Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judith Miller is Going to Jail >

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:11 AM
Original message
Judith Miller is Going to Jail >

Unless the Supreme Court intervenes...


_______________________________________

Appeals court rejects reporters' appeal
Time, New York Times seek Supreme Court review

From Terry Frieden
CNN
Tuesday, April 19, 2005 Posted: 10:17 PM EDT (0217 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The full federal appeals court in Washington Tuesday rejected a request from two journalists facing possible jail sentences who had asked the court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel.

Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times had asked the entire appeals court to hear their contempt case, after they refused to divulge their sources to the prosecutor investigating another reporter's leak of the name of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency operative.

Cooper and Miller could face up to 18 months in jail for failing to reveal their confidential sources to a federal grand jury.

"We are disappointed with the court's decision, and we will seek a stay in order to have sufficient time to seek U.S. Supreme Court review," New York Times spokesman Toby Usnik said. <more at link>

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/19/reporters.appeal/index.html?section=cnn_latest

_______________________________________




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. This pisses me off to the extreme . . . Cooper and Miller get information
DON'T publish it and they are prosecuted for not revealing their sources. Novakula gets information, publishes it and is ignored completely.

What a load of horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. It's a legal strategy to get more charges against the leaker
Novak has already talked. The case can't proceed until this issue of the other two reporters is resolved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. frankly the press created this, and they deserve it
the irony is that novak remains untouched

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
3. And where is Bob Novak?
Rove will spin this as Miller outed Plame and that is why she is going to jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. NOVAK SHOULD BE GOING TO JAIL! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. no, Guantanamo Bay. He's a terrorist threat, (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I'm thinking Novak sang like a canary
or was able to invoke some special CIA get out of jail free card as it's long been rumored Novak is really a CIA agent himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's been discussed that Novak sang
Edited on Wed Apr-20-05 09:34 AM by Stephanie
It's understood in DC that Novak talked - from court papers filed by Fitzgerald, and I remember a discussion on the Newshour where the reporter bluntly stated that Novak talked and everyone knew it.

*edited* I said Novak filed papers when I meant Fitzgerald...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. so what's next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. now that's interesting. So if he sang, why hasn't anyone been charged?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Because Fitzgerald wants better charges against the leaker
Which he can get if the other reporters will testify that he leaked to them too. At least that is what we think is happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. One witness is not enough
They need more than one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. No, the TRAITOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE should be going to jail
Whoever revealed Valerie Plame's name and destroyed her network for George Bush's political gain is the one who should be going to jail. While I have no sympathy for Novak, he didn't commit the crime, he just wrote about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. I agree. but I still wanna see novak get locked up too. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
10. One More Step
Before Judith wears prison stripes, and the thinking is that the supremes won't touch this. Bout time this headed for resolution, Miller & Cooper have been jerking the system around for way too long. Miller may finally learn that being the mouthpiece for the neos can come back to bite you in the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
11. Good
They did not publish the illegal leak so therefore they have no sources to protect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. But They May
Just because they didn't write about it doesn't mean they weren't the recipients of the leak from the source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. But if it's not published,
then they have no source to protect. They just have knowledge of someone who committed a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. My Take As Well
They are claiming to be protecting the rights of the press in the abstract. But, if they didn't publish, then the source isn't their's to protect.

In reality, Judy is protecting her precious job and the inside sources she's cultivated and is refusing to acknowledge she's protecting the perpetrator of a felony.

There's no excuse for not turning over the name. Part of her charter is to get the information out in the open for the people of this country. Not one part of her job includes protecting lawbreakers. She's afraid that if she drops dime, she'll lose her other sources. But, if they're all crooks, then she should drop dime on all of them, do the right thing, and get new sources. Preferably the new sources won't be political hacks who commit felonies for their own gain.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. We May Be Splitting Hairs Here
But as I understand it, just revealing the name of an undercover agent is a crime and if you have been involved, say as the unwitting recipient of stolen jewels, the grand jury can compel you to testify as to who committed the crime. And that direct knowledge may add to additional counts being added to the indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Correct, they are protecting perps, not sources
We need whistleblowers for the press to function. Deep Throat, depending on who he or she was, might have broken some laws, or violated attorney-client privilege, to talk to Woodward and Bernstein. But if so, it was to serve the greater social good - revealing corruption at the highest levels.

What we don't need is willful perpetrators like those who seem to have been behind the Plame leak. What social purpose was served by outing a CIA agent? Here, the sources seem to have served not the social good or the functioning of democracy, but a personal vendetta - punishing former Ambassador Wilson by putting his wife in danger. And it's not just Valerie Plame who was placed in jeopardy: It's all those whom she protected in her service as a CIA agent.

The sources' disclosure was the crime here, and that is exactly what is being investigated. The sources didn't report a crime by speaking out - they committed one by talking to reporters. So protecting the disclosure, protects the crime.


Meanwhile, it's worth noting, too, that the journalists who published Plame's CIA agent identity may well have committed the same crime as their sources (unless there is a First Amendment exception to the criminal law). Their choice to publish the information also arguably aided and abetted their sources' crimes (again, possibly subject to a First Amendment exception).

With all this criminal activity either marring or virtually replacing the reporter-source relationship, where's the First Amendment value in all this?


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040820.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
18. Why did Miller choose this moment to develop journalistic ethics?
Very strange...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. She has not changed at all
She is a loyal servant to her neo-cons masters. And she's getting burned by them again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
23. Well, she belongs in jail for working with the OSP to invade
IraqNam on a false premise, so I'll take her jail time as right punishment for the wrong crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC