"Rather than letting an innocent journalist be imprisoned....

[whistle]

... to clear up a matter of White House misconduct, Bush should be cleaning out his administration."

That's the conclusion of this editorial. I'm not sure that Miller is so innocent, but the administration may feel more secure with Miller in jail where she can't talk.

<snip>
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

White House Leaks: A serious security matter

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

President Bush has plenty of evidence to begin acting on Karl Rove's involvement in the disclosure of a secret agent's name to exact political vengeance. The president's choice will say a lot about whether he intends to control abuses of power within what some see as one of the most power-hungry administrations the United States has ever experienced.

The president ought to be outraged that, so far, one reporter has gone to jail for acting honestly while some in his administration continue to be free of consequences for revealing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative. The leak of her name and role to Bush-friendly columnist Robert Novak in 2003 was a violation of federal law, if done deliberately.

For reasons that aren't clear but should cause great unease, Novak apparently faces no legal difficulty while New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who didn't write about the disclosure, sits in jail for rightly refusing to disclose her sources as a matter of high principle.

Bush administration officials became angry at Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, in July 2003, when he revealed that an investigative trip he made to Niger in 2002 showed that Iraq had made no effort to acquire uranium there. In a New York Times Op-Ed article, Wilson said the administration had twisted the evidence to make a case for its invasion of Iraq earlier in the year.

<more>
<link> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/232103_roved.asp

[justinsb]

1. I don't know how innocent Judith Miller is

But I am not, and have not been at all comfortable with sending a reporter to jail for refusing to reveal her source. It sets a bad precident, and may cause fear amoung future (potential) whistle blowers and investigative journalists.

[AverageJoe]

2. Judy Miller is not protecting a whistle blower

She is protecting the treasonous, despicable slime who tried to destroy a whistle blower. Let's not forget that.

[justinsb]

3. It doesn't matter, the implications are the same

The left will eventually regret cheering Miller's imprisonment.

[AverageJoe]

4. I disagree

The implications are not the same. She is NOT protecting a source. She is party to a criminal act.

But Miller is not in jail for her participation in this crime. She is in jail because she is in contempt of court. There is plenty of precedent for her incarceration.

She is so far from being noble, professional or worthwhile that it is laughable.

Let her rot in jail. Judy Miller is no journalist.

[justinsb]

5. It's already started

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4058435&mesg_id=4058435

I'm just going to assume you are anti-free press in general and stop trying to convince you.

[AverageJoe]

6. I'm a former journalist

and a former journalism teacher. I hold the profession of journalism in the highest regard. I hold the First Amendment sacred.

What free press are you referring to? The lapdog corporate media? Please.

The CPD is being chicken shit. This is the result of Judy Miller and her ilk sucking the life out of journalism.

How dare you call me anti-free press. Just who do you think you are?

[justinsb]

7. Just calling them as I see them

who do I think I am? What kind of question is that. I've as much right to my opinion of the issue and of your stand as I do to an opinion on anything else. At any rate, you are now the first person on my ignore list.

[AverageJoe]

8. Break my heart

Yes, who do you think you are? You called me anti-free press and you get in a snit because I asked who you think you are?

Damn, kid.

You are clearly one of those people who thinks only his (her?) ideas are valid. You'll grow up someday.

Of course, I'm assuming you'll never read this because you're ignoring me. Well boo hoo.

[FourStarDemocrat]

10. Yeah that was ridiculous to accuse you of that and then put you on ignore

He/she has some growing up to do...

[AverageJoe]

11. Thanks, FourStar

I didn't mean to get into a battle with that person. Sometimes things just spiral out of control, I guess.

Cheers.

[despairing optimist]

14. I'm a former journalist too, and I agree totally with you

Judy Miller is a disgrace. Her Pulitzer prize should be revoked so that it has some meaning for those who truly deserve it. When she leaves prison, she can seek employment at any local Katherine Gibbs School and teach dictation. What she does has no bearing on what can properly be called journalism, other than to degrade it by her pretentiousness and arrogance and her employer's mindless support of both.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. It is pretty simple under the law

There is no privilege which protects a journalist from testifying about her sources in federal court. Maybe there should be, but there is not. And there wasn't when Judith Miller promised to keep her source confidential, and she knew it. I would venture that the source knew it too, and if he didn't the he damn well should have. There is a big difference between confidentiality and privilege. Confidentiality is an agreement to keep a secret. Anyone can create a confidence. Your barber an keep what you say in the chair confidential if he chooses to. Privilege is created by and recognized by law and by the rules of the court. If you confess to the barber in his "confidential chair", guess what, if he is called as a witness in court he has to testify. There is no barber privilege- and no matter how much he argues about the sanctity of the barber chair and the chilling effects on barbershop gossip, there still isn't a privilege. If he chooses to ignore a valid court order to testify he is going to be in contempt, and he is probably going to jail. The barber can't create his own privilege where none exists and neither can Judith Miller.
Now you can argue that there should be a privilege, Judith Miller argued that all the way to the supreme court and lost. She lost simply because there is no constitutional or statutorily created privilege for her to claim. I would argue that even if there was such a privilege it would not cover her situation. Privileges are never absolute. If a client comes to me and tells me about something he has done, that is privileged. If he comes and tells me about something he is going to do, it is not. If he actually commits a criminal act in my presence (like say ordering a hit on his cell phone while sitting in my office)that is certainly not protected by the attorney client privilege. I can't imagine a privilege that would protect a witness from testifying about actually witnessing a crime (which the act of giving her the Plame information may have been)as opposed to simply having been told about some thing that had already occurred.
All of this "attack on the press" hand wringing is a red herring. Your concerns about the free press are valid, but in my opinion your application of those concerns to this case are not.

[Contrary1]

9. "The president ought to be outraged..."

Not. I'm convinced Bush has been in on it from the beginning.
Rove and Bush are too thick not to have been both involved.

[Rene]

12. I want to hear more about Powell bringing Plame's CIA dossier

on the plane to Africa....traveling with bushco. Would this time frame be what the Air Force One phone records that have been suppoened for?

[loudsue]

17. Bingo!

Let's see them pursue that one!

:kick:

[Gyre]

13. Judith Miller is "innocent"? That's news to me!

She's personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis by her role in advancing the cavalcade of lies that the * administration used to justify preemptive "war" on a devastated 5th rate power.

She can rot in there, but she won't. She's just fermenting a little.

Gyre

[genius]

15. The journalist committed treason, too. She's lucky she hasn't gotten

a conviction and a sentence for the maximum penalty. She at last deserves a life sentence.

[whistle]

18. Update on Dems position and take poll at this site.....

<snip>
Senators Kerry, Clinton Want Rove Fired

POSTED: 8:07 am PDT July 12, 2005
UPDATED: 12:04 pm PDT July 12, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Former presidential candidate John Kerry said Tuesday "Karl Rove ought to be fired."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., a possible 2008 presidential contender, nodded in agreement when the two appeared together on Capitol Hill.

Also Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the matter of leaking a CIA agent's identity "rises above politics and is about our national security."

Newsweek has obtained an e-mail by a Time reporter who was threatened with jail for not naming his sources in the CIA leak story. According to the e-mail, Rove told reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA.

<more>
<link> http://www.ktvu.com/news/4712869/detail.html

....take the poll:

Should Karl Rove be fired for his alleged role in leaking to the media Valerie Plame's role at the CIA?

Choice Votes Percentage of 9149 Votes

Yes, once it is proved. 3444 38%

He should be fired now. There is enough evidence. 3116 34%

No, he should not be fired. 905 10%

He should resign now. 552 6%

He should resign if allegations are proved. 1132 12%