Actually this Judith Miller arrest might work to our benefit

[still_one]

The wonderful media probably would have killed the Rove/Plame story, now they will be forced to cover it

[eleny]

1. Yeah -- Maybe we won't be subjected to her propaganda

[thebigidea]

2. notice how they've mostly avoided the entire Rove/Plame angle entirely

instead, its all about Miller protecting sources and the "chilling effect" on journalism.

[still_one]

7. yes, but because it is about the outing of a CIA agent, it can't be

avoided

Yes, they can say it is about first ammendment protection, but it then begs the question, FIRST AMMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR WHAT?

outing a CIA agent

I think because of this, the story has to be kept alive

[Last Lemming]

3. The new york times

article today was a particularly egregious example of special pleading

[Caretha]

5. Plead this Judith

:kick:

[gulliver]

4. Yup. There's an innocent woman in jail now ...

... and two senior administration officials hiding while she protects their identity. Oh, and she's a journalist.

Why is she in jail?

She's protecting the identity of a couple of guys (probably) who gave away the identity of an important United States CIA operative.

What? Who did that?

That's just it! We don't know. It's a big, big mystery.

But why would they do it?

Because her husband said that Bush was full of malarkey talking about Iraq trying to seek Uranium. The two guys hiding in the White House tried to destroy the CIA agent's career out of revenge.

Why haven't I heard about this? Does this have anything to do with those Downing Street Memos where the British say that Bush's people were trying to "fix facts" to rush us into Iraq?

Well, yeah. That's why the two traitors in the White House wanted revenge so bad. They are in big, big trouble, but a poor innocent woman is in jail, and they are just standing by and letting it happen.

Did I mention she is a journalist?

[Last Lemming]

6. Nobody's mention the Fox News spin

I saw at work--Miller had been given permission by the leaker to testify but she felt the permission was given under duress

Have seen this no where else but on Fox

[esvhicl]

8. Women who pay?!?!

OK. Let's think about it, folks.

Why is that Martha Stewart did time while Ken Lay is free? Now Judith Miller (and I'm not a fan, far from it) is jailed while Novak is free?

Is is just more of "Burn the Witch"?

We've come a long way, baby.

[thebigidea]

9. maybe you could read the 3407530750357 other threads explaining it

[still_one]

14. really, i thought it was 3407530750356 threads which explained it

[still_one]

12. no, different prosecuter

this one means business, and the administration have no control over him

miller probably works for the white house, but there are much bigger fishes to fry, and reason novak is free is because he testified, but that does NOT mean he is innocent

This isn't over

[still_one]

10. one thing will lead to another

from first ammendment rights to the outing of a CIA agent

this will keep the story alive, it won't be like the DSM

Miller probably works for the white house, and the closer they get, someone is going to talk

[DefenseLawyer]

15. She's not "innocent". She's not "guilty" either.

She's in contempt of court. This media spin that this woman is somehow a martyr for the free press is a crock. The is no journalist privilege in federal court. Maybe there ought to be but there's not. When a person is call as a witness the law requires that they testify truthfully unless that person can claim some kind of legally recognized privilege. You can't have witnesses deciding for themselves when they will tell the truth and when they won't when called to testify. Otherwise you will have the "hairdresser's privilege" (what is said in the beautyshop stays in the beautyshop) or the "really good friend privilege". Sorry. There is such a thing as the rule of law. She made her case for privilege, was afforded an appeal, and her position was found lacking. Witnesses with relevant testimony have to testify when called or they face contempt. That is why she is in jail.

[gulliver]

16. She didn't do anything!! (er, wink)

The Bush administration's people did the crime. That's undisputed. They gave away the identity of a CIA operative who was a WMD expert just to get revenge on her husband. They destroyed her career, gave away national secrets, and now they are hiding in the White House while a woman goes to jail for their crimes.

Man, it must be awful to be in a woman's prison for such a city girl. Who knows what might happen in there. I can't bear to think about it. There are some tough women in there, and fighting and what-not. What will she do?

Free Judy! Free Judy! Sweet Judy!

It's the Bush Administration's people who committed the crime! Why are they letting a woman go to prison when they know it's their fault? Man, it must be someone pretty important.

Who could it be? I can't stand not knowing who it is. It's so interesting!

[DefenseLawyer]

17. What she did was refuse to follow the law

The is not in jail for a crime, theirs or her or anyone else's. She is in jail as a sanction for being in contempt of court- Just like anyone would be who decided for themselves that they didn't have to testify when the law says that they do.

[murray hill farm]

11. anyone heard...

if Bob Woodward has made any statement on this issue? It all must seem so familiar to him!

[thebigidea]

13. it would probably sound something like this:

"ahhhhmmm drone drone drone drone ahhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm blah blah blah blah ahmmmmmmmm blah blah blah ahhhhhhmmmm blah blah blah buy my new book ahhhhhhhmmmmm blah blah blah."

all delivered three times slower than it takes to read.