NY Times Judith Miller has to testify about torture session she witnessed

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-miller13.html

N.Y. Times reporter named in court filing

An alleged fund-raiser for Hamas who claims a confession he gave the Israeli government was coerced during 1993 interrogations that were observed by Judith Miller named the former New York Times reporter in court filings Monday, questioning her credibility and professionalism.

Attorneys for Muhammed Salah, of Bridgeview, said two weeks ago they wrote a letter to Miller -- also recently embroiled in the White House leak investigation involving CIA operative Valerie Plame -- asking for information about the interrogation.

Miller has refused to cooperate, said Salah's attorney, Michael E. Deutsch. snip

Salah's attorneys are trying to have his confession suppressed because of the alleged torture at the hands of Israeli authorities. In a written response, the U.S. government refers to a news reporter's "own observations" of an "interrogation session." snip

Miller's attorney could not be reached for comment Monday, and a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald refused to comment.

[Hapameli]

1. Ahhh... I just LOVE the way the universes balances out! K&R

[SpiralHawk]

2. Miller Refused to Cooperate

The NeoCon Republicans and their propaganda stooges like Miller are not interested at all in truth or justice.

[mattclearing]

16. Again?

:D

[Supersedeas]

28. cooperation with those seeking the truth is not her strong suit

[soothsayer]

3. Watching torture must be a perk for reptilians. What a bunch

of sick bastards.

[glitch]

13. of freaks.

Couldn't agree more.

[Usrename]

40. It's their version of the "White House coffees"

Remember the stink about Clinton's coffee sessions. These sicko's attend torture sessions and not a peep!

[newyawker99]

4. kick

:kick:

[Loonman]

5. Israelis torturing

Oh my...

[MountainLaurel]

6. Color me surprised

NOT!

[The Stranger]

7. Will real justice ever come for that devilish hag?

[DemonFighterLives]

8. C'mon judy, spit it out

Did you like it? Sicko!
The truth is not in her unless you put her in prison and send Bolton in to visit her.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. the question is, is she dom or sub?

On second thought, i really don't want to know. But at least we ahve an explanation for the ritzy DC hotel and apartment suites some defense contractors arranged for special administration guests and their friends.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Israeli spy Judith Miller won't admit to participating in torture?

I wonder why.

Why don't we just lock these animals up?

Larry Franklin, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Judith Miller...

These people are enemies of our country. Why can't we lock them up?

[Peace Patriot]

11. Well, the fact that we're thinking they SHOULD BE locked up means that

democracy is still alive. I don't imagine that it ever occurred to Russian dissidents during Stalin, or German Jews under Hitler, that it was possible. Germany, more likely--they DID have a democracy prior to Hitler; the Russians never did.

Which brings me to the comment about the "universe balancing out," above. Democracy, as designed by Madison and Jefferson, incorporated this "balancing out" principle as a method of government. If the president got too powerful, the Congress would balance it out. If both of them got out of line, the Supreme Court would step in. If Congress got tyrannical, the people would step in, in the case of the House, every 2 years, and force a change of course. If the "unwashed" masses got too rambunctious through their representatives in the House, the Senate would curtail them. If the "august" Senators supported the executive's foolish monstrously expensive war plans, the House could intervene and impeach the executive (thus pressuring the Senate to re-think their foolishness).

That was the plan--to incorporate a principle of the universe, and of science--into the government, so that convulsions of regicides, land wars, religious wars, barons' revolts, peasants' revolts, bloody revolutions, and all that trouble in Europe would not visit our shores. We have a peaceful revolution every 2, 4 and 6 years, by which problems are solved, grievances addressed, and stability maintained, with each powerful branch of government balancing the other out, in the meantime.

The trouble with tyranny--such as we are seeing now in our land--is that it is rigid. It resists the universal principle of balance and change. With a certain faction--the rich, the warmongers and the global corporate predators--owning everything, even the voting machines, controlling all legislation and executive action, and, soon, all court rulings, as well as controlling the news media (through corporate monopolies), and granting itself the rights to imprison, torture and execute anyone they choose--the brilliant design for incorporating change within government cannot work.

We are not in danger of tyranny. We have tyranny. The Constitution is NOT working. Madison's and Jefferson's nightmare of an out of control executive, bent on war, and all of the "checks and balances" failing, has come true.

The reason: corporations (which Jefferson was also concerned about). The solution: Step One--get control of the vote tabulation back into the public venue. The corporate privatization of our election system with the new electronic voting machines (with 'TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming, no less) should never have been allowed to happen. Now we have to work within a tyrannical system to get rid of them. But that's what we MUST do.

[Usrename]

44. Very well stated Peace Patriot

The unwashed will follow us if we lead. We must be the ones to throw off the yoke of tyranny. And all those who will not stand up against this Administration are treasonous bastards. They must be denounced. No mercy.

Heads on pikes!!!

[texpatriot2004]

22. I agree and why can't we? nm

[BuyingThyme]

10. kcik

[rman]

12. Why would a journalist be present at an interrogation in the first place?

A US journalist, present at an Israeli interrogation, no less.

[Lerkfish]

17. the answer is simple: she's no journalist, she's a planted spook

[BJW]

21. my thoughts exactly

[rman]

33. Sure, but that in itself doesn't explain why she was there,

why her presence there was arranged. Even a spook doesn't "just" end up witnessing a torture session.
I rather like BuyingThyme's explanation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5587490#5590606

[Lerkfish]

37. well...but that doesn't explain

BuyingThyme's explanation is plausible, but it overlooks why she was ordering the troops around while embedded, and threatening to have rummy coerce them when they balked. Does not sound like a kowtowed blackmail victim to me.

[rman]

39. i'm not suggesting it is blackmail

nor do i think BuyingThyme is.

To "have something on her" would be for security; just to make it harder for her to change her mind - if she would ever want to. it's pre-emptive blackmail at best.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. It's really quite simple

What she's good at, spreading misinformation to protect Bush and the neocons. To back them up and say "oh we don't torture!" Even though there is hard proof.

[Scurrilous]

23. Why was Judy present?

Someone had to hold the leash.

(photoshop courtesy of DUer dicksteele)

[BuyingThyme]

26. You probably don't know how accurate that is.

[BuyingThyme]

25. Here's your answer. READ IT!! it's important.

Before people like Judy Miller can be trusted with writing books about WMD that don't exist, or before she can take part in attacking a CIA operative, or before she can get a "security clearance" from Donald Rumsfeld, she must give her superiors a reason to trust her.

She was not present during the torture of an innocent simply because she had some time to kill or because the other torturers thought it would be appropriate to have a member of the press present. If you don't understand that, you are a fucking moron and should stop reading right now.

She was there because the people for whom she wanted to work needed to have something on her.

Because she was involved in torture -- and who knows what else -- Cheney et al can now say to her, "Look, we need you to carry the water on this Libby thing, or else your torture photos just might show up somewhere." (Oversimplification.)

This is the way it works, people.

Understand it.

You may never get this chance again.

[rman]

31. I figured it'd be something like that

Makes perfect sense in my world.

It explains why she'd rather do time then talk, why she doesn't want to testify about the torture, and why she was there.

I'd be curious to see with what explanation the MSM comes up - though i expect they'll simply avoid the issue of the reason for her presence there all together.

[BuyingThyme]

32. She is the MSM.

[rman]

34. True enough

So it's rather predictable what will happen: nothing.
Not much anyway, not nearly enough for sure.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

35. Yup, she's a "made" woman now. Once you're in, you're in for life!

[peacebird]

36. This may be true but it doesn't excuse her actions or complicity at all

If anything it makes her even more deserving of hard time. She abused the pulic trust for her own little (huge) ego-rush. To feel that SHE was somehow "important" - she through out all honor and decency.

Send HER to Abu Ghraib for permanent detention. And take Bob Novak with her.

[BuyingThyme]

38. If you took my post to mean anything less, you're mistaken.

I think this animal should be locked in a small porta-potty until she meets her maker. (I'm anti-death penalty.)

[No Exit]

41. Makes sense to me!

[FreedomAngel82]

46. Or how about she willfully goes a long?

She could like the power that she gets and all the money I'm sure. She's good at spreading misinformation and because of the NYTimes and how people are with them people thought they could trust her. When a neocon like Cheney starts quoting from the NYTimes to back them up after years of labeling them a liberal paper like it was a crime than it's time to start questioning.

[myrna minx]

14. I have to kick this one.

Well, she seems to be an omni-presence to all things immoral. What a peach. :eyes:

[donsu]

18. kicking

nt

[cantstandbush]

19. Now this should be breaking news!! WTF? A journalists does NOT have

a license to keep silent about crimes...no "source" was involved.

[Garbo 2004]

30. She wasn't exactly silent. She spoke of it in a 1996 60 Minutes interview.

See article here: http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002423.html

[David Zephyr]

20. Kick.

n/t

[Justice Is Comin]

24. Don't you wish they would have just hurried up

with those WMD plantings now JM ? :P

[BuyingThyme]

27. niaga ckik

[Garbo 2004]

29. Thread title misleading. At this point no one's forcing her to testify.

According to the article she's refused to cooperate and provide info to the defense attorneys. No mention of a subpoena that I can see or that she has refused to comply with a subpoena. Defense attorneys are seeking documents from the US Gov't and Israel about her access and the interrogation she witnessed:

Monday's court filing goes on to mention Miller's extraordinary clearance and access to the interrogations, which was arranged by the Israeli prime minister, according to court documents. Salah has asked for the government to provide written documents about what she witnessed.

"Given the suspect circumstances under which Ms. Miller was allowed to observe Mr. Salah, and given her history of being 'too close to her sources,' defendant is entitled to broad disclosure of the facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. Miller's role in Mr. Salah's interrogation," the filing reads.

Deutsch added on Monday: "We're asking for the government to get the documents from Israel which document how this reporter was given special access, allegedly, to our client. We wonder whether or not she was working with the Israeli government at that time. Why was she given this special leave to go in there?" http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-miller13.html

I recall reading about this case before and that Miller had publicly discussed it previously years ago. After googling I found that she discussed her witnessing a 1993 interrogation in 1996 on 60 Minutes. October 2005 article including transcript of 60 Minutes excerpt here: http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002423.html

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Why would anyone use her as a source?

[Tactical Progressive]

43. Embedded Torturers

Without them, how would we get a fair and balanced view of the world?