The Plame matter

[struggle4progress]

Original publication: October 11, 2004

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 — in connection with a story that was never written and never published. It could happen, with implications beyond this war, this dispute.

A federal judge has held reporter Judith Miller in contempt of court for refusing to name her sources to prosecutors investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. The New York Times reporter published no articles about agent Valerie Plame, but that did not preclude Judge Thomas Hogan from ordering Miller jailed for as long as 18 months unless she named her sources. Hogan, who stayed the term pending appeal, noted that Miller had contemplated writing an article about Plame and conducted interviews for it.

The ruling would be novel had Miller actually written about Plame. Such bullying by government of journalists is seldom sanctioned by the courts, much less aided and abetted by the latter. The ruling is made doubly preposterous by the fact that Miller wrote nothing, while others did. The agent's cover was blown long ago, first by columnist Robert Novak — based on a tip credited to administration officials. Reporting about Plame surfaced in the context of stories concerning her husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson. In 2003, Wilson wrote a Times Op-ed article in which he criticized administration claims about pre-war Iraq's unconventional weapons. Following up, Novak and others noted Wilson's domestic link to the CIA. Under some circumstances, it is a crime to disclose the identities of agents. <snip>

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

[NMDemDist2]

1. she still has her 1st amendment rights, something else must be going

on

i agree with the editorial

the test of a patriot who loves the constitution is the willingness to protect the right of someone saying something you would spend your life screaming against

this is why i put up with freepers and get so frustrated when they don't respect my rights. This is why if the majority elects the chimp in chief for a second term i will have to bow to majority. but I reserve my right to be a vocal minority, and if that is taken away I'll look to leave the country I love

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Where does the 1st Amendment say a journalist can withhold information

that a normal citizen can be forced to give? I can't see that in there anywhere.

[hansolsen]

2. The real crime here is that the legal case will stay buried until after

the election.

[Virginian]

4. Why Miller and not Novak?

Is Novak under his jurisdiction?
I would think Novak would be under interrogation, he is the one who outed her.

[ejcastellanos]

5. Absolutely

That traitor Novak should be tried for treason.

[MADem]

6. I think this Miller thing has NOTHING to do with Plame

I think it has everything to do with CHALABI. The Plame business is just a cover to discombobulate her and go on a fishing expedition for the dirt they really want. Not that it will make any difference if weecowboy steals another selection....

[H2O Man]

7. Interesting....

It's interesting to think that someone would see the Plame investigation as part of a "cover" on the part of the investigator. I agree that Chalabi plays a role: the neocons who are behind the Plame/Niger forgeries/neocon "spy" scandal certainly are tied to Chalabi.

Miller's role in the Plame investigation is not one of a reporter. She is one of the assets that the White House intel group has secured within the media.

[KoKo]

8. A tinfoilhat theory here:

What if Miller and Novak are both "assets." And Miller lead to Novak or they both were leaked to and they decided which one would break Palme's cover?

It's very odd to me that Novak has remained "mum's the word" on this and yet every other reporter has had their newsorganization or lawyer speak for them as to subpeona's or fighting subpeona's.

I believe somewhere it was reported that Fitzgerald or one of his legal team said that Miller was the last resort.

Why isn't Novak "the last resort?" As I said, Tinfoil hat here.

[H2O Man]

9. "Last resort"

is in reference to the materiual that each specific reporter has; it means that Fitzgerald is unable to secure that information from any other source. Hence, calling Judith to testify is the last resort in securing the information that she specifically has.

Did Judith Miller play a significant role in helping the two high ranking officials decide which reporters to call? Fasciniating question. Think of it in terms of her warning the Islamic group that the FBI was going to visit them. Gosh, where did Judith get that information? Add to it the idea that she did not report on Plame herself..... and it is fair to ask exactly what role she actually did play. This is why I keep saying her role has NOTHING to do with being a reporter.

Novak is an asset in the sense that he is sympathetic to those who feed him information. He's more like the fellow that loves to but the local cops coffee, and fantasizes that he has a badge.

[RaulGroom]

11. It's ironic, but here's why it's Miller and not Novak

Novak can take five and refuse to testify - he was actually involved in leaking the name, so to admit anything, including his source, could be self-incriminating. Miller, meanwhile, can't credibly plead the fifth because she didn't do anything wrong.

[H2O Man]

12. Novak is not being investigated

and can not take the 5th before the grand jury. While most people find what he did to be revolting, it was not against the law.

[RainDog]

10. I do not understand this situation

Why Miller?

What happened to Novak? Why didn't the judge jail the person who actually gave out the information? --who absolutely knows who did this because he's the source?

I'm not saying that I think a reporter should reveal sources. I don't.

BUT, I think, in this case, there are two issues.

The first one is that Novak was used. The "source," therefore, was using a reporter to further an agenda. How is that legitimate "reporting" on Novak's part, and why should he have any reason to protect that source when the source was merely manipulating the reporter, unless Novak is complicit in the whole affair?

The second issue is the case of Miller and the other reporters, who were approached by the source but did not do the bidding of whoever it was an publish the story. In that case, they have behaved responsibly, and so why, then, in the case of Miller, is she the one targeted?

Since Miller wrote so many bogus stories about WMD based upon her "source" Chalabi (who is known as her source) and since Chalabi is also the source for the "documents" which have not been independently verified in the "oil for food" question...

I have to wonder why Miller is in this situation over Plame and why she IS NOT under greater scrutiny by HER NEWSPAPER over the way Chalabi used her.

[H2O Man]

13. It's not a matter of if we agree

with the law or not. The law is that she has to testify in front of the grand jury. There is no law that allows her to refuse the order from a federal court judge. People do not get to choose what laws are convenient for them to follow.