Posted on 07/11/2005 8:21:22 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The truth could very well be that Judith Miller is protecting a "source" all right─ Miller herself. She may have known the truth about Plame all along but didn't write a story because of that fact. So, instead, she passed that information on to the administration.
Under ordinary circumstances there is nothing sinister in this. Conversations take place between journalists and officials all the time. This is how the business of journalism is conducted. But when the conversations involve alleged violations of the law, as defined by the Times itself, journalists have a legal obligation to provide evidence. The paper's defense of Miller is untenable. The paper isn't protecting a source; it is protecting its own reporter's curious conduct in a special-counsel investigation that the Times brought on itself.
If this is what this case is ultimately all about, then the Times and its fellow Bush-bashers will have egg all over their faces, and they will owe the administration and the public a big apology.
In any case, under no circumstances should the Congress give the press an exemption from revealing evidence in a federal proceeding. Federal media-shield laws should not be passed to reward or justify law breaking by the press.
Let's hope that Fitzgerald stands his ground and gets to the bottom of this. Miller should remain in jail until she provides some answers. It's not too much to ask or demand from journalists who affirm the public's right to know.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
If it was Judith, who did she leak the name to ..??
ML/NJ
If they don't pay, seize their assets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.