Should Judith Miller go to jail?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

on edit: changed wording of question from "Does Judith Miller deserve to go to jail?"
Can't appeal to emotion here.

[dave123williams]

1. Seemingly, that stupid ho doesn't realize that...

...her first amendment rights are trumped by the courts in an investigation of Treason to the country.

She's mostly interested in protecting the sources who were using her like a shake and bake bag in the run-up to war. She, is a toad.

[Goldmund]

2. Absolutely not

This is a charade. The Chimp could at any point call a meeting of his cabinet and find out who leaked Plame's name (if he doesn't already know, that is -- which I'm sure he does). Yeah, I hate Judith Miller, and she's a PNAC whore, sure; but this is, again, not about the particular situation but about the principle. To go after journalists and not after the administration about this is absurd, IMO. She's going to jail for protecting a journalistic principle, while whoever leaked this is being protected by the Bushgang.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Thank You.

Glad it only took 2 posts. Principle is all here, or would people REALLY like expanded Patriot Act and further erosion of the constitution?

[H2O Man]

19. Could you explain

how the enforcement of a 30-year old case law expands the Patriot Act? Or how it is an erosion of the constitution? Those are two serious charges, and I am curious if they are based upon "principle" or emotion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. No. I can't.

But this is all about the climate being fostered here. And I will reiterate that we do not have all the facts here. We can't assume anyone's guilt or innocence on any matter here.

[H2O Man]

30. Not "guilt or innocence"

I am not talking about Judith Miller's guilt or innocence. I am talking about the process. You have stated that the grand jury's attempt to force her to testify furthers the Patriot Act, and may violate her constitutional protections. Can you give any evidence that would back up your assertion that the Patriot Act is involved in any way? Because if it's not, I'd think you might want to explain why you would make such a charge? Is it merely to create an "atmosphere"?

Also, in regard to the constitution, could you quote exactly what part applies specifically to Ms. Miller's case? Keep in mind that the 1st amendment has never been considered absolute. Just as there are libel and slander laws, there is federal law which have allowed a federal grand jury to force a reporter to testify under certain conditions. Again, this is not absolute ... a reporter has the right to have a judge review the specific circumstances and decide.

Judith Miller had her circumstances reviewed by a federal judge. The judge agrees with the prosecutor that Miller's position has nothing to do with protecting a government "whistle blower;" rather, she is suspected of playing a significant role in a criminal action. And keep in mind that she is also the leading suspect in another criminal action, taken under the "cover" of being a reporter.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. Nobody knows if she played a significant role in any criminal actions

you are assuming way too much. This process is all about determining facts and what crimes may or may not have been committed.

[H2O Man]

36. You continue to ignore my questions!

Can you tell us exactly what part of the Patriot Act you referred to? And explain how the constitution is threatened by the Miller case?

I'm NOT asking you for your opinion on Miller's guilt or innocence. Merely asking you to back up your statements. But you continue to avoid answering my questions.

[H2O Man]

38. Just to clarify:

In post #3, you wrote: "Principle is all here, or would people REALLY like expanded Patriot Act and further erosion of the constitution?"

From post # 28: "But this is all about the climate being fostered here."

Note that I am not asking you about Miller's guilt or innocence. I just think that if you are going to say that "Principle is all here," you might be able to back up the second part "like (the) expanded Patriot Act" and the "further erosion of the constitution." Or perhaps those are phrases that can't be backed up, and your use of them "is all about the climate being fostered here."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. Your comments would be better accepted if Miller was viewed as....

...an honest journalist. This person has been willingly used by the NeoCons to spread their particular world view. Her articles helped facilitate the widespread belief before the invasion that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. She wrote incredibly detailed articles about the Iraqi WMDs and Saddam's association with Al Qaeda.

I'm sorry, but this person is far removed from the innocent person you described in your post. She's not going to jail to protect anything but her own culpability in what amounts to treasonous acts by the NeoCon Junta.

[Goldmund]

42. That's totally unrelated.

We're talking about a specific crime, and not sending Judy Miller to jail for being a dishonest tool of the neocons. I didn't describe an "innocent person" in my post; I didn't describe a "person", but what I think should be done with the _crime_. It doesn't matter who it is. If journalists can't be allowed to protect their sources, ultimately, you will have enabled a lot more Miller-like propaganda to be published as fact.

[TahitiNut]

4. This is NOT a "Freedom of the Press" issue at all. That's a red herring.

She has, in her refusal to answer, material evidence in the commission of a serious felony. This is a felony that has likely resulted in several deaths and has potentially jeopardized the life of Ms. Plame.

This is not a "source" - since Ms. Miller didn't publish the story. Novak did. Even if it is a 'source' - how would a mass murderer who contacted some reporter on condition of anonymity be treated if (s)he were to use that reporter (and vice versa) to describe the murders?

Even more pertinently, would Judith Miller identify someone who did this if it were a Clinton administration insider?? In other words, how can it possibly be left up to the reporter's ideological leanings to determine who they'd disclose and who they wouldn't? After all, Novak recently called for the disclosure of a 'source' that was embarrassing to the Busholini Administration. Who can doubt that he'd do so?

Who can doubt the fact that the Busholini Insider chose ideological allies in the press? Why? Isn't it because the press isn't uniform in its claim of immunity?? (This claim, by the way, isn't supported in the law.)

This is a case of biased corporate presstitutes picking and choosing what "justice" to obstruct. Thus they become impediments to justice, not facilitators.

Thus, I anser 'Yes' ... and NOT because she's a PNAC/Bush enabler. I would say so no matter where her ideological allegiances were aligned.

(That wording makes your poll a "push poll" - ethically corrupt.)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. We don't know this.

We don't know that she has any material evidence here. She apparently thinks she does not.
Ideology is not part of the equation here.

[TahitiNut]

6. "She apparently thinks she does not."

When did she get appointed as Judge? The Judge gets to make that determination. The issue of materiality arises all the time - and it's always the Judge's purview to rule on it.

[bloom]

9. Why isn't Novak the one going to jail? eom

[TahitiNut]

10. We need to be patient.

When we're done being patient, we can erect the gallows. :evilgrin:

[Chelsea Patriot]

29. "there were growing trees...to make a certain movable framework"

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Good question. Read this editorial

Considering all the official distortions, half-truths and untruths that served as justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it would be the dumbest, most illogical and gravest of ironies that the one and only person facing jail time for related activities was a nongovernment entity, a newspaper reporter, no less.....

http://www.thejournalnews.com/print_newsroom/101104/11edreporter.html

[H2O Man]

23. It contradicts itself .....

The grand jury investigation is pretty obvious evidence that some others are facing jail time, hence the "only person facing jail time" bit is a purposeful misrepresentation of what is occuring.

[Dookus]

13. because Novak broke no law

it is not illegal to publish the truth.

Somebody in the government likely broke the law.

[TahitiNut]

27. Yet.

:evilgrin:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. Wrong. The law clearly states that not only is the leaker culpable for...

...revealing the name of an intelligence operative, but any journalist involved in facilitating that act is also culpable.

[TahitiNut]

37. I don't believe that's true.

Indeed, if it were true, Novak would have Fifth Amendment protections but could also be indicted merely on the basis of publication. I believe the controlling part of the USC clearly states that only the person(s) having authorized access to classified information can be prosecuted under that particular law.

[Dookus]

44. No

You are mistaken. Have you read the law?

[tinanator]

7. NO! cut your own legs off with this one

I have no idea what the ins and outs of this are, but I know that journalists have been jailed for much less, and every time it is a blow against what our media should be. Come on!!!!!!!

[mandyky]

8. Yes but not because of PNAC or chimpy's regime support

She is an accomplice in the treasonous crime of OUTTING A CIA AGENT!
As much as I believe in a free press, if the press does something like this, they deserve jail.

[H2O Man]

12. Yes.

Judith Miller is being reviewed in two distinct but related cases. Patrick Fitzgerald is the top investigator in each. The first involves the Plame incident. Miller was contacted by the White House officials who called at least five other journalists, including Bob Novak. The federal law that requires her to submit to questioning to the grand jury investigating this has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. It is a law that has been on the books for decades.

For Miller to claim that she has some constitutional protection is lame, at best. Those protections, which in federal cases can require a case-by-case analysis, are intended to protect whistle-blowers. The definition of a whistle-blower is a government worker who is sincere in wanting to expose government corruption. The two white house officials who called Miller et al to expose Plame were in no way whistle-blowers. They are criminals and traitors to our country.

In the Plame case, Fitzgerald is acting as a special prosecutor for the US DoJ after Att Gen Ashcroft recused himself.

In the second case, Fitzgerald is acting in his role as US Attorney out of Chicago. He is investigating Miller for calling a suspected terrorist front, to warn them that an FBI raid was about to occure. She seems to confuse her committing a felony with her being a reporter.

In both cases, Miller is suspected of either commiting a serious crime, or helping others in the commission of a serious crime. I would hope that DUers can see the difference between that and the concept of a free press. Also, regarding the "Patriot Act" nonsense, I would challenge anyone who believes there is a connection to tell us exactly what part of the said Patriot Act they reference, and explain how it relates to the case law going back three decades?

[Eugene]

14. I voted yes with strong reservations.

I don't like to see reporters going to jail
to protect their sources, even Judith Miller.
But the leak itself was a criminal act.
Confidentiality should not apply.

As for Judith Miller herself, she deserves
whatever she gets.

[mainer]

15. Judith Miller's nickname in the press room -- HONEST

I heard this from a former Washington Post reporter, who knows her -- and knows her colleagues at the NYT:

"The C*NT"

That's how disliked she is.

[Stephanie]

16. She should be tried for crimes against humanity

Thousands have died thanks to her "reporting."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. I don't recall congress voting based on any New York Times stories

and the "end justifies the means" attitude is dangerous.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. I guess you don't recall that the New York Times added to the overall....

