Should we be outraged over the jailing of Judith Miller - or ecstatic??

[LynneSin]

I was reading this great article from Salon which discuss how we should be outraged bout Judith Miller's jailing since it's in violation of first amendment rights. Us progressive thinkers would be the first on board if a normally un-biased or liberal leaning report was jailed for not revealing his/her source, but the irony here is it's Judith Miller who is a mouthpiece of the right.

From Salon:

July 13, 2005 | "New York Times reporter Judith Miller is sent to jail for contempt of court, but not for writing months of front-page fiction about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," a reader in California recently wrote to Salon. "Al Capone did time in prison for tax evasion, but not for murder. I guess you have to take what you can get."

That letter, which I quote in its entirety, pretty much sums up the response so far from Salon's readers (and much of the lefty blogosphere) to our two recent news stories about Miller, who is now serving a prison sentence for refusing to identify to federal prosecutors the confidential White House source who leaked information about CIA agent Valerie Plame, wife of a former U.S. diplomat highly critical of the Bush administration.



So today's poll - should we be outraged at the violations of Judith Miller's rights to not be required to reveal her sources or grateful that she is no longer spewing her fallacies in the press

[acmavm]

1. Judith Miller is in jail for helping to cover up a crime, not expose one.

.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. This has little to do with 1st Amendment rights

That is just a right-wing smoke screen.

1. Judith defied a court order. No one is above the law.

2. Judith is not protecting a source. She is protecting herself and is involved in a lot more then just the leaking of one persons ID.

3. It is questionable if Judith can even be called a real journalist or if that is her only profession. There is some evidence/rumors that she is one of those 'dark agents' that the late David Kelly referred to the last time he spoke to her.

[bryant69]

20. Interesting

1. This is a smokescreen as well as it goes back to whether the Court Order was justifiable. If a court can force Judith Miller to give up her source thruogh a court order, doesn't all protection for sources melt away?

2. Pure speculation.

3. Also pure speculation. But interesting. The real test of whether or not someone believes in civil rights is when said rights are applied to someone you despise who is using those rights in a way you hate.

The real test of whether you believe in freedom of speech, for example, is when it is used by some neo Nazi punk to talk about how much he hates jews and blacks and hispanics.

Just a thought.

Bryant
Check ito ut --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[zoids]

3. Under normal circumstances she should not have to reveal her sources

is my vote. I believe in that right for the press. But, in this case, she's involved in an issue of national security and she needs to out her source - though we can all guess who that's going to be...

[newyawker99]

26. Hi zoids!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Kahuna]

4. Inasmuch as Miller's jailing has nothing to do with "journalism"

I think she should be punished for pretending to be a journalist when she is in reality, simply a scribe for the bush junta.

[Ganja Ninja]

5. None of the above.

We should fain outrage then secretly have a good laugh at her expense. This morning Karl Rove is busy faxing out talking points to try and save his ass. He doesn't even know she's alive.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. YOU have COMPLETELY lost the point on this issue. Allow me...

...to educate you with two items for your review:
=================================================

1. U.S. Supreme Court
BRANZBURG v. HAYES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
BRANZBURG v. HAYES ET AL., JUDGES
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY
Argued February 23, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972
<http://www.thisnation.com/library/branzburg.html>

QUOTE:

Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE WHITE, announced by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.

===================================================

2. TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
-------------------------
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences

A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

=================================

Judith Miller is protecting a person, or persons, that committed a felony by exposing Plame and her global WMD tracking network. The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that journalists must appear and testify before state or federal grand juries when required, and that they are NOT protected by the principles of freedom of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

[zoids]

7. That's what I was saying... n/t

[LynneSin]

8. This is the discussion I'm trying to invoke here

thanks for adding!

[Jacobin]

13. Thank you, Thank you and THANK YOU

The disinformation spewed on this board by uninformed people who have a knee jerk reaction to 'protecting journalists ability to obtain confidential information from sources' is a freaking RW talking point that has NO place in the facts of this case.

None, nada and zip.

Geeze, its difficult to come here for a bit of sanity and see this board mucked up with half baked 1st amendment blather, particularly when Rove is no freaking whistleblower outing government criminality, but is a participant ALONG WITH Miller in treasonous behavior.

Did I say thank you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. It's a bad law designed to protect the CIA.

And, should be repealed as inhibiting a free press.

[KittyWampus]

9. There Should Be Another Option For She Is Compelled By Law & Should

comply with demands that various appellate judges have agreed are legal.

I am not happy about the jailing of a journalist no matter how much of a Neo-Con blowing whore she turns out to have been.

[sendero]

10. None of the above...

.. there are simple and easily understood limits to a "journalist's" privacy privilege.

This particular case is a perfect example. The law is not on her side, nor should it be - she is a material witness to a criminal investigation.

[bowens43]

11. It amazes me to see so many here

in favor of trashing the spirit of the first amendment if it means scoring political points.

[Jacobin]

17. I'm stealing Media_Lies_Daily's post above to repeat here

1. U.S. Supreme Court
BRANZBURG v. HAYES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
BRANZBURG v. HAYES ET AL., JUDGES
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY
Argued February 23, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972
<http://www.thisnation.com/library/branzburg.html >

QUOTE:

Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE WHITE, announced by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.

===================================================

2. TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
-------------------------
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences

A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

=================================

Judith Miller is protecting a person, or persons, that committed a felony by exposing Plame and her global WMD tracking network. The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that journalists must appear and testify before state or federal grand juries when required, and that they are NOT protected by the principles of freedom of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment.




America became a NeoCon Dictatorship in December 2000. They've lied about EVERYTHING


There are no absolute privileges against testifying. Not for the attorney-client privilege, not for the doctor patient privilege, not for the priest-penitent privilege. There is NO absolute privilege recognized in the law anywhere.

If a bunch of sitting republican appellate judge's having reviewed the secret information presented to them in Miller's appeal can't find a privilege, WHY on EARTH do you want to manufacture one for this beast?

[RobinA]

12. Somehow I Think

that if this were, say, Joe Conason, many opinions here would be different.

[quispquake]

14. It certainly has spurred our MSM to action though hasn't it???

No matter what opinions we have on the matter...the Mainstream media has finally woken up now that one of their 'own' is in trouble...if this situation is what it takes to wake them up, then so be it...(I just hope once she's out of jail they don't go back to their previous timid ways, but I know that's a false hope...)

My feelings is that she's been a propaganda tool for the * administration, and that she is majorly responsible for thousands of deaths, so let her rot. She is not a journalist, she is a propaganda outlet...I have no sympathy for her situation.

[mmonk]

15. Covering for illegal acts by government officials

isn't what advocacy for free speech is all about.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Short term political gain is favored over the importance of a free press.

It's sad to see alleged progressives in favor of muzzling the press. Getting Rove, to embarass ShruBubbya, seems to trump the far more important ability of journalists (even lousy ones) to protect their sources.

[Jacobin]

18. Great RW talking point

Which of course ignores the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been any absolute privilege for journalists, attorneys, doctors, priests or anyone else.

Why would you create one now to protect Judith Miller in her efforts to escape conviction for crimes against this country?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. RW talking point? The left is in favor of muzzling the press?

What "crimes against this country" are you referring to? Certainly not the multitude of crimes committed by the CIA.

To hell with the CIA, Plame, and Rove.

[The Stranger]

19. She can fucking rot in prison as far as I am concerned.

With her weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons lies, though, maybe she should be transferred to Abu Ghraib.

[H2O Man]

21. Other.

There is no evidence that Judith was working in the capacity of a journalist while she was serving the Bush administration. Hence, this is not an issue involving the Bill of Rights. It's simply another criminal who is shocked that the "upper crust" of society has -- on rare occasions -- to play by the rules.

[bluedog]

22. these 2 reporters and the MSM

are responsible for the deaths of our soldiers and the Iraqi people!....They fed the lies of this administration 24/7 for months........

Had the TRUTH came out about the LIES.bush would not be in the WH now....the media and especially Miller and Cooper knew the TRUTH..they lied for party and put our country in a very dangerous situation!

[Just Me]

25. I'd be outraged if she was being tortured to extract the information.

Right now, she is getting three squares, medical care, clothing and shelter. Her isolation is punishment for covering up a crime NOT for revealing a crime. Big, huge, humongous difference. I doubt the Framers ever intended the 1st Amendment to be utilized as a shield of defense to cover up criminals acts.

[kentuck]

27. Actually, we don't know...

We don't know if she is covering for the White House or covering for a whistle-blower from the inside. My gut tells me that, with her past history of propagandizing for the illegal war and her close friendship with Chalabi, that she is covering her own ass and may end up doing more time for obstruction of justice.

[DinahMoeHum]

28. Judith Miller is a poor choice for martyr. She ain't no Amy Goodman

or Greg Palast. If this happened to THEM, THEN I'd be outraged.

As it is, I'm just disillusioned.


:shrug: