So if a Journalist has a source who knew that a Nuke was about to blow

[trumad]

and the source knew who the person was who was going to blow the Nuke..... should the Journo reveal that source?

[cynatnite]

1. The journalist should reveal who's going to blow the nuke

hopefully, he/she calls 911 first.

[trumad]

3. OK journo wrote a piece

indicating that a nuke was about to blow according to a confidential source, and the police wanted to know who that confidential source was, should she tell?

[Walt Starr]

5. Teh journalist MUST report who gave the information

or the journalist is now a co-conspirator in the act.

All one must do to ascertain this fact is apply what happens to an attorney in an identical situaiton with a client.

[Walt Starr]

2. The journalist has just become a withness in a criminal action

and no longer can be considered to have any privelege.

Taking this to the level of attorneys, should an attorney be informed of an upcoming nuclear attack and is made privy to the knowledge of who would commit the act in conference with a client, that attorney is bound by the law to immediately report this information. There is no attorney-client privelege in this case.

[trumad]

6. So if you knew Treason ws being committed

would that mean you're a witness in a criminal action?

[Walt Starr]

7. Even if you did not know it was being committed

Miller was one of two things when whomsoever it was revealed Valerie Plame's identity to her. She was either a witnes or she was a co-conspirator.

An attorney in an identical situation where a client revealed the information would not be covered under attorney client privelege and would be required, under the law, to report the identity of the person.

An attorney in conference with Judith Miller who is made privy to the identity of the "source" would be covered under attorney-client privelege.

See how it works?

[earth mom]

4. self delete