...public sense that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda?

Who benefitted by the actions of the NY Times, as well as most other mainstream media outlets, to perpetuate a pack of lies that facilitated the NeoCon Junta's drive to go to war against Iraq?

[tinanator]

39. What is absolutely typical (and Im not blaming you personally)

One of the many mistakes made by people annoyed by the fascist media is to blame the typewriting monkeys pulling a check. They are not the editors and publishers and owner/operator/corporate raiders that order the stories. These crimes need to be charged against the perps not the puppets. Pay attention to the fascists behind the curtain. That alone might scare them straight. Wise up America.

[H2O Man]

40. The editors/owners of the major medias

do present serious problems as far as the news being accurately reported. However, they play no significant role in the cases involving Judith Miller.

[tinanator]

41. Is she in trouble for something she didnt actually publish?

I seem to have heard something to that effect about someone, is that her case? Thanks.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. Media is plural

and we're only talking about one case here. The Plame case.

[H2O Man]

45. Are you able to answer the questions?

About your writing about the Patriot Act and Constitution? Or should we figure that you were writing things that you are not able to back up at all?

[baldguy]

18. A reporter has an obligation to protect her source.

However, it's a MORAL obligation, not a legal one.

[H2O Man]

20. respectfully ....

to say that a reporter has a moral obligation to protect the White House officials who broke a federal law and put numerous lives at risk seems to miss the point. A person does not have a moral obligation to protect immoral behavior.

[Quinto]

22. I

I agree

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Not when that source has revealed the name of an intelligence....

...operative and/or intelligence operation. The leaker AND the journalist(s) are equally culpable, and equally prosecutable under the law.

[Quinto]

21. no

1st amend

[ldf]

24. yes

the first amendment is not for the purpose of protecting LIES that ultimately destablize our government.

she was a whore, spewing lies that she KNEW were lies, just to help prop up the bushbaby.

i hope she goes down, in flames.

[KoKo]

25. If you read Michael Kinsley (Slate) "Cult of the Source" it might give

some new thoughts on Miller and the rest of them about the "rights of journalists."

---------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-...

The Cult of the Source
Michael Kinsley

October 10, 2004

The reporters being subpoenaed over who leaked an undercover CIA operative's name and those facing actual jail time for refusing to reveal their sources are friends of mine. Or at least they were until this column. I do not want them to go to jail.

The problem is this: Should it be illegal for a government official to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent? Most reasonable people, including most reporters, would probably say yes. Lives can be at stake. But for all practical purposes, such a law (which in fact we have) is unenforceable if a government official chooses to reveal the agent's identity to a journalist, and the journalist ignores a subpoena to testify about it.

One of the farcical aspects of this investigation, conducted by a special prosecutor and costing millions of dollars, is that there is no mystery. At least half a dozen prominent people know for sure who did the leaking. Just reading the newspapers, it sure seems as if everyone in Washington thinks one of the leakers is some guy in the vice president's office named Skippy, or Snapper. Or something.

"Everyone in Washington thinks" is a good enough standard for most purposes. But not for a criminal prosecution. For that, you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the crime consists of a private conversation between two people, you need at least one of them to 'fess up. The government official is protected against self-incrimination by the 5th Amendment. If the journalist has an absolute right and an absolute duty to shield the identity of a source, both sides of the conversation are immune and prosecution is impossible.

[kodi]

26. Draft her. Send her to Iraq. Stars and Stripes needs front line reporters

.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. No, she should go to Gaza

and have to live there.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Yes, But For Another Reason

This is not a first ammendment issue! This is an issue of a reporter protecting the identify of a FELON!

There is nothing noble in maintaining the confidentiality of a criminal within gov't that has no regard for confidentiality themselves. If they did respect confidentiality, they wouldn't have outed a CIA operative.

Miller is not protecting a noble and good person blowing the whistle on gov't misdeeds. She's protecting the perpetrator of those misdeeds.

There is no first ammendment issue here at all, and it's got nothing to do with being a PNAC enabler. It's got everything to do with the difference between being a journalist and being an accomplice to a crime.
The Professor

[NewYorkerfromMass]

48. and how do we know this?

I think we're speculating.

[mike_c]

49. stop and THINK, people....

No matter what you think about Judith Miller's journalistic integrity, attacking the right of journalists to protect their sources is EXTREMELY counterproductive. A proper response might be to seek the dismissal of Miller from the NYT. An attack on the freedom of the press only carries water for the fascists.

[H2O Man]

50. I strongly disagree.

Reporters are protected from revealing the identities of "whistle-blowers." This case is about something entirely different. It is not an "attack" on journalism. It is based on case law that has been on the books for decades. I think it's a serious error to pretend that this case poses any threat to journalism and a free press. In fact, those who take the stance that Judith Miller is entitled to such a protection are the ones who are carrying water for the Bush administration. Luckily, the law is pretty clear on this, and the judge has ruled that the special prosecutor can proceed to uncover the criminal behaviors of the White House officials in question.