Jail for Judith Miller

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

[fso301]

By these peoples logic, a reporter having knowledge of a crime that serves no public use has no duty to inform athorities.

[andyk]

One of her main sources was Chalabi.

[andyk]

This editorial is positively surreal.

I was surprised to see the WashTimes circle the wagons. You're right; it's amazing that they completely ignored results from the appeals process. I'd be even more amazed if Tony Blankley had his hand in this Op-Ed.

[andyk]

If they didn't have professional legal accountability they could print whatever they liked...even more than they do now.

This is a really good point. In essence, Miller's defenders would allow a reporter to libel anyone they choose, and base it on anonymous sources. In fact, this is kind of what's happening here. The Bush administration is accused of leaking this to the press - but they have no way of defending themselves.

If someone in the Bush administration did leak this, and it's found that she was in fact a deep-cover covert operator, protected by federal statute from being revealed, then the leaker should pay the price. Otherwise, it's libel against the administration.

[dinasour]

Ms. Miller's source doesn't really want to be outed.

Gee, wonder why?

But the other reporter said the source had released him. Presumably this is the same person.

She doesn't know who the source is, because she made it all up.

She can't just make up a name, because she might get it wrong and risk a perjury rap.

She can't ask the other reporter because that would probably be an obstruction of justice rap.

Enjoy your Summer, Judith

[funkywbr]

Hummm Miller, same last name as me, so she must be a Neo-Con (JEWISH Rep)!~}

[cyncooper]

You are mixing apples and grapefruit then.

Give me a break with your silly comparisons between real whistleblowing journalism and the plot that is this Wilson/Plame story.

[cyncooper]

Please see my #56. She didn't make up a source and the grand jury knows exactly who it is (plus he/she has waived the confidentiality).

[Paulus Invictus]

It was the anonymous sources from the CIA and State Dept. bureaurocrats that screwed up most attempts to get the anti-terrorist campaign underway. They did all they could via secret leaks to the leftwing media. The CIA was a major source of such information from agents, analysts and even higher ups who wanted to protect their previously erroneous assessments about Iraq, save their bailiwick and undermine the prez. Elements in the State Dept. also did their worst to mess up the Iraq situation. Proof of this was spelled out clearly in Laurie Mylroie's book, "Bush vs. the Beltway" If you haven't read it, I recommend you do. Amazon may still have it.

[mewzilla]

Presumably this is the same person.

But it ain't. Just a hunch :)

[libill]

Maybe if the media printed the truth and quit using all these anonymous sources, I might have more sympathy for them.

I agree, had her colleagues not been chasing greed and political ideology and they printed the truth then the MSM would be deserving of protections.

[McGavin999]

So, who is she protecting? Obviously it isn't Rove. Let's see if she does the honorable thing or if she let's her vultures attempt to destroy someone just because they think they can.

[McGavin999]

Sure, let them come forward, but why should they be anonymous? If you have something to say, if you want to blow the whistle, there are whistleblower laws to protect you.

This idea that the "press" has some special privilege to break the law is absurd.

[Lancey Howard]

"Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, has spent $2 million trying to find someone to indict -- "the ham sandwich" that any country prosecutor is said to be capable of indicting with one hand in his pocket -- and after two years can't supply value for the government's money. He persuaded the judge to take it out on somebody, and Judith Miller was elected."

It's not often that the Washington Times gets this sloppy. How can they presume to know WHAT it is that the Special Prosecutor and the grand jury are NOW investigating. Personally, I think it's perjury. I want some indictments.

"Judith Miller saw her duty, and she did it."

No she didn't. If her source was a Republican, she would have sung like a freakin' canary LONG ago. As a matter of fact, the reason the dying socialist "mainstream" newsrooms jumped up and down and hollered for a special prosecutor in the first place was because they were sure the leaker was a Republican. It has now dawned on them that the leaker must be one of their own (ie., a Democrat) and they have suddenly gone righteous. Screw 'em, the disgraceful hypocrites. I want the scumbag Miller to rot in prison.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

Bull. Why should the fourth estate be above the law?