Posted on 10/18/2005 3:00:49 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
CHICAGO Lawyers want to haul New York Times reporter Judith Miller into yet another federal courthouse, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Tuesday -- but this time the subject has nothing to do with Valerie Plame.
Defense attorneys say the government should have the reporter take the stand in the case of Muhammad Salah, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was living in suburban Chicago when he was accused along with two other Palestinians of conspiring to funnel money to the Middle Eastern terrorist group Hamas. The defense wants to prevent the prosecution from using several alleged confessions in their case against Salah.
Sun-Times staff reporters Annie Sweeney and Lisa Donovan reported that a filing in U.S. District Court in Chicago by Salah's attorneys alleges that Salah was beaten, threatened with rape and forced to sit handcuffed in a painful condition during interrogations by Israeli soldiers in 1993. Salah signed several incriminating statements and spoke on an audio tape saying the confessions were true, according to the filing.
"In an odd twist, the interrogation was witnessed by embattled New York Times reporter Judith Miller, and defense attorneys suggested Monday the best way for the U.S. government to prove its case -- and prove Salah wasn't abused -- is to call the controversial journalist to the witness stand," the Sun-Times story says.
The report quoted one of Salah's attorneys, Michael E. Deutsch of Chicago, as saying the defense believes the government is going to call Miller.
In a strange bit of irony, Patrick Fitzgerald -- who as special prosecutor successfully fought to get Miller to testify before a grand jury in the Plame matter -- is the U.S. attorney prosecuting Salah in Chicago.
The newspaper said Miller could not be reached, and a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment.
But the newspaper added that in 1998, Miller told the Sun-Times "Salah did not appear to be a man under duress when questioned and that she believed his recanted statements."
That's okay, she won't remember any of who said what to whom when push comes to shove.
This "Miss Run Amok" reporter is in for time of her
life if this article is factual...I knew this had to do with more than the outing of a "KNOWN" flamboyant CIA agent.
So, the other shoe drops.
Perhaps THIS is the topic which Ms. Miller didn't want to be questioned about!!!!! Perhaps keeping this information secret was worth 80 days in jail to Judith!
Perhaps THIS is the topic which Ms. Miller didn't want to be questioned about!!!!!
Wait, couldn't she just have been forced to testify as a witness?
Here's what bothers me, if Miller went to jail to protect her source, after her source had given her clearence to testify, several times, what actually changed to make her testify? Couldn't she have gone to Libby before going to jail and say release me in the same manner you did to release me 80 days later?
Libby wasn't refusing to sign ANYTHING at any time to release her. It doesn't add up worth a tinker's damn.
Her going to jail may have been a way for her to not testify to a different grand jury set to expire during her prison visit. Remember, her subpoena was different from that of Matt Cooper. Her subpoena had two clauses; one clause for Valerie Plame and second clause for Iraqi WMD's.
She knows something...and it has NOTHING to do with an outing Plame. there is too many subplots in this whole damn charade.
I think this whole thing revolves around a MSM/dem plot to try to bring Bush down and sombody has frigged up, big time!!
/2cents
ping
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.