Times' Miller, Justice Dept. at Odds Again

[hang a left]

Times' Miller, Justice Dept. at Odds Again


Wednesday October 19, 2005 8:31 AM

AP Photo NVJH105

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - New York Times reporter Judith Miller and the Justice Department are facing off once again: This time they disagree about a proposed federal law that would allow reporters to keep the identity of their sources secret.

Miller, who spent 85 days in jail this summer to avoid telling prosecutors about her sources, was promoting such a law Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In prepared testimony, she acknowledged her own stories suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were flawed by sources with wrong information. But Miller argued that ``even flawed reporters should not be jailed for protecting even flawed sources.''

Many sources with accurate information needed by the public will provide it only to reporters who promise confidentiality even before the reporter can assess the information, she claimed.

Representing the Bush administration, Chuck Rosenberg, a U.S. attorney in Texas, said in prepared testimony that the bill as drafted would seriously impede the government's ability to ``enforce the law, fight terrorism and protect the national security.''

snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5353809,00.html

[texpatriot2004]

1. NO special laws for journalists, especially when they aren't

journalists!

[Supersedeas]

6. Complete immunity to participate in coverups and political dirty tricks

[Straight Shooter]

9. No kidding. It's like a whore arguing to protect the identity of her pimp

But with Judas Miller, of course, it's at a much crasser level.

[Garbo 2004]

2. A fed shield law would not have shielded Miller. n/t

[ninkasi]

3. I think Miller knew the information was false

In Judith Miller's case, I have a hard time believing that she accepted information given by Chalabi as accurate. A good reporter should do some fact checking before publishing the kind of articles she did, which swayed the public to believe a lie. Either she's stupid or lazy, or lacks the judgment to be a reporter.

[cassiepriam]

4. or maybe she isn't a reporter.

[wordpix]

8. no respectable reporter gets one side of the story

Judy, it seems, didn't bother to consider sources who did not agree.

[Seansky]

5. she has really, really jeopardize the journalistic profession, and stained

any principle/respect the public had for them...there isn't going back, even with a shield law. A great damage in our minds has been done and that represents a great part of what makes us trust/believe in journalists and what they do.

[sofa king]

7. And just at the time when I'd like to be asking Judy about anthrax....

http://www.shundahai.org/area_12_camp_nts.htm

NEVADA TEST SITE -- In a nondescript mustard-color building that was once a military recreation hall and barbershop, the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities.

Adjacent to the pool tables, the shuffleboard and the bar stands a gleaming stainless steel cylinder, the 50-liter (53-quart) fermenter in which germs can be cultivated....

_____________

The above story was apparently published in the September 4, 2001 edition of the New York Times. Isn't it fascinating that the spoon-fed WMD press "expert" was writing about such things just a day before Mohammed Atta showed up on Jack Abramoff's boat, just a week before the September 11 attacks, just two weeks before the first anthrax letters went out, and a lifetime before anyone cared about Saddam's defunct and nonexistent weapons and programs?

Judy, you need to be doing a lot more talking and a lot less stonewalling, or you may one day find yourself researching deadly chemicals such as sodium thiopental, pavulon, and potassium chloride.

[banana republican]

12. WTF Atta on Abramoff's Boat... When did this happen..

Who reported it.. What did they know & when did they know it????

LINK!!!

LINK!!!

LINK!!!

[goforit]

10. Nice try Judith!!!.....You're such a fool !!

[madmark]

11. their may be a need for a federal shield law but god knows that

judith miller should not its standard bearer; she is the case study why their should be no such shield.