Jail for Judith Miller

The Washington Times ^ | July 8, 2005 | Op-Ed

[andyk]

You don't have to like newspapers -- and a lot of people don't -- to understand that the jailing of Judith Miller for keeping her word to a source is a sad day for all of us, including those who think it's a good idea to put reporters in their place.

<snip>

Forty-nine of the states, together with the District of Columbia, have laws in place to protect such sources. These laws were not enacted for the convenience of newspapers, but to buttress the guarantees of the First Amendment that are the heritage of all of us.

<snip>

Every one of us, including Judge Hogan and Prosecutor Fitzgerald, are in her debt. She is clearly the best and biggest man in this sordid episode of justice having run off the rails.

[andyk]

These laws were not enacted for the convenience of newspapers, but to buttress the guarantees of the First Amendment that are the heritage of all of us.

Wow, even the WashTimes has joined in circling the wagons. Buttress the guarantees? Sheesh.

[inkling]

If they keep putting reporters in jail, even our license plates are going to get biased.

[nairBResal]

By mistake I caught the last minute of the Lou Dobbs show and they had a picture of Miller with the caption "Day 1".

Reminded me of 1978 and an embassy situation back then.

[funkywbr]

She aint squat and she aint above the law.

[since1868]

lol

[andyk]

LOL! BTW, I know there is a plethora of articles related to this story, but I thought people might be interested in seeing the conservative WashTimes carrying Ms. Miller's water as well.

[PhiKapMom]

Maybe if the media printed the truth and quit using all these anonymous sources, I might have more sympathy for them. When a source gives the word that confidentiality is lifted, then the reporter is free to testify and if they don't, they end up in jail. Somehow the Times missed that little gem.

Also the original intent wasn't for the media to report an anonymous source as fact when a lot of time it is spin or outright lies and then have them shielded by the 1st amendment. They bear some responsibility for ethics which is seriously lacking on today's media. They also bear responsibility for insuring they have more than one source that is credible -- something else lacking today.

[Gipper08]

wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.

[mewzilla]

And calling that joint she's in a jail is a joke.

[msrngtp2002]

Reporters are NOT attorneys and have no privaledge to have knowledge of crimes and not reveal that knowledge.

This case is not about the first amendment - it's about being an accessory to a crime. What if one of them had interviewed a murderer then wrote an article all about the murder, then they refuse to reveal their "source". Same thing - they have knowledge of a leak that revealed the name of an undercover operative. That is a crime according to the US Code. Their refusal to reveal their source is the same as protecting a murderer in the example above.

I hope that she stays in jail even after the grand jury is finished.

[Gipper08]

wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.You will change your tune.I want to know about corruption in Government,If I have to go through a few lies now and then,so be it.

[Paleo Conservative]

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I have no sympathy. Maybe I would if the media wasn't abusing the system so badly. They use non-existent anonymous sources to write liberal-biased fiction and they get away with publishing classified information.

[Brilliant]

She is clearly the best and biggest man in this sordid episode of justice having run off the rails.

They put her in with the men?

[andyk]

The funny thing is that many liberals actually consider her to be a shill for the Bush administration!

[Sonar5]

That's because the moron press thinks the law is above them.

[Servant of the 9]

Reporters Shield Laws were always a bad idea, but today they are totally destructive.

Who, in this day of Blogs is a Journalist?

Damned near everyone.

The Espionage Laws are now nearly useless since anyone can now make a resonable case that they are a journalist and refuse to testify.

So9

[Spok]

Freedom of speech is supposedly not reserved to newspaper reporters but they act like it is. Now, more than ever, where journalists become political activists and use their position to support political agenda's and persecute the opposition, they must be denied a superior status which entitles them to spew 'facts' without being held responsible for their accuracy. When they abandoned the role of neutral observer they forfeited any right to argue that they are the gatekeepers of democracy.

[thoughtomator]

Equal protection of the laws means no special privileges for reporters. She can feel free to claim the 5th if testifying would incriminate her, but simply being a reporter does not give her the right to refuse to testify, when for any one of the rest of us we would be subject to the same penalty she is paying now for the same actions.

[kingu]

wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.

Conservative or liberal, it doesn't matter. If you break the law, you should go to jail. If you're using your position to protect a source who is breaking the law, you both should go to jail unless you finger who is breaking the law. I'm sick and tired of seeing reporters abuse their privileges to report on drug dealers, murderers, child rapists and even those who illegally release information that is classified.