once they have given their sources, prosecute or fire those people named if they are guilty. If these news hacks were lying, send them to jail for perjury.
"....It's a very powerful image, a person going willingly to jail for a principle deeply believed in..."
So what principle is Miller espousing? Is it the principle that journalists should be above the law? That journalists should be allowed to be party to a crime... i.e., participating in the outing a CIA agent for political reasons and expecting immunity because they are a "journalist?"
The media brought this whole incident upon themselves by making a big deal about the whole issue to begin with. That is obvious to everyone but the mainstream media.
Sloanasaurus: Willingness to go to jail is submission to the law. And you know very well what the principle is.
If the principle is "protecting your anonymous source.. who may have committed a crime" Is that a principle that we should hold in high regard?
The principle is getting the news to the public, which done by the means of gaining and preserving access to sources -- all sources, not just the individual one that has become the focus of a criminal investigation.
What if that news is in itself criminal or damaging, such as the cover of a CIA agent or the stragey of a secret plan. For example, what if a person sympathetic to the opponents of a cross channel invasion decides to leak the plans for Operation Overlord to a "journalist." Would it be principled for the journalist to protect their anonymous source after the plans are leaked and the operation is compromised?
There should be some kind of nonabsolute privilege framed in a statute. Obviously, the journalists themselves are going to want an extra-broad or even absolute privilege.
I know this is a cliche argument, but would such a broad statute require that a "journalist" be defined? Would journalists then have to be "licensed" in the same way lawyers are licensed. Would that be the first step to shutting down the blogosphere.
Maybe I am getting ahead of myself!
If Judith Miller and the NY Times think this is getting them anywhere but invited to better Manhattan cocktail parties, they are mistaken.
Most don't like the media specifically for the very reasons Miller chose to go to jail: They have an entirely too high opinion of themselves and feel they're above everything; truth, country, right, wrong, and now the law.
I'm sure the martyr Miller was giddy with the prospect of dominating the headlines knowing a media so in love with itself and out of touch would make this the new Aruba, but the tragedy in London has sadly spoiled that. Now, she'll have to be content figuring out how to spend the money from the book deal about her "ordeal."
Miller is not Martin Luther King --because she's wrong. Her cause is misguided. Her principles are immoral. She's where she belongs. And her being where she belongs is more than news. It's great news. As is the case when any lawbreaker goes to jail.
You know darn well Karl Rove is sending her lots of expensive chocolates and toiletries and encouraging words and sending anonymous cash to her dependents, if she has any. You go Karl!
I'd have an easier time admiring Miller if she wasn't protecting a poweful person within a powerful adminstration whose purpose in leaking was to harm a threat to that administration's policies. But the point of the First Amendment is to protect free speech in the uncomfortable circumstances, so I suppose I have to at least support the principle of protecting sources. Still, I hate to see it perverted in this way.
I'd much rather see that hack Novak doing a frog march to jail--he printed this leak while Cooper and Miller did not. He let the press be used for harm, not to improve the flow of information to the American people.
I don't think jail is enough for Miller and it isn't enough of a deterrance. Instead they should give her jail without access to the news. NO NY TIMES FOR MILLER FOR FOUR MONTHS Four months of reading old novels and comic books should be enough to spook any journalist into testifying.
Of course she's being princpled. That's why there are state laws in something like 49 states that protect the confidentiality of journalists.
Considering the fact that we have freedom of the press, and we don't want to compromise legitimate news stories from getting to the public (can you say Watergate?) Miller is maintaining her word to ALL of her sources that she can be trusted. Who the hell is ever going to provide info to Time magazine again in a confidential manner?
And if journalists shouldn't be allowed to hold information in confidence, then please explain to me why a priest or a therapist or a lawyer should have that privilege?
Yes - she's breaking the law, but the law needs to be changed.
Has anyone here ever had, or even been within sniffing distance of a security clearance?
Classified is classified. Revealing it, regardless how you came by it, should be punished severely.
It's obvious that she knew she was revealing sensitive or classified information to the public.
Let her rot in jail.
Ann
This article proves why journalists should not given any special privileges. It mentions this about Wilson.
"Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who had recently written an opinion article in The New York Times questioning one of the rationales, concerning Iraq's weapons program, offered by the Bush administration for the Iraq war. Mr. Wilson based his criticism on a trip he had taken to Niger for the C.I.A".
No mention is made that Wilson admitted before the 9/11 commission that he lied in that opinion article. That in fact, a Nigerian leader did tell him that he was contacted by Saddam who wanted nuclear material.
There is not a profession in the world that has less ethics than the "journalist" profession. To give these scumbags any privileges is a threat to our freedom.
:...And if journalists shouldn't be allowed to hold information in confidence, then please explain to me why a priest or a therapist or a lawyer should have that privilege..."
Isn't the difference with journalists over priests, etc.. is that in the case of the journalist, the information is leaked with the purpose of the information being published for the public to view (anonymously). In the other cases, the information is given with the purpose that it NOT be given out to the public. This is a huge difference. The journalist is protecting the source, and the other professions are protecting the information.
It's obvious that she knew she was revealing sensitive or classified information to the public.
Wrong Jeff. She never revealed anything. In fact, she never even wrote an article about it.
The guy who did reveal the information, Bob Novak, is walking the streets free (as he should in my book).
Aye! That common brigands receive'th the lash
with n'er an imposition upon their flow of cash
make'th Justice but a lowly mish-mash
Lo! This defiant gala become'th naught but a drunkard's bash
-LDM
The Times and most of the MSM should be charged with sedition.
But no, in America freedom to betray your country is more important than protecting it. So, these al-Jazeera lites ramble on prolonging the war and wrap themselves in the sanctimony of a "higher cause" as they do it.
Splash of urine on a Koran = headlines for days of propaganda for the enemy. And yet...
Christ dipped in piss = Art.
These people are not on our side. And we can't throw enough of them in jail.
How come Bob Novak is not in trouble for publishing her name in the first place?
Because we keep equating journalists with "a free press."
Actually I think the Blogosphere comes closer to the ideal free press.
Downtownlad:
If she didn't reveal it, but Bob Novak did, has he said how he found out about it?
Did Miller tell Novak? Fill me in here - I'm apparently missing a few dots to connect together in this case...
She had the info, right? How did this grand jury find out she had the info?
I have no idea how the Grand Jury found out she had info. But it's irrelevant. A journalist should not have to reveal their sources.
If they DO start to reveal their sources, guess who's going to get hurt? The American people. Why? Because nobody is going to reveal confidential information to journalists anymore. And the American people will never find out about certain pieces of information anymore.
You might care not care, because you think the New York Times is liberal, and therefore everyone who works for that paper is evil. A very simplistic, childlike mentality if you ask me.
But you might care, when information about, oh, let's say a President having an affair with an intern, is no longer reported, because people are afraid to leak the info anonymously to a journalist, for fear of being exposed.
But you might care, when information about, oh, let's say a President having an affair with an intern
And such information would be classified how?
If you leak information that is classified, you should not be protected as a source since the act of you sharing the information is a crime.
(Though at the same time, I must say that it's hard to "out" someone who's posed in Vanity Fair with her husband.)
Oh, Lad relax,
We're not talking about revealing sources.
We're talking about revealing who outted a CIA agent. It's a crime.
You get the distinction, right? Cuz it's an important one.
Revealing Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky is NOT a crime. Even though Newsweek sat on that well sourced story as though it was but rushed the phony Koran flushing story.
I think you're calling the wrong people hypocrites.
#1 duty of govt is to protect it's people. People who out CIA agents should be in jail, not protected by a sanctimonius newspaper hiding behind a non-existent priviledge.
Also I would like to note that I don't think journalists should have any special privileges whatsoever. They are (and have proven themselves to be) no better and no more interested in truth than other American citizens. Any privileges extended to them must be extended to all.
The important thing is that a New York Times reporter is in jail.
What say we all take a moment from debating the why and how and just sit back and enjoy the outcome?
AHHhhhhh... Our chances of winning this war just went up a notch.
You guys don't get it. Do you think the person who leaked the info to Ms. Miller thought they were committing a crime? I doubt it.
Actions by the government such as this will stop people from leaking lots of other info, because people will no longer trust journalists. Why would I give info to a Time reporter, even if it's perfectly legal, if the Time Reporter betrayed the faith of their prior confidants.
Would you trust Time magazine to keep your identity private? If you do, you are a fool and I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Patrick - Which means that people are going to start keeping this information to themselves. Which means YOU will never find out about it.
That doesn't bother you at all? It bothers me a great deal.
Have you even paid attention to this story? Did you look at the information that Novak revealed? I think it was quite interesting. It showed that the man who supposedly revealed that there was no Yellowcake in Africa, actually could have been compromised.
That info is actually quite useful. And I, for one, am glad that info became public. I really couldn't care less if a CIA identity was revealed. Tough. That CIA operative may have compromised national security. Damn right her identity should be made public.
Unlike you, I don't trust the government to decide what information I'm allowed to read and what I can't.
But as the law stands now, a journalist's promise of confidentiality cannot be absolute, but must yield to a federal grand jury's investigation of a possible federal crime.
Bullshit. The law says nothing about what a journalist has to reveal. Of course there might be consequences for not revealing info, such as jailtime, but the government can not prevent a journalist from promising confidentiality. If a journalist promises confidentiality, then they should stand by their word. It is called a promise after all. Even if it means that the journalist has to go to jail. Bob Novak said as much in his columns, when he said that he would never compromise a source's identity. No real journalist would.
Time Magazine already has, which means they are not real journalists in my book. And that periodical will now suffer bigtime.
Judith Miller has stood by her word. She's going to have more respect than ever. And I suspect that if anyone ever has any confidential information of critical importance, she's going to be the top choice of which reporters to go to when people want to get some info public.
John: Thanks for reprinting the King quote. Let me add a link to Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." And here are some more civil disobedience links.
The question is whether there's any legal basis for treating journalists differently, and as far as I can see, there's not.
Actually, there are laws that protect journalists in 49 states. Unfortunately, there is not one at the Federal level. I think it's quite obvious to most observers that there is now a need for one.
Patrick: I'm the one that started using the expression "submission to the law" on this thread. I agree that there is a more abjectly total "submission to the law" that involves dutifully following all the officially enacted law. Some of the worst evils in the history of the world have been done in this mode. It is important for people to retain their sense of morality. That doesn't mean each person can pick and choose which laws to follow, but it does justify some civil disobedience, which is part of one very effective way to try to change the law. It involves no violence or direct harm to others. When done openly and honestly with the consequences accepted, this is a kind of submission to the law, a different kind, to be sure, but it is a valuable form of political action that history shows to be worthy of honor. We may disagree about whether protecting news sources deserves civil disobedience -- the way slavery and segregation did -- but Miller is carefully placing herself in that tradition and is not part of the forces of chaos that I abhor as much as you do.
Patrick: Thanks for agreeing with me!
Correct me if I am off base, but, hasn't everyone involved, including Novak and Rove, talked to appropriate authorities, and hasn't every individual source waived confidentiality, so why is Miller holding out?
For long term principal or immediate principle?
Kathleen B.:
Maybe Republican's desire to see Miller jailed despite her efforts on non-existent WMD shows a certain level of principle on their part, as conservatives are more concerned at getting to the bottom of this even if it might hurt the administration (which it won't, but we do want the truth).
(Did you use a "yay" back at me in the other post?... that is soooo wrong)
Bo:
While from past experience, I know Beldar is perfectly capable of deftly warding off snarkiness, I respectfully disagree that he was implying that Ms. Miller is a cruel murderer like Mr. McVeigh clearly was.
His point was that both Mr. McVeigh and Ms. Miller subjectively believed they were right in doing what they did even though, in both cases, based on objective standards, after being accorded full due process of law, the courts found they were wrong.
I do not believe you met his argument fairly, although you certainly are at least as colorful in your imagery as he is in his.
I think also that the facts do not support Ms. Miller's confidence in her position. We will know soon enough, though.
Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet)
Why, yes it's prejudiced against children, slac. However, everyone's probably trying to come up with a properly respectful response to your claim that "childish" is equally or more prejudiced and offensive than "nigger." Ignorance in its finest form, that.
I am having a problem with everyone who has a problem with this. I fail to see why "reporters" should have an absolute privilege against revealing their sources to a grand jury upon demand. Why are they different from you or me, or, for example, the blogger, such as Ann, who might have a secret source?
One obvious problem is that the definition of a "reporter" is nebulous. Is she a reporter because she worked for the NYT? Well, what about if she worked for Drudge? After all, he was the one who broke the Lewinski scandal. Well, how about bloggers? Is the requirement that they have broken a big story?
If there were a qualified federal immunity, would that have gotten her off? Apparently not, as the prosecutor has apparently shown that he can't get the information elsewhere (which, IMHO, makes sense, as who else would know who discloed the information to her?).
The other problem I see with giving her absolute immunity is that the crime apparently being pursued right now is most likely either perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, someone may have lied to the FBI, and the independant prosecutor is trying to get them.
This is why the whole idea of privilege fails here. The evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice is most likely precisely the identity of the person leaking to the reporter.
In other words, what is most likely happening right now is that the independant prosecutor has reason to believe that the leaker lied to the FBI about leaking the information. He may not know who the leaker is yet, but knows that someone lied. Or he may have reason to believe that a certain individual lied, but wants coroboration.
The other alternative, IMHO less likely, is that the leaker may be different from the Novak leaker, or the prosecutor needs to verify that they are the same person. In this case, the prosecutor needs to know whether or not the leaker broke the law by releasing classified information.
In either case though, it is likely that the prosecutor is investigating whether the actual leaker committed a crime. And by protecting her source, the reporter is potentially covering up that crime.
Those on the left here seem to be ignoring some inconvenient facts in this case, i.e.
- By now, it is probable that no crime was actually committed by the actual outing of Plame. The requirements for the potential crime of outing a CIA operative are fairly strict, and, most notably, Novak seems to be in the clear. Note also that Novak did not state that she was undercover, but rather that she was a CIA employee. Big difference.
- I should add that Novak was the one who was doing the actual investigative journalism, and got the "scoop" - that Wilson's posting was to a great extent a result of actions by his CIA employeed wife. This was a legitimate question - how could an Democratic partisan get such a sensitive posting?
- If any one originally leaked classified information, that is potentially a crime. Protecting the source of that is protecting the identity of the potential criminal. How can you prosecute this sort of crime if you can't identify the criminal? Novak and the other reporters are most likely clear here, but maybe not someone with an appropriate security clearance leaking the information.
- But most likely by now, by all indications, the investigation has moved into tying up loose ends - which in this case may include prosecuting people who lied to the FBI about disclosing information, even if it wasn't a crime to disclose it. In other words, obstruction of justice or perjury.
I don't have the time at this point to engage with all the arguments that are being raised here, but I do want to emphasize that I've never taken a position -- in all of this! -- on whether Judith Miller made the right call that this was a matter that justified civil disobedience or whether if there were a federal statutory reporter's privilege it ought to cover the situation in Miller's case. I've been speaking at a fairly high level of abstraction about the respectability of civil disobedience and the need for a federal statute. Beldar is asking questions on a different level, which I haven't taken a position on. I would have to study the problem in much more depth to want to respond to all of this.
Please look carefully at what I have said and don't simply assume -- maybe because you feel passionate about something -- that I am on the other side.
Thanks, Beldar. I meant phrase "grand gesture" ambiguously. It can be taken as riding the person for being grandiose.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा