Judith Miller launches blog

(via Gawker)

http://www.judithmiller.org/


I, swag, admit to being conflicted about Judith Miller, given her loathsome stenographic (or complicit) "reporting" in the run-up to the war and her apparent coziness with Cheney's inner circle, yet her incarceration for standing by a journalistic principle/right/responsibility on the other hand (and I'm conflicted about whether to be conflicted on this).

And now this:


blurb from E&P

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000969588

NEW YORK On the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Judith Miller's appeal of a contempt-of-court order for refusing to name a confidential source, The New York Times reporter launched her own Web site, www.judithmiller.org, which she contends will help her publicize the case.

"It is supposed to call attention to the case," Miller told E&P Tuesday morning via cell phone as she was rushing to the office. "I put it up starting yesterday. It will help bring attention to the case and the issues that the case raises."

Web designer Joshua Tanzer, who is operating the site for Miller pro bono, said it might even became home to a jail-based blog of sorts if Miller is put behind bars. "Part of the plan if she is in jail is to write about what she is going through," Tanzer told E&P. Miller said she had not considered such an idea, but added, "anything's possible."

. . .

especially when you are part of the crime

Please lay out your treason case against Judith Miller.

As my post said, I am conflicted. Any evidence that you have that Judith Miller committed treason would be welcomed.

Thanks in advance.

impersonating a journalist

http://www.cursor.org.nyud.net:8090/images/iheartchalabi.jpg

I was hoping it would be another "ad-nags"

Judith fueled the fire for war and many have suffered becasue of it.

She'll be inconvenienced, others are dead.

She is a pit bull.

American Advertising Supplement media didn't do much better than she did, and they are barely doing better today.

It's time for her to obey the law and follow the order of the court.

she`s a paid writer for the bush whitehouse.it`s not following the money this time,it`s following content.

to Iraq from the ability of Reporters to get leaks from people and not have to tell the government.

If the leaks are scared off, we are f@#ked in ever getting a US Deep Throat or even just leaks to let us know what is really going on in the Bush Administration.

If reporters are scared to report information and people are afraid to say critical things about the Administration on the record then all of our news is going to be the BS spin the Administration spews.

...of one or more intelligence operatives is not only morally wrong, it is LEGALLY wrong.

To get inside information on what was said during a secret White House meeting, a meeting that discussed the means necessary to fashion public opinion and intelligence around an illegal plan to invade and occupy another sovereign nation, is excellent journalism and for the public good. Revealing THAT kind of information is NOT against the law.

Novak.

...field operative and thereby revealing/endangering the lives of her entire global network?

That is a felony. Period. She deserves as much jail time as can be given to her. I'm just sorry that it's not a capital offense suitable for public execution.

Protecting a valid source is one thing...what she did was reprehensible.

And as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't merit the privilege of communicating with the outside world while she's in prison.

of an undercover CIA operative?

If so, many of us would like to have that information.

Do tell!

Words fail me.

I'm going to send an email to her webmaster and ask why.

Judy Miller!

Judith "Queen of All Fucking Iraq" Miller.

I was going to register as "Curveball."

Judith needs to get straight with the truth. She needs to understand why she is going to jail: she isn't a noble soul suffering for the constitution. She's a bad person.

thoroughness, connection, and clarity (and I love your Muhammad Ali thingy).

And I'm sure you've gone through all of this before (and if so, maybe an archive search, once the havoc over tonight's Bush pageant has died down, will avail an archive link), but I would like to know why Judith Miller is not a good person (of course I have my own ideas on this matter), and why at least her case, if not her person, does not entail some important constitutional issues.

Thanks in advance.

Everyone agrees that reporters should protect whistle-blowers; these are the people, at risk to their person, expose government corruption. And the law allows reporters this right. Even the law that has been in place for decades, which can compel reporters to testify to federal grand juries under specific circumstances, requires the judge to evaluate the issues involved. The case has been tested numerous times, and federal courts -- including the US Supreme Court -- have made consistent rulings. Thus, in cases such as this, where the reporter is not protecting a whistle-blower, they can be compelled to testify, or face legal consequences.

If there is a specific constitutional issue that you see, I'd be interested in hearing it. I think some people err in thinking that there is a constitutional license that allows reporters unlimited rights that go far beyond a "free press."

Why do I feel Miller is a bad person? Well, I'd start with her cheerleading for the administration before the invasion into Iraq. I would note her apparently calling an Islamic front to warn them that the FBI was planning to visit them within 24 hours. And I would highlight her refusal to follow the federal law regarding testifying to a grand jury that is investigating a very serious crime. Those three things make me think that Judith Miller is a person who is opposed to the things I respect and value about America.

Louis Powell's language in Branzburg does indeed seem to validate the appeals court decision on Miller and Cooper and to obviate Miller's appeal to the Supreme Court.

But as the State AGs' amicus curiae points out, Federal Circuit courts have hardly been consistent in applying Branzburg. This is, perhaps, a matter best resolved with another case at another time, though.

At any rate, as the Supremes and you have reminded us, there is no constitutional issue here.

Regardless, I am still conflicted, and that is along the lines Will Pitt is arguing on a different thread - a possible chill in the world of reporters and their anonymous sources. Here I may be worried about nothing. We shall see.

Thanks for explaining why you think Judith Miller is a bad person