I hope Judy Miller does not reveal her sources

[WilliamPitt]

This conversation is buried in another thread, but I am reposting the comment and my response here. I think there ought to be one thread pleading the case for standing up for the defense of sources, no matter who they are or what they have done.

Comment: There is no confidentiality privilege and there never has been. That's a myth, and you know it. And there is no right for any journalist to reveal the name of a potential felon in the midst of a criminal investigation. That, sir, is NOT a distinction without a difference. It's a difference wider than wide.

My response:

You are correct. Journalism isn't like the legal profession. There is no American Bar Association for reporters, no long table filled with judges who decide on the merits of conduct, nor are their iron-clad codicils outlining conduct. There are the rules of whatever publication you work for, and then there are standards that have more to do with tradition than anything else.

The 'confidentiality privilege' you seem so ready to throw aside is not carved in stone as it is with doctors and patients or husbands and wives. But confidentiality is the bedrock of the profession nonetheless. If a reporter cannot protect his or her sources, that reporter is out of business and the truth is buried.

Without confidentiality, there would have been no Deep Throat, no Pentagon Papers, and none of the comments from anonymous analysts and intelligence officers in the run-up to the Iraq invasion would have come out. Walter Pincus, Greg Palast and Julian Borges would be writing pure speculation instead of hard fact.

Yes, Miller is protecting a felon or several felons. Yes, there is a difference between protecting a government whistleblower and protecting a government criminal. But I still say it is a distinction without a difference. A source is a source, and because there is no iron-clad protection or source confidentiality makes it all the more important for each and every potential violation of that confidentiality - no matter the specific circumstances - to be fought tooth and nail.

Every publication I have seen comment on this agrees with my assessment. Editor and Publisher agrees with my assessment. They are not doing so because they are colluding with Bush and his crew. They are doing so because source confidentiality is the lifeblood of the business, and it is unprotected, so every time that gets trimmed, we all lose.

Everyone here wants Bush's head on a platter, none more than me. I have spoken with Joe Wilson several times, both on and off the record. His rage over this is thunderous. But I am not willing to throw this basic requirement of journalism under the bus for him, his wife, or for anyone else.

Miller is scum, and Novak is scum. I'd like to see them both drummed out of the business forever. They are protecting people who undermined our national security and committed treason. But if they reveal their sources in this, it will be that much easier for the government to pry loose from a reporter the name of a source that is whistleblowing. Novak and Miller aren't worth that price.

Neither is Bush.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I think there's a large distinction to make here, however.

Deep Throat was not committing a felony and/or light treason by giving information to Woodward and Bernstein.

Miller and Novak's source WAS, and in their reporting of the identity of Valerie Plame, Miller and Novak are guilty of conspiracy to commit treason. That's an absolutely enormous difference you're talking about there. It's not simply confidentiality we're discussing in this case.

[WilliamPitt]

3. What it is

is a really ugly, lousy, complicated situation. Yes, treason and crime. But dammit, I cannot get past the belief that a journalist being forced to reveal a source - any source, for any reason - is a bad thing.

One thing: Unless I am wrong, Miller never reported the name of Plame. She got the phone call, but never published it. Novak was the only one to do so. If I am wrong, please cite the article where she outed Plame.

[mmonk]

7. She didn't,

she is withholding knowledge of the commission of treason. She therefore has no source to protect since she did not write about it

[democracyindanger]

10. That's where I end up on it.

She isn't protecting a "source" because she didn't report on it. She is/was not acting in the capacity of a journalist.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Jeez

Just because you don't report on what a source tells you doesn't mean that person isn't a source.

You are splitting hairs in your desire to fry Bush. I understand the desire, but I don't feel like burning down the barn in order to let the horse out.

[thinkingwoman]

37. as a recovering journalist...

I thank you for your informed and rational post and your understanding of what is at stake.

[Barad Simith]

42. Here's the difference:

If Joe Blow tells me he robbed a liquor store, and I don't turn him in to the police, I'm an accessory after the fact, and as such guilty of a crime.

But if I write an article profiling criminal activity, and Joe Blow tells me about the same robbery, he becomes a protected source.

[amazona]

47. hole in one, thanks!

I've never understood why reporters think they are above the law. If they have knowledge of crime, they need to report it to the police like everyone else. Not sit on their rear ends and claim they are protecting a "background" source or what-the-heck-ever Miller claims she was doing. She sure as **** wasn't reporting it.

[Just Me]

50. I view it as Joe Blow inviting me to help him rob the liquor store.

I refused. Should I protect Joe Blow's planning (and execution with other "journalists") the robbery? :shrug:

In these circumstances, I just don't understand the basis for protecting that source. But, she has the choice.

I wonder why she sacrificed other journalistic standards which impacted ALL our people; yet, stands like a rock on this one?

[lastliberalintexas]

83. Actually you'd still be an accessory after the fact

Journalists do not have the sort of protection of the medical or legal profession. In your example, the journalist could still be charged as an AATF, though it is unlikely that s/he would be.

[Hepburn]

88. Wrong, IMO

Take it from me that if someone tells you that he/she robbed a liquor store and you are under no duty because of your profession and/or business (i.e., not a mandated reporter), you are under NO obligation to report the crime and that does NOT make you an accessory after the fact. If you hid him/her out, for example ~ that would be one thing, but having knowledge of illegal conduct in and of itself and not revealing the same VOLUNTARILY is not a crime.

HOWEVER, if you were called to testify about the same and you refused to do so and the judge ordered you to do so, then (as with Miller and Cooper) you most likely would be found in contempt. And that is quasi-criminal in nature because you would face jail time for your disobedience of the valid court order compelling you to testify.

BTW: I am a retired atty and I have done my fair share of both state and federal criminal defense work.

[lastliberalintexas]

93. That's actually the better description

Thank you for saying that. In order to be an AATF, one typically has to engage in some conduct to actively hide the information or person who committed the crime.

[democracyindanger]

57. But that's where you're wrong.

It's not about frying Bush for me. Burning Plame's cover is a deadly serious crime. Her specialty was weapons of mass destruction, for Pete's sake. Besides, I have no expectation that this will hurt Chimpy. It'll be the same ol' "Acting on his own" bullshit.

I hold a reporter's ability to protect his sources in a high degree. For what it's worth, I've got a journalism degree, so the ins and outs don't escape me. But this is an instance where the public interest is clearly far better served with this decision.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

77. Miller was aware that a felony had been committed....just like any....

...other citizen, she is obligated by law to reveal what she knows. She cannot hide behind protecting a source in this case.

[flyarm]

96. i do not believe "frying bush" has anything to do with this

i believe putting one of our cia agents lives in jeopardy is the issue. I believe treason is the issue, i believe breaking the law for revenge for the source in commission of treason is the issue, i believe putting the cia agents contacts lives in jeopardy is the issue.
at the dem convention last summer i was at a caucus with wilson, he stated that some of valerie plames sub agents were murdered because of this treason.
and some are in prison by their governments because of the fact valerie was exposed.
without the agents we have no real homeland security, and if the agents have no contacts or sub agents, foreign agents who work with our agents, we have no security in this nation..
i will and have always believed in journalists protecting their sources, i think its really important, but when we use that to protect people or persons who would commit treason to our nation and put our nations safety in jeopardy, thats not protecting a source, thats protecting a criminal to the worst degree. thats handcuffing our cia agents or fbi agents, and muting their job, and that job is protecting our nations security.

this is not a simple crime , it is a crime of treason. and many people's lives have been put in jeopardy or worse.
Even priests can not protect a murderer by claiming immunity of the confessional.

Do we stand for sources at the cost of our national security?
right now we have a media who doesn't care about sources or truth..so where do we draw the line?
The media covers up the crimes of this administration,over and over again... and thats ok, but its not ok for the media to be held to account for someone or someones who have committed treason to our nation?? and our nations service employees, i.e. cia agents.

you can't have it both ways..
judith miller is protecting treason ..that is not acceptable.
not in my book anyway...

and i could care less about "frying bush", i care that the people who put their lives on the line daily to protect our nations security , should be free of retaliation by a corrupt administration.
today its blowing their name, tomorrow its putting them in a foreign country and blowing their cover and getting them killed for someones revenge!

that is not acceptable..not for anyones source.

[flyarm]

97. and deep throat was

not committing treason or high crimes and misdemeanors, he was protecting us from all of the above!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I can't cite anything either.

In which case, I'd have a different position for Miller than I would for Novak.

And I definitely can see where you're coming from - it's a dangerous precedent to set. Unfortunately in this case, I think it's a necessary thing. In pretty much every other case, I'd be on your side, but when the act of reporting itself is part of the crime committed, then it becomes an apples and oranges debate.

You're right though, it is very ugly, lousy, and complicated. It's a shame it's had to come to this.

[WilliamPitt]

9. It's a Hobson's Choice

but I am inclined to side with the journalist in a situation like this...and then ask her bosses to fire her ass.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. And I do respect that.

And I have nothing but respect that you're able to see the other side of this too, even if you disagree with my position (as opposed to getting pissed off and calling me every name in the book, as is wont around here.)

[Postman]

48. She belongs in jail.

She helped the Bush criminals retaliate against Joe Wilson because he was critical of their lies.

Lies that have led to the deaths of thousands.

[TruthIsAll]

73. Will, a few questions...

What if Miller was not an independent "journalist?

What if she was a plant posing as a journalist?
What if she was a government employee?
Who, as we know, never even wrote about the leak?
But who wrote about WMD?

What if she knew that revealing Plame's identity would result in the deaths of Plame contacts involved in tracking WMD?
What is the definition of treason?

Would you still side with the poser?
Would you still side with the employee?

[flyarm]

98. i think what time is doing is the right thing..

Time announced that they will release the documents to the court, that takes the reporters source out of the picture, its the responsbility of the "company" to do what Time is doing, and thats following the law, and protecting their journalist.

and its being responsible to the American people!

the fourth estate is supposed to tell the American people the truth..no matter where that leads.
but it is also the fourth estates responsibility to protect the American people from their own government. of which at this time in history they are failing miserably.

treason from the highest offices of our government i believe falls into the responsibility any media has to the constitution, and the american people.

judith was not too concerned about her sources when she lied and lied and lied us into war with her lying cheerleading. she was not concerned about her job when she was complicit of getting us into a war of lies..she can not have it both ways!
she can not now claim immunity from our laws when she was complicit in not doing her job under the constitution , and now wanting constitutional protections of our laws..

she is responsible for failing to do her job under the constitution, and for her failure thousands upon thousands have lost their lives, ..and now she wants to use the very document she crapped all over...nope..judith ..it doesn't work that way!!

[TorchTheWitch]

34. Why?

Yes, treason and crime. But dammit, I cannot get past the belief that a journalist being forced to reveal a source - any source, for any reason - is a bad thing.

Why should journalists be able to protect criminals? Even attorneys and doctors don't have absolute confidentiality rights in all situations... why should journalists?

If whoever committed the CRIME of leaking Valerie Plame to the journalists had NO expectation that the journalists could not be legally compelled to reveal who they were (as the dumbass SHOULD have, since that's the law), they wouldn't have been compelled to commit the CRIME in the first place. The criminal's misguided belief that the journalists could have legally refused to reveal who they were was no doubt WHY they went ahead and committed the crime.

None of this is anything new. Journalists have not had absolute confidentiality rights in all situations any more then attorneys or doctors. No precedent is being set here. In fact, should the court have ruled that Miller and Cooper COULD keep their source(s) protected in this situation, that WOULD have set a precedent... and a dangerous one... it would have given a clear signal to this administration that even under the law, THEY are exempt from facing the consequences of their actions.

[lastliberalintexas]

85. Exactly!

That kind of ruling would have given "journalists" of all kinds, types and credentialing MORE protection than attorneys! Conversations that X had with Jeff Gannon more protected than conversations that X had with her/his attorney. :crazy:

[flyarm]

100. exactly , well said!! n/t

[retnavyliberal]

65. Will, I usually agree with you ....

and I am not sure I disagree in this case. The thing that keeps running through my mind is this. Medical and Mental health Professionals have patient confidentiality, however, if they find out that a crime is about to be committed, they are required to report it. I do not know for sure what the rules are for a crime already committed. Even Lawyers (no slight to our legal friends) have a similar exception I believe. In this case, the crime was actually the discussion in question. Yes, it is a very sticky situation, but shouldn't there be a point where moral issues override principle?

[lastliberalintexas]

86. You are correct

As an attorney, I would have had an obligation to report this person's plans for the commission of a crime. The only time that my conversations are privileged is when the crime has already been committed.

So whether it's a government official or Joe Blow, if someone comes to me and says I'm about to do X, and X is a crime, then I actually have an obligation under Bar rules to report it to the appropriate authority. In fact, I could even be sanctioned for not reporting one's intent to commit a crime.

If a psychiatrist feels that a patient is about to harm someone, they also have an obligation to report it, but do not have to report past acts like an attorney. And most states have laws which require doctors and other health care workers to report child abuse by one of their patients or their patient's parent/guardian *even if* that abuse was in the past.

There is no absolute privilege for any profession.

[Hepburn]

90. I am also an atty...

...and I agree with your statement. As an atty, if a client comes to me and tells he that he/she has done something, then that is a privileged conversation. However, as to both a crime or a fraud which is to take place in the future, the privilege falls for the most part. I would not have any obligation to report the same under the Rules of Professional Conduct in the jurisdiction where I am licensed, but if called to testify as to the conversation about the future plans for a crime/fraud and ordered to do so by a judge, the atty-client privilege is NOT grounds for a refusal to comply with the court order.

[merh]

67. Guess that silly judge is just being an activist judge

and doesn't know more about the facts than you do? :shrug:

Go figure.

[flyarm]

103. our forefathers put into the constitution

the fourth estate as a balance against the government..to protect the people <from> the government.
not to cover up for the government , or crimes commmited by the government against the very citizens the media is compelled by the constitution to protect. the media is supposed to be the watch dog for the people!

and todays media fails in every way as we fall deeper and deeper into a police state.

no media person should be protecting a government source from crimes of treason to the people!

thats our constitution, and thats the constitutional obligation of the media! the fourth estate.

be the watch dog of the government if you are media..do not protect the government against her people!

[merh]

106. Exactly!

And how dare they hide behind their "ethical standards" when thay have been violating those ethical obligations for the past 5 years now. Their refusal to report the truth, their protection of the administration, their refusal to investigate, their reporting of the WH spin and lies, all are ethical violations.

Legal precedence mandates that there is no right to the protection of this "source".

[mmonk]

4. If journalists

protect crimes committed by our administration under this guise and become part of the act, then a free press serves no purpose in the public interest. I agree with your position.

[Warpy]

15. Exactly. Deep Throat was exposing a crime

as most anonymous sources, whistle blowers and the like. Whoever gave the information about Plame to journalists was COMMITTING the crime, and that is why journalistic privilege shouldn't apply here.

Nofacts has already talked. They're looking for corroborating witnesses at this point. Miller has little to gain by protecting her White House informant. She's so tainted now that even access won't be easy for her to get.

I'm usually standing firmly on the right of a journalist to protect a source, but not in this case. I wouldn't want them protecting serial killers or grand scale thieves, either.

Miller will be damned lucky if she and her right wing gasbag friends aren't all charged as accessories.

[Hepburn]

92. The difference as I see it is...

...that in Plame, the exposing of the name of the covert operative is the crime and this is in contrast to the covering up of a crime as found in Watergate.

So, if a WH source attempts to use a journalist to perpetrate the crime ~ i.e., the publishing of the name of the covert agent, Plame ~ then that is not merely a source about a crime which has taken place, but the use of the journalist as a tool to perpetuate the crime. And IF the journalist knew at the time of giving out the information that it was a crime to do so, then the journalist is guilty of the crime as well. ("Res geste" issue here.)

To me, that is VERY different from the situation of Watergate when the info was leaked by Deep Throat. The crimes had been committed and were on-going and Deep Throat by revealing this was not participating in the crime itself, but exposing it to journalists who were investigating the same.

Big difference, IMO.

[roguevalley]

70. Miller in prison is good. She goes for one thing when it should be

for inciting war with lies and disgracing her profession to the core. I will get her in prison anyway I can. Bitch.

[Goldmund]

2. Amen.

I agree completely.

[Dover]

5. Agreed. That is the linchpin, and it would be an even greater loss

than the information that Novak/Miller are withholding. It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation this time.

It is unfortunate that so many investigative journalists these days take their info directly from the White House spin machine, with few real questions. And unfortunately, the White House also has the cover of this rule should they wish to become more covert in their manipulations of the press. But they would really win the battle if the confidentiality agreement was breached.

[stickdog]

52. How so? Whistleblowing is already protected by law.

Furthermore, haven't all the suspected sources signed waivers of confidentiality? And if not, why not?

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. Thank you Mr. Pitt

I am glad I am not the only one who recognizes the problem here.

Protecting a free press--like protecting free speech is just too important.

There are two positons one can take on a free press--you are for it or against it..

[shraby]

20. Isn't Miller's problem the fact

that she is suspected of calling and alerting a group that was going to be raided because they had funded terrorists. She won't turn over her telephone records that Fitz needs.
Cooper's problem is Valerie Plame.

I understand the desire to keep journalists sources confidential, but using the law that is in place covering sources who are law breakers will not be making any more chinks in the rules protecting journalists. To my mind, by keeping the source of the Valerie Plame leaker confidential, that makes the jounalist an accomplice to the crime of outing a NOC. Sorry Will, but I respectfully disagree with you.

[stickdog]

53. We don't have a free press. We have corporate shills using "source

confidentiality" to protect administration insider felons.

[flyarm]

104. but laws do not protect journalists from protecting sources

who are committing crimes..period!

[Lexingtonian]

11. be that as it may

I have no trouble with Judith Miller spending a few months in the slammer.

I see this as a hockey game; you do enough high sticking, you spend time in the penalty box. Likewise with journalistic crimes of arrogance, careerism, and conscience.

[Just Me]

27. Yeah. Too bad she is selective about journalistic principles.

:shrug:

Of course, she should protect her sources. To me, that's a given. However, I have difficulty feeling bad about her having to live in a jail for while 'cause she sold us out during the build-up to an unlawful war. That betrayal has nothing to do with the situation underlying her being threatened with imprisonment. I know.

However, if she goes forward and reveals her sources, in my mind, she has NO commitment to journalistic principles.

