I admire Judith Miller

Irrespective of her motives and her politics, I admire her for going to jail on principle. She should be applauded for making this exceedingly hard decision. Kudos Judith Miller.
:applause:

that's a bit harsh

She only cares about her access.

She's personally responsible for her part in sending our troops to their deaths in Iraq for a war based on lies - lies that SHE repeated week after week in the Times - and you think I am not POLITE enough with her? Tell it to the boys who lost limbs. Tell it to the thousands of dead Iraqi children.

Round-Heels Miller, sleeper-to-the-top-and-golden-showers-for-peons, is a hypocritical reichbot whore-monger.

The corporate media's campaign for Privilege feeds upon the carnage of retaliation against whistle-blowers and truth-tellers! Rather than promulgate laws to preemptively protect whistle-blowers, Miller and company are buzzards and jackals feeding upon the rotted carrion in the killing fields saturated with truth-teller blood and body parts.

Korporate Amerika detests whistle-blowers! Korporate Amerika savages whistle-blowers! Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and Christine Rawley and Sibel Edmonds are whistle-blowers! There are hundreds of thousands of whistle-blowers in the ranks of the unemployed and under-employed whose careers and life savings were wiped out by Korporate Amerika!

There aren't enough pages in all of Amerika's korporate newspapers to print the obituaries of whistle-blowers -- no matter how much profit the presstitutes collect from selling their flesh.

:shrug:

:rofl:

:yourock:

I'm not sure that I agree she's in jail on principle. Sounds more like she may be trying to protect herself from worse legal troubles.

If she is in jail on principle, then it's a faulty principle. She's not protecting the First Amendment; she's protecting a criminal who used the press to commit a crime.

She is going to jail because she is part of the crime and cover-up and if she testifies she will be found guilty or commit perjury. She is not protecting a source because this case is not about sources but about criminal and treasonous behavior of disclosing the identity of a covert agent of the CIA.

I've been called a lot of things (on this board and off it), but "naive" is a first.

It would be a tacit admission of guilt which would likely instigate further digging into her role in this sorry mess.

I respect your right to your opinion on Ms. Miller, but I could not disagree with you more.

If she pleads the Fifth in order to avoid talking to the Grand Jury she will only make herself a target automatically, not just a witness. By hiding behind an illusionary confidentiality pledge, from which it seems she's already been released, she can pretend to be merely a witness who's being uncooperative (out of principle) and nothing more.

but, if called as a witness, then she very well may.
Won't it be delicious!!

is that there is a second source, and she's playing from the same deck as Rove. If her "source" is someone else, someone on the left, this would be a Rather "memo" moment all over again. Rove setting up the opposition. The fact that he has revealed this much seems to be a plot. And don't say he's backed into a corner. This Administration has turned the oval office into a square, considering how many corners they've backed themselves into, and managed to sit and stay their quite comfortably.

I can't though. She's a Bushco apologist and I think she's sitting in jail to help them.

should scare the crap out of her right now. She is either stupid to realize she is now imprisoned in a place she cannot run from, or she is there by choice to protect herself because she thinks she is in a safe place. Either is plausible in my mind.

but she is also breaking the law, and in jail she should stay until she decides to comply with the court's ruling.

She is breaking the law. Her argument that she is protecting the First Amendment is not supportable under federal rules. But still, it is admirable to stand up and have the guts to do jail time for something you believe in.

she'd out the bastard who compromised our national security, it's one thing to protect sources who expose wrongdoing by those in power, its another to protect those in power who expose state secrets to further their political agendas

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082998/

Check it out.

Jay

My point is...oh...never mind.

No one knows everything. That's one of the the beautiful things about DU. There is so much info here, no one person can absorb it all.

Jay

how many years she might get if she told everything she knows about the various disinformation and espionage operations she's been involved in over the years.

But, she cannot be compelled to testify about issues that can incriminate her. If she is trying to protect herself from prosecution, she should raise her Fifth AMendment rights against self-incrimination, don't you think?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4102455&mesg_id=4102455

:hi:

It is still very possible she is in there to cover up a crime.

She was smiling in the car on her way to Club Fed. She will become wealthy and a heroin to the RW. Four months in Club Fed? That is a cakewalk when compared to her rewards.

Hard time (like paying taxes) is for the little people.

Mrs. Chalabi can go back to fellating Republicans after the Club Fed stretch... that is, if she isn't doing so as I type.

And lest we forget, the whitewash-book she'll write will sell well.

...is Miller's protecting her source, I'd have to disagree. I don't know if anyone has discussed this before but just what kind of a "source" is Karl Rove when it comes to matters of weapons of mass destruction or the materials to make them. If reporters wanted to be thorough in their reporting on the whole "yellow cake" issue then they should have been talking to someone from, say, the IAEA. What the hell were they talking to Rove for? But, of course, the point wasn't to be thorough. It was simply to discredit Wilson. Like the lapdogs they are, they just needed him to tell them what to say and do. And look where it got them.

Novak's original column said he got Plame's name from two sources. Now, we know that Rove has released Time's Matt Cooper from his confidentiality promise, which is why Cooper is now testifying before the grand jury. But if Rove released Cooper, why didn't he release Miller from her promise?

