Judith Miller SHOULD reveal her sources.

[LynnTheDem]

There is a very vast difference, imo, between protecting sources who reveal crimes committed, and protecting sources who COMMITTED those crimes.

One is about exposing crimes, the other is about covering up crimes.

[Brotherjohn]

1. I agree completely. Earlier, in another thread, I made an analogy:

Say an investigative reporter is working on a serial murder case. They get a lead which results in the actual murderer confessing to the brutal slaying of several children.

Should they then reveal their source? Should they be forced to legally? The killer could kill again (not to mention has already).

If the Plame leaker gets away, he/she/they could kill again as well. And I mean literally (if indirectly). The outing of Plame may very well have resulted in the deaths of operatives. We may never know, but's the possibility is exactly why such an outing is a crime.

Not to mention the potential damage to national security, and the well being of every citizen. Depending upon how much Valerie Plame's work was compromised, this act could one day result in thousands of deaths (i.e. if a terrorist group obtains a nuke in a way that her work may have been able to prevent).

[realFedUp]

2. It sure is a good opportunity to make those distinctions IMO.

[The Magistrate]

3. She Should Indeed, Ma'am

Mr. Fitzgerald is doubtless trying to prove a perjury case. He must have some evidence, or testimony from someone (Novak springs to mind), that a person in the political apparat called several reporters with the information about Ms. Plame, and a sworn statement from that person denying having done any such thing. The more testimony he can gather from persons who say, yes, I did get such a telephone call, the sounder the case for prosecution, and the greater the chance of getting a roll-over upwards to whoever directed the telephone calls be made. It is this that Ms. Miller is obstructing with her silence. It is not a question of shielding a source who has given information of value to the public interest that otherwise might remain concealed; it is a question of sheltering a criminal act of political manipulation against the public interest, and even against the national security. She has no more of a leg to stand on then does a fence asked, well, who brought you the truck-load of refrigerators...?

[HereSince1628]

4. But, we really don't know that Miller's sources committed crimes

So we have to be careful not to slip into implying that. I know that you didn't do that but the juxtaposition of your subject line and comment could lead less careful readers to think so. Rather like the Saddam 911 link that is never said but implied.

I think you are correct in the distinction you make. The very nature of pubically revealling the identity of clandestine agents is probably going to involve some sort of media. To investigate and prosecute such a crime committed by a member of the media, it is very probably going to require that someone's sources be made known.

Part of what I think is needed is that during the investigation the source be awarded some anonymity, if it turns the source has nothing useful to reveal, the source could remain unknown. But if the source has critical information to the case then some sort of immunity/whistleblower protection should be required.

[LynnTheDem]

8. By refusing to reveal her sources,

she is helping to cover up a crime, not exposing one.

If her sources are whistleblowers, not the leakers themselves, then fine, those sources should be granted full immunity & annonimity, as you posted.

If her sources are the leakers, they're possibly guilty of treason.

As Miller refuses to say which group her sources fall into, she is helping to cover up a crime.

Just imo.

[HereSince1628]

10. No doubt, Miller is obstructing a criminal investigation

Which will get her a jail sentence. I don't see her as a kind of martyr the way that the journalism/publishing industry seems to.

[Selatius]

12. If her sources are the leakers, she would be guilty of a crime

The act of passing on that kind of information to Judith Miller is a crime because it exposed an undercover agent. I believe revealing an undercover CIA agent is a felony. In such a scenario, she was there when the crime happened because she was the one the information was given to. She would then be a witness to a crime if not an accomplice herself.

[KharmaTrain]

9. I Agree...

This is a slippery slope. So many here are so anxious to get an indictment and want to string up Miller for her Chalabi message-passing operation, they're overlooking the bigger implications compelling her to testify brings.

What's missing her are any immunity deals Fitzgerald has offered or what he's tried to do to get testimony to this point. Novak seemed to indicate the investigation was far more elaborate than we suspect (and I loath to trust what this douchebag says), but I suspect we need to see how Fitzgerald plays this before we play Judge Judy here. LOL.

I've seen this man in action going against an incumbent Repugnican governor with lots of friends in high places. It took 4 years for Fitzgerald to get the goods, and next year we'll find out who the REAL George Ryan is/was. I suggest the same patience is at work here.

[LynnTheDem]

13. It's not a slippery slope.

Protecting sources who are EXPOSING crimes is good and right.

Protecting sources who COMMIT crimes is not.

If her sources were whistleblowers, telling her that X is going around revealing the ID of a covert op, then fine, she's protecting sources who EXPOSED a crime.

If her sources are the ones who were revealing Plame's covert op status, then Miller is protecting sources who COMMITTED a crime and as such, she is covering up a crime, not exposing one.

No slippery slope at all, imo.

[KlatooBNikto]

5. Considering that her "sources", such as they are ,are Chalabi,Laurie

Mylroie and John Bolton, one need not fret about looking far and wide for her vaunted "sources".This is another moment in the limelight for a pathetic and arrogant fool who turned into a cheerleader for a war based on Chalabi's lies about WMD's sending 1700 young men and women to their deaths and countless innocent Iraqi civilians to the same fate.And she is remorseless about her lies.

[bigtree]

6. There's this hysterical plea from journalists to let this stand

to keep the government from getting their noses under the tent and dismantling the protections that shielded reporters from vengeful bureaucracies bent on silencing whistleblowers and such. But I think the community should support the ruling and force the courts to recognize that this case demonstrates they know the difference between protecting those exposing corruption say, and those who, like Miller, seek to protect criminals from prosecution, or associates (the prez and co.) from potential embarassment.

[KlatooBNikto]

7. The correct term for Judith Miller is a propagandist, not a journalist.

She comes to her trade witha preset agenda and that is to demonize the Arabs as much as possible and 'fixes' her facts, like her mentor Bush,to suit this agenda.Thus ,"sources" to her mean anyone who will confirm her prejudices.Just like Tom Friedman who can always find a cab driver in Bangalore or Beijing to drive home the nonexistent benefits of globalization.

[H2O Man]

11. I agree.

We are, after all, a nation of laws. It's sad to see the administration and Judith breaking the law. And I'm surprised that some DUers support these illegal behaviors. Bad enough that the republicans are criminals and anarchists, but we are democrats, after all.

[Flubadubya]

14. Also, the laws that protect journalists and their sources...

I believe were set up to protect them from an overreaching or vindictive government. They were not set up to protect government officials from crimes such as treason!

Good lord, why don't they realize that and come clean? They aren't protecting some innocent informant... they are protecting a serious criminal.