Besides, it's hard for me to believe that the feds have no other means of acquiring the evidence they need to proceed on the Plame matter.

[cynatnite]

12. More public distrust of the media?

I understand the need to keep sources' names anonymous, but I still couldn't get past the fact that Miller and Novak enabled a traiter by outing Plame. It's still a crime in my eyes and they should be punished.

I do agree that this does open up the potential to force journalists to name whistleblowers and other sources for their stories.

There's been a lot of play about the sources of journalists. The Newsweek article about desecrating the Koran is one that comes to mind. Anonymous sources seem to be under attack and it's getting to the point that I sometimes question their validity.

The public doesn't trust the media like it used to.

[H2O Man]

16. The law that requires her to testify

has been in place for quite some time. It has not caused the sky to come falling down, nor has it pulled the rug out from under us.

I think that weasals like Miller and Novak, through their gross behaviors, pose far more of a threat to a respected and high quality media than the grand jury investigation.

I also am under the impression that at least one of the suspected leakers has said that it is okay for journalists to discuss their contacts with him.

However, although I disagree with you on this, I think that this thread is valuable, in that it promotes a serious discussion of the issues involveds. And, while I think you are wrong on this, I have a good deal of respect for your opinion in general, and hope the debate continues.

[H2O Man]

56. PS:

You might want to take a closer look at the events surrounding the Pentagon Papers. I'm not sure that this is an example that you want to include as supporting your beliefs. Think that one over.

[kittenpants]

17. I certainly HOPE she reveals her source... it is the right thing to do

morally speaking. Revealing the source in this case helps in the prosecution of a more serious crime. However, I'm torn about whether or not she should be prosecuted for NOT revealing her source. Like you, I don't want to see the slippery slope of prosecuting journalist, etc... but she is also aiding in concealing a potetntially treasonous crime by not speaking out! And then the emotional part of me just doesn't like her because she's such a pompous, psuedo-intellectual right-wing schill.

[sendero]

18. People are always..

... talking about doctor-patient confidentiality. But what is it?

If a doctor knows of criminal activity, he has to keep it secret because of "doctor patient confidentiality"?

A say bullshit and anyone who says otherwise needs to provide a link.

Knowledge of criminal activity trumps everything, the only exception being lawyers and it is my understanding that even that is not true in every case.

As for this "journalism" issue, keeping a source of information secret is one thing, aiding in the commission of a crime is another. People who cannot see the difference, well, what can I say.

[lastliberalintexas]

87. That depends on the nature of the relationship

If a patient goes to the ER and tells the doctor how he got that gunshot wound in connection with obtaining treatment, the conversation is verly likely protected. If a patient tells a psychiatrist that s/he committed a crime in the past, that conversation is also privileged.

However, if a patient or client tells any doctor or lawyer that s/he is about to commit a crime, then the privilege does not apply and the doctor or lawyer could be compelled to testify. And as I posted elsewhere, because of specific statutes in most if not all states, doctors are forced to report child abuse of a patient or by a patient even if the abuse already occurred.

Sorry I don't have a link, that's just well settled law that any first year law student should know.

[sendero]

101. Allow me to turn the question around..

.... let's say I go into a doctor's office and he determines that, based on his examination or whatever I tell him, that I'm doing or did something illegal.

You say that a "conversation is privileged" but that seems to imply that law enforcement cannot COMPEL the good doctor to talk.

Does that mean if the doctor talks voluntarily the s/he has committed a crime?

Also, you seem to imply that a conversation in a hospital ER is privileged. But don't hospitals routinely report suspicious injuries like that to LE?

[a_random_joel]

19. I disagree.

Let us look at the meaning of the word "source."

Source implies someone who reveals useful information to the press for public consumption, and often does so on a confidential basis to avoid embarrassment or accountability.

In this particular case, we have a situation where the "source" did not reveal information for the greater good, but rather for purely partisan and malignant intent.

Further, how many times has this Admin used confidential "sources" to spread misinformation to the public, and members of the press lap it up and disseminate it like good little puppies.

ACCOUNTABILITY and the responsibility of a good journalist to parse the information revealed in terms of truth and intent are necessary.

And that is why I could give a rat's a$$ about poor little Judy or any other crappy journalist that doesn't seem to know what real journalism is about.

Will, no disrespect intended, but there is an elite Washington press corps that you will likely never be a part of, at least during the tenure of this Administration. As long as the players keep on letting themselves get played... the principles behind your position (which I feel does have merit in a very general sense) are moot.

And one last thing. This Administration is about total and complete control. You think we really have a free press? (At least in terms of the mainstream press?)

You argue about principles of journalism while all of our other beloved principles are flushed down the toilet?

[BamaBecky]

49. I agree, even though the "issue as a whole" bears deep study

and possible legislative protections...........EXCEPT in the case of a federal crime.....such as this......ESPECIALLY since this might possibly INVOLVE a Vice-President OR President or an aid.
Bama

[BamaBecky]

81. This is an excellent distinction of the point!

Click on this link:

This is an excellent distinction of the point!

[Walt Starr]

21. In most cases, I'd probably agree with you, Will. This is not one.

Deep Throat did not commit a crime by the act of giving the information.

Whomsoever revelaed Valerie Plame's identity to Judith Miller, however, was committing a crime by that very act. Miller was no longer a journalist at that point in time. She became one of two things:

1) A witness to a crime.
2) A co-conspirator in a crime.

Even attorneys do not have such privelege. If an attorney, in conference with a client, is made privy to a crime that is to be committed or becomes a witness to a crime being committed by their client during that conference, there is no attorney-client privelege.

This is how John Gotti's attorney ended up being indicted , prosecuted, and convicted. He attempted to hide behind attorney-client privelege when no such privelege existed for the actions he was made privy to.

The same holds true for spirtual advisors as well.

Priveleged communications is not a bar to a requirement for testimony when one witnesses a crime. That is why Ms. Miller either should go to prison or cut a deal and reveal her source. The source committed a crime by becoming her source, not informing about a crime after the fact. The act of giving the information was the crime.

[scottxyz]

61. I think Walt Starr nailed it

"If an attorney, in conference with a client, is made privy to a crime that is to be committed or becomes a witness to a crime being committed by their client during that conference, there is no attorney-client privelege."

It's one thing to be TOLD about a crime. That's protected.

It's another thing to WITNESS the crime itself. That's not protected.

[flyarm]

105. absolutely walt star!!!

judith miller became a co conspirator < to > the crime!! she knew whoever was her source was committing a crime, and she allowed it.

[CWebster]

22. What should the price be ?

"They are protecting people who undermined our national security and committed treason."

[kevsand]

23. I normally agree with you, but not this time.

I don't think anyone, journalist or lawyer or priest or doctor or spouse, has the right to conceal a crime. I think that is the primary distinction between this and protecting whistle-blowers.

Besides which, I also don't believe there either is or should be any constitutional right to anonymous accusations. Even whistle-blowers must speak publicly at some point. The right to face one's accusers trumps everything else, or else we're back to the star chamber and the inquisition.

Anonymity is not an inherent component of the right to free speech; it is, in fact, the exact opposite, and is only necessary when that right no longer exists.

[DinahMoeHum]

24. I reluctantly agree, but I insist on saying that Miller is no martyr

for integrity in journalism. She has an awful lot of 'splainin' to do for her previous whore jobs for the NYT with regard to WMDs (or lack thereof) in Iraq.

Aw fuck it, I need a margarita.


:evilfrown:

[a_random_joel]

25. One other thing about Miller...

Doesn't the fact that she did NOT actually write a story on Plame mean that she COULD reveal her source? Technically, because she never wrote the story, are they actually considered a source?

[robertpaulsen]

26. ATTN WILL & EVERYONE: SCOTUS SET THE PRECEDENT IN 1972!!!

I've posted this multiple times on several threads. I'm going to keep posting this until DUers get the message.

This is from John Dean:

Finally, if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over — despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-sources6feb06,0,6080347.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Hope that clarifies the difference between Deep Throat and Deep Shit Miller.

[im10ashus]

31. That clears it up for me.

Thanks!

[Dover]

59. Question: so what if they are forced to hand over the info, and it

reveals that Bolton (just for example) was responsible. What then?
What laws is he exposed to and WHO will enforce it?

BTW that ruling DOES seem to clear up this issue, so what IS the issue? Can Will answer to this?

[robertpaulsen]

110. Bolton is a good question.

It's possible he may be subject to obstruction of justice charges at the least.

Who will enforce it? Fitzgerald would prosecute after he indicts would be my understanding.

We're trying to explore some of these issues on this thread:

Regarding Plame: Some time ago a group of du'ers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3988991

[scottxyz]

62. "No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. " -SCOTUS

This is an excellent clarification.

It wasn't a violation of the law to hear info from Deep Throat.

It IS a violation of the law to be made privy to classified information.

This is the difference here. Revealing Plame's identity isn't whistleblowing ABOUT a crime. Revealing Plame's identity IS itself a crime.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. Excellent! Thank you very much!

[lonestarnot]

28. She's a repuke... she'll spill the beans! Wait and see!

[Pithlet]

29. I don't know where I stand on this issue.

I've read arguments from both sides, and both sides make sense. Journalists must be able to protect their sources if we're going to have a free press. But, I don't necessarily know if this is a case of a journalist protecting her source, of if it's a case of a journalist protecting a criminal. But, I understand the point that it we don't want to make it easier for the government to pry loose information from a reporter. I just don't know.

[H2O Man]

30. There are complex issues involved.

It would be interesting to hear Mr. Pitt explain how this ruling, which follows a precedent set in 1972, has affected the free press. I'm not sure that a person could make a serious case that it would make the "Deep Throat" would not have come forward, considering the timeline.

[merh]

66. I doubt you will get an answer.

:shrug: These journalists cannot violate their ethical obligation every day and then hide behind them when it is convenient.

[H2O Man]

71. I had also asked

Mr. Pitt to reconsider using the Pentagon Papers as an example of something that wouldn't have happened under these circumstances. I am not sure, of course, but I have a suspicion that Will did not come up with that example on his own. The circumstances surrounding the documents known popularly as the Pentagon Papers do not support the claim .... quite the opposite, actually. Likewise, the Branzburg decision actually occured in 1972, which isn't "post-Watergate" for the sake of the comparison. I would, if I were taking Will's position, take the stance that Watergate involved special circumstances; yet those special circumstances, though complicated, might not signify that the Supreme Court's 1972 decision poses any danger to good journalism.

[Jersey Devil]

32. a lawyer-client privilege is NOT analogous when a crime taking place

I don't understand your reference to the attorney-client privilege. Certainly what a client tells a lawyer about crimes he HAS COMMITTED is absolutely privileged. However, there is no privilege if a client tells a lawyer that he is in the process of committing a crime or will commit a crime in the future. Under those circumstances a lawyer is duty bound to report it to the appropriate authorities.

The source was in the middle of the commission of a crime when making the leak to the reporter.

[kevsand]

41. Actually, even the admission of past crimes to a lawyer

requires a change in the plea and how the case is defended, I think. Unless I'm mistaken, it is considered unethical for an attorney to enter a plea which denies the act if the client has admitted it, even in confidence.

[redacted]

33. Will Pitt, why the all or nothing thinking?

I am sorry, in most cases I agree with you Will Pitt.

But all or nothing thinking about issues like these is not helpful.

You have a right to free speech, but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

Judith Miller's rights ends where Valerie Plames' begins -- and I view her outing as just as dangerous and ruthless as a violent crime.

Also I think intent plays a role here as well. It's not as if Judith Miller was doing an investigation and happened upon this information. As I understand it she picked up the phone and someone gave her the info. Someone whose intent was felonious. Valerie Plame was the victim. This was not a role in some investigative report -- this was the ruthless and intentional use of the media to harm someone, and Miller should have turned around and immediately reported it to the authorities rather than have allowed herself to be used in that way.

Miller in this case was not a journalist receiving information from a source -- she was a witness to a crime and Novak was a party to that crime.

Just because a reporter has to reveal in some situations -- does not erode all of his rights -- or even take us down some slippery slope.

Sorry gotta disagree on this one -- reporters do not deserve that kind of privilege. No one does.

[donheld]

35. I have to agree

as much as i dislike Miller, and Cooper, and what they've done. A journalist must be able to protect sources. That is at the very heart of journalism. Sources will never come forward if they are going to be exposed by the journalists who cover their stories.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Gotta agree with you on this one, Will. Reporters deal with felons

every day in D.C. AKA "unindicted politicians" who casually break laws, take bribes, offer bribes, and thumb their noses at us while begging us for money.

I'd rather see the government close down than the press. I do believe that Tom Jefferson said something to that effect.

[mitchtv]

38. I agree, I hope she doesn't talk, different reason

I want to see her cool her heels in the slammer. There are victims here however and she owes something. Journalist, she's not. I don't know about the other dude.

[genieroze]

39. I agree with you on this, my husband and myself are at odds in this.

I don't think they should have to reveal their sources but being that lives were ruined or put in harms way they are responsible for those lives. They could have chosen not to report what could put people in danger and being that it was reported by them, they are liable IMHO. They should go to jail for the crime they committed, they are the ones who outed Plume, I don't care who their source was. Lets take this example. If I have a police friend who tells me they are going to raid another friend of mine and I notify my friend so the raid becomes useless. I promise the police friend I won't say anything, shouldn't I be the one facing an obstruction of justice charge if I choose not to reveal my source. I could have chosen not to say anything.

[spanone]

40. I agree entirely. Deep Throat would never have happend otherwise.

They would have killed Deep Throat. This is really a catch-22 for those that want to see the leakers in the White House exposed. I believe the White House knows this. An absolutely fucking genius way to have the 'liberals' wanting to 'out' news sources. Of course, once this precedent is set the press and the people who rely on whistleblowers are fucked.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Not So

The concept can be VERY narrow. A reporter's privilege to retain the confidentiality of sources is sacrosanct if the information reveals WRONGDOING and violation of the public trust by people within gov't.

If the reporter is maintaining the privilege to protect the lawbreaker, the privilege is revoked.

Nice and narrow. Doesn't chill the whistleblower. Just chills the politically opportunistic criminals.
The Professor

[underseasurveyor]

43. *Yes* Thank You for that.

And for saying much cleaner and more concisely than I ever could. I said it before and I'll say it again, protecting a source is protecting a source is protecting a source damn it and no matter what or who is doing the protecting even as frustrating as it can be sometimes and forcing that trust to be breeched will cut much deeper than many realize, apparently. The pendulum swings both ways and a single knife can just as easily kill the wielder as well as the foe.

[tsuki]

45. I agree with you, Will. This is the leakiest Grand Jury that I have

ever seen. I question the motives of the special prosecutor. Two years, and the only ones going to jail are the reporters.

I have helped investigate two political grand juries in my area. They were poison. And I see many of the same abuses from this one.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. "Leakiest Grand Jury" that you've ever seen?? What about the....

...Grand Juries in the Whitewater and Paula Jones cases? They were FAR worse than anything I've seen before or since.

The prosecutor in this case is being very methodical and thorough...let's see how it all turns out before questioning his motives.

[KlatooBNikto]

46. Fortunately for the prosecutors, Judy has only three sources:

Chalabi, Laurie Mylroie and John Bolton.

[stickdog]

54. LOL. Too true. (nt)

[stickdog]

51. So source confidentiality trumps even CIA agent confidentiality?

If source confidentiality is the "lifeblood" of the journalism business, isn't agent confidentiality the lifeblood of the federal intelligence business?

[EnfantTerrible]

55. Mr. Pitt, while I respect your writing and opinion

I have to disagree with your reasoning in this instance. As has already been noted above by several posters, Novak and his source committed a crime. Treason, to be specific. To draw a parallel to Deep Throat is to tarnish his deed and legitimize Novak's.

If Miller were to disclose the source, journalism would benefit. Here's why I think so:

To allow criminals to hide behind confidentiality automatically reduces journalists, and their credibility, to that of a criminal. Journalistic integrity will suffer more from upholding this traditional standard, as will the standard itself, if journalists become a loophole for criminals.
By naming the source, a distinction is drawn between confidentialty and conspiracy. Journalists and their sources will benefit from this distinction in the public's trust that journalism is about the truth and integrity.

Protecting a criminal, and more importantly treasonous, act does more damage than good.

[DearAbby]

58. Both Journalists are guilty, accessory after the fact.

ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It is like in the book "A Time to Kill"

In the story the lawyer was warned by the "future" defendent that he intended to kill those that brutally raped "his" young daughter...was the lawyer morally obliged to report the conversation, especially after the crime was committed?


When he remained silent, he then himself, an accessory after the fact, and should have taken responsiblity for his part of the crime?

[lastliberalintexas]

91. Actually in that case he was an accessory BEFORE the fact

A Time to Kill is a very good example of when the attorney-client privilege would likely be broken by the court, since the attorney was told of the crime prior to its commission. The attorney could be charged as an AABTF and sanctioned by the Bar for not reporting that conversation to law enforcement, since he had an ethical obligation to do so.

[scottxyz]

60. The very act of revealing the info to the reporter was the crime...

...and for this reason, the source of the info in this case does not enjoy any protection.

It's one thing to reveal information ABOUT a crime. It's another thing when the REVEALING itself IS the crime. That's what we have here. A felon can confess something (something they did earlier) to a reporter - that would be protected. The revelation is separate from the crime in that case. That's not what we have here. In this case, the revelation IS the crime.

It's illegal to reveal a CIA agent's identity. To anyone. Even to a reporter.

Let's take another example. Suppose the country were about to launch an attack - and the date and time of the attack are classified secret information. Suppose someone in the Administration knows the date and time of the attack, and (for whatever crazy reason) wants to foil the attack - so they reveal the date and time of the attack to a reporter. This isn't whistleblowing, this isn't revealing information about a crime - this is revealing a state secret, and the holder of that state secret is bound by law NOT TO REVEAL THAT STATE SECRET TO ANYONE.

Or suppose some traitor in the intel community wanted to reveal secret cryptography codes. If they revealed them to an average citizen, this would clearly be a crime. If they revealed them to a reporter, it would STILL be a crime, and the reporter would be a witness (and possibly a co-conspirator, depending on what the reporter decides to do with the information. If they turn the original revealer in, then they're just a witness. If they publish the info, they're a co-conspirator. If they just sit on the info, they're still a witness to a crime - and possibly liable for some kind of coverup.)

What this comes down to is that even with the First Amendment, certain speech acts are ILLEGAL - revealing an agent's identity, revealing secret codes, or revealing other classified info. (We could imagine a future where some industry has managed to lobby to pass a law making it illegal to blow the whistle on crimes committed in that industry. Then a blowing the whistle on a crime, or reporting on it, would technically be illegal - but we would probably tend to regart that as civil disobedience, and would make a case for the law prohibiting the whistleblowing to be struck down. But I don't think anyone in this case is claiming that it's some noble act of civil disobedience to out a covert investigator of WMD networks!)

We need to back up and remember that there is a PURPOSE behind laws and rules. The reason we have freedom of speech, for example, is not because it's cool to let everyone have their say - it's because we have found that in a free marketplace of ideas, the best ideas tend to bubble up to the top.

Same with the rule about reporters protecting their sources. There is a reason for this rule - to encourage people to reveal secret things to reporters.

However, we DON'T want to encourage people to reveal state secrets to reporters. That wasn't the purpose of the rule. The purpose of the rule was to encourage whistleblowers to expose crimes - not to encourage traitors to COMMIT crimes.

The Plame outing is a classic example of the Rovian "double bind" - like when he spread rumors that McCain had fathered a black child, or when he tries to depict a male opponent as effeminate or gay (using subtle code words, of course). McCain wanted to deny the rumor about fathering the black child - but didn't want to look racist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Male Dems attacked by Rove want to deny the rumors - but don't want to look anti-women or homophobic. Rove is very clever. (Not that I'm saying I know Rove did this. It just looks like his style, that's all.)

So in this Rovian double bind, someone commits a crime by revealing a state secret - but they very cleverly reveal it to a REPORTER, hoping that will confuse the hell out of people - and probably also hoping to damage the normally useful journalistic confidentiality privilege - very Rovian this whole thing. Reporters don't have to reveal their sources - so presto! Some people will argue that the name of the perpetrator of this crime has to be kept secret, because they played to role of "source" to a "journalist". (Whether Miller or Novak are even "journalists" is another question altogether. I would regard them merely as propagandists, but that's just my opinion.)

But like I said, sources are protected when they reveal information ABOUT a crime. They're not protected when the REVEALING ITSELF is a crime. It's important to keep this distinction in mind.

By the way, I just want to add that this is the FIRST time I've ever disagreed with WillPitt. I have always been impressed by his writing and commitment - I'm a big fan! I understand that as a reporter, Will wants to ensure that sources have an easy time revealing anything they want to reporters. But I still think that has to be limited to things which they are LEGALLY ALLOWED to reveal - not classified information.

[stevedeshazer]

63. You are right

Let's see...

First Amendment?

or

A short-term smackdown of a couple of phony journalists without credibility?

Twenty years, twenty decades, seven generations out?

I'll take the Bill of Rights, thanks you very much.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

69. Is there a reason

for the snarkiness?

I offered an opinion. I'm not sure where the personal attacks come from.

[kcass1954]

68. I've been wrestling with this one, and I agree with you Will.

I know we're all chomping at the bit for an indictment of someone in this administration. We've witnessed lies, mistakes, lies, deception, more lies, etc., and we're tired of being treated like we're idiots.

But we've also been griping about the erosion of our rights and the lack of a free press that's willing to actually investigate and report. Regardless of what you think of them as journalists, Miller and Cooper have shown more balls than most of the rest of the corporate media by keeping their mouths shut and thumbing their noses at this administration and the sham of an investigation. My hat's off to both of them for that. And to their credit, NYTimes and Time have thus far backed them in that effort.

This is one of those "slipperly slopes", and I don't think I want to start down this one. I want journalists to be able to investigate and report as they see fit without fear of reprisal, and if that involves keeping a confidential source anonymous, then so be it.

The real outrage should be directed at this investigation, and why Novak hasn't been treated in the same manner as Miller/Cooper. "Bob, could you tell us your source?" "Nope, sorry." "Okay, we'll go after someone else." I know, I know, IOKIYAR. But regardless of who investigated the Plame outing and who actually wrote a story about it, the fact remains that Novak is the one who printed her name. It's painfully obvious that he knows the source, and yet, he's not been called on the carpet for it.

Why are we asking Miller and Cooper to roll?

[warrior1]

72. Read the Left Coaster

I'm in agreement with him or her.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

Judy’s Turn to Cry

Wonder what odds Vegas is giving for Judy and Cooper to stand on their principles behind prison bars? 1,000 to one still wouldn’t entice me to take that bet.

This case has always seemed so simple and straightforward to this layperson that I was both surprised and perplexed by the amount of support Miller and Cooper got from the left. If a journalist talked to a person who disclosed that he or she had assisted McVeigh in the OKC bombing should that journalist not be compelled to testify as to what she or he knows? What if she or he met with OBL in that secret cave? It’s not difficult to see the difference between protecting a whistleblower and a criminal suspect. Both whistleblowers and the investigative journalists that they confide in should appreciate that a crime may be committed in the whistle blowing process and that time may come with the crime. That’s why Daniel Ellsberg stands out as the true patriot of the Nixon years -- he shared with the country what he knew and we didn’t and needed to know about the Vietnam War without regard to the personal price he might have to pay. Felt demonstrated how much our democracy depends on whistleblowers, but Ellsberg demonstrated how a real man does it.

snip

[H2O Man]

75. Great!

Thanks for posting that powerful piece. It's very impressive.

I was surprised Will would mention the Pentagon Papers as supporting his stance. The situation was quite the opposite, I think, and is a powerful example that stands out in favor of those who support the effort to impose consequences on those who want to cover-up the identity of the people who leaked Plame's identity.

We should also note that the "Deep Throat" issue is a bit different, too. Felt knew that he was suspected as the source of many leaks .... and not just to W & B. Yet he had an insurance card he could play: the administration didn't dare to try to crush him, because he could expose many of their secrets. So, while he was a "whistle-blower" by definition, he was involved from a different level, and really does not make a good example to support Will's stance when examined closely.

[H2O Man]

78. TIME

The morning news (MSNBC) reported that TIME released a statement this morning that says they are going to release documents to Fitzgerald. I think this is a good thing. I'm hoping that Cooper will cooperate with the investigation.

[alarimer]

79. I agree with you

This whole situation bothers me. I feel that if Miller and Cooper end up in jail or reveal their source, investigative journalism (not that there is a hell of a lot of that going on anymore) will no longer exist.

I think some people are being hypocritical in calling for the head of Judith Miller. If these were liberal journalists going to jail to protect a source, most people here would agree with you, Will. But since they are not, they figure let them fry. I don't particularly like the fact that a CIA agent was outed but the fact was that Valerie Plame was not on some deep cover assignment when this happened; she was working at a desk job so was probably not in any real danger at all.

[coeur_de_lion]

80. respectfully disagree . . . .

Judith Miller deliberately broke the law and tried to pretend that the reason was protecting a valued source. Now I know you can see the difference between protecting a whistleblower and protecting a criminal. We never had to have this discussion over Watergate and Deep Throat because Felt was a whistleblower and he exposed criminals. He wasn't protecting them.

All Miller has done is delay justice in the Plame case. That is pretty much all she wanted to do. Notice that Mark Felt was not prosecuted for his Deep Throat revelations. Because he was a whistleblower and what he did was the right thing. The Supreme Court didn't go after Woodward and the Post to reveal their source. Because what they did was not a crime.

I'm not worried about this case affecting future whistleblowers. I would have worried if the decision made it okay to protect criminals from prosecution of treason.

[H2O Man]

89. But you are an anarchist ....

who has long advocated the breaking of all laws.

[coeur_de_lion]

107. look mister I don't want any trouble . . . . .

And we both know who the real anarchist is here. I'm just sayin'.

:hi:

[H2O Man]

108. It's you ....

Always causing innocent people to go astray ......

[merh]

111. Check out this snippet of an article posted in GD Politics

flpoljunkie
Thu Jun-30-05 05:04 PM

Very interesting comment from Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, Plame case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063000205_pf.html

Fitzgerald declined to comment, but in court papers unsealed yesterday he said the case remains unchanged and focuses on potentially serious criminal misconduct.

Fitzgerald urged the judge to jail the reporters as soon as possible and to start enforcing a $1,000-per-day penalty he had levied against Time.

"We shouldn't enable people to think court orders are optional," Fitzgerald said. "When President Nixon got the order to turn over the tapes, he didn't say, 'Let me think about my alternatives.' " "This case is not about a whistle-blower," Fitzgerald added. "It's about potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1898358

:hi: Very interesting comment, don't you think!

[H2O Man]

113. Oh, that's nice!

Did you see RP posted the old Plame Threads, #1-20, on a thread by Shraby? Kind of fun to read through them a year later.

[merh]

114. No, I'll have to go look.

I bet that is a kick in the pants. :rofl:

We had some times with those. Weren't there like 26 threads? :shrug:
I lost count.

"protecting a potential whistleblower"

So was she going to come clean with NO WMD intelligence and they slammed her? :shrug:

[coeur_de_lion]

115. see here young man

It isn't I who go around leading people astray. Astray?? This from the Pied Piper of the infamous Plame threads? I am always the innocent bystander when I stand next to you, brother.

If you are not careful I'll alert Martha as to your most recent shenanigans. Hoodlum.

[lastliberalintexas]

82. And you're incredibly wrong

This was not Watergate. This was not even a low level whistleblower source trying to reveal improper spending at the local MUD.

This was a source or sources, also employees of the government, who conspired with at least one reporter to commit a crime. By revealing the source or even receiving this information, the reporters engaged in a criminal conspiracy. It is very well settled law that the co-conspirators do not even have to know each other or understand how their actions and activities add up to a crime. In other words, the right hand doesn't even have to know what the left hand is doing in order for there to be a criminal conspiracy.

There is absolutely no privilege, whether journalistic, medical or legal, for protection of the parties engaged in criminal conduct. If the source had come to me and advised me that he was about to leak the information, I would be obligated to testify against my client and break attorney-client privilege. Only if the source had come to me after the leak would our conversations be protected.

So I'll even give you that journalists deserve some degree of protection for their sources. But just as an attorney would have to testify in this matter despite the sacred trust between counsel and client, so should any journalist.

These people were not blowing the whistle on government corruption or criminal activity. They were committing a crime themselves, and therein lies the difference. Not to mention the message that they were sending to any others considering criticizing the administration or future whistleblowers of this or other administrations.


What you're instead arguing is that if Deepthroat had gone to Woodward and Berstein *BEFORE* the Watergate breakin and told them of the Nixon administration's plans to commit a crime, that those conversations should be protected. And they are not in ANY profession.

[dogday]

84. I believe in Journalistic Private Sources As long

as they don't involve a crime, any time a crime is committed, no one should have a pass. Otherwise, for whistle-blowers, etc, I still believe no one should make them reveal their sources....

[dogindia]

94. can anyone tell me why Novak is not going to jail?

ty

[H2O Man]

95. Sure.

He didn't break the law. Though we all find his publishing the story with Plame in it distasteful, it wasn't illegal.

[Swamp Rat]

112. Yep

The lizards know what THEY are doing.

[dogday]

99. Judith's argument does not hold water.

She said "She believes in the Public's right to know". Valerie Plame's identity was not for public consumption, it was confidential top seceret....

[Pithlet]

102. I'm starting to lean your way on this issue

As much as I want to see her in jail, what if she is forced to reveal what she knows. Then, someone who knows something about the Bush administration and had planned on coming forward may decide not to, because it wouldn't be worth the risk of coming forward, having the journalist you leak to turn you over. As much as I want to see her pay, I'm not sure if it is worth the price. The distinction that her source is a criminal doesn't matter, because the right won't make that distinction. Too many of them think being a liberal is a traitor as it is, so their reasoning would be much the same as those who want to see Miller forced to talk, even if it isn't factually the case. It won't matter to them.

Thanks for posting, Will. It isn't easy to post an opinion that isn't popular here. But your post made me think, and made me realize it isn't as cut and dry as some think. It made me think of the consequences of forcing Miller to reveal her source, criminal though they may be.

[GoBlue]

109. Ah the old slippery slope argument...

and the hypocrisy it breeds. Journalists, lawyers, politicians all think the world should bow to their version of what is TRUE. Even when it is not.