Unless, of course, Judith Miller's source is someone else. Someone from whom Miller feels safer sitting in jail protecting than she does burning a confidential source who lied to her. Now, who could that possibly be . . . ?

Her motives and her politics are crucial to that judgment. She deserves to be in jail.

She made this decision to help her flagging career as a "journalist". She's now a martyr for the do nothing press. She's now a star, because people like you apparently buy into the game.

She's protecting criminals and hiding a criminal act. She's a co-conspirator. I hope they extend the Grand Jury, so that her stay can be prolonged another year.

I don't blame her. I would be too. But I don't think it's anything to look up to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If someone used you to comit a crime do you have a right to keep silent?

I don't have to like the person to admire one of their qualities. For instance, I don't like mob guys committing crimes. But I do admire them for going to jail instead of ratting out their friends. It takes a certain amount of guts to suck it up and do jail time when you have a choice not to do so. Some might call where she is "Club Fed" (in fact someone her already has). I would love to see anyone here spend one day locked up in jail (no matter where) when they had an opportunity to avoid it.

But at least mob guys are openly crooked. They don't puff themselves up when they take a hit for the boss.

Miller is representing herself as a journalist, a patriot and a victim and she is none of these things.

If she were to say, "Okay, I'm a lying shill for the * administration and I'm going to jail to save my sorry ass and the sorry asses of some of my masters," then I might have more respect for her jail time.

"irrespective of her motives" doesn't jibe with "going to jail on principle," as I see it.

The way I see it, her motives are not honorable, which is another way of saying she didn't go to jail on principle.

It appears I am sorely lacking in that talent on this thought of mine. Let me see is I can re-state it. I admire it when someone is willing to go to jail when they have an option to avoid it. It doesn't matter to me what the rationale underlying the decision is, it takes a certain level of guts to do so. In another post here, I said that I don't have to like the person to admire a particular quality they have. For instance, I don't like mob guys and the crimes they commit. But I do admire them when they go to jail rather than rat out a friend or colleague. In Miller's case, she may be avoiding testimony in the GJ becasue she is covering up a crime. There is no evidence (currently) that she is doing so. But even if she were, it still doesn't mitigate the fact that it takes guts to go to jail when you have an option not to do so.

you admire the chutzpah, I gather.

I think to admire Miller is the same as admiring mob bosses, the same as admiring corrupt officials like Chicago's Mayor Daley, the same as the way Rumsfeld was lauded as a "Rock Star," the same as admiring any kind of audaciousness at that level.

I think it's all kind of a destructive myth, and well worth discussing.

I recently read the book "Charlie Wilson's War," about the Texas congressman that had a big role in the CIA's anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, and it fell victim to the same myth, in the clearest and most relentless way I've ever seen.

with what she knows and can testify to could probably make her disappear.

Especially when you have prison staff on the pad.

who I admire much more than Judith.

She's not there for principles. Saving her own ass, more likely. Or promised some real plum, like writing Rove's memoirs or some shit. Remember, she lost her book contract after her WMD stories were exposed as hoaxes. A girl's gotta eat (foie gras).

She's going to jail because she knows that the way to get rewarded by fascists is to demonstrate personal loyalty. You have to put your boss before your country.

That's what she's doing. She's disgusting.

Ms. Miller is a pompous propagandist for the * gang. Further, she's a criminal, because of a job well done for the * gang, thousands of innocent people are dead. If karma is true, she would rot in prison.

many notorious criminals get "fan mail" from people who, for a variety of reasons, admire them. Charles Manson reportedly gets lots of mail to this day. Maybe we should expect a few Judith fans to pop up.

the woman has blood on her hands. I doubt she's spending one moment reflecting on her part in the killing of thousands of Iraqi's, but how to upstart her stalled career and her next book.

PRINCIPLES MY F***ING ASS - DO SOME RESEARCH PLEASE; YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF

First I'm "naive", now I'm a "fool"...thanks for kicking this post up a notch on the intellectual scale.

in the past - this is a woman who aided and abetted this piece of shit misadministration with LIES to get us into a g.d. WAR. There is nothing - NOTHING - admirable about Ms. Miller. DO SOME RESEARCH before you post stuff like that.

Try some of this instead:

and you're trashing MY responses?

of illegality or journalistic ethics code breaking - that they goated her into while leaking in the run-up to Iraq war - that they own her.

We don't know? We just don't know.

We do know that nefarious types like to get people to 'break their own rules' and thus become dependant on them for their silence. Called loan-sharking: do me this one little favor and..

snappy snappy!
Oh you weren't joking?
Well have you ever considered the possibility that Miller is going to jail to protect HERSELF by not talking to the Grand Jury?

Did you know that Ms. Miller's "source" has released her from her confidentiality pledge, not that any such contractual agreement has an unconditional force of law in the first place when serious crimes are involved?

Were you aware that Ms. Miller has 'burned' sources before?

Her principle, you may rely on it, is to save her own ass if possible.

but I did consider that she was protecting herself. But why not just take the 5th? No muss, no fuss, and no testifying before the GJ.

Did you know that I don't care what her source did re: the "confidentiality pledge"?

My point is that she went to jail. She had a chance to avoid it. She didn't take the easy way out. And there are at least two easy ways out: testify or take the 5th. She has the guts to go to jail, whatever her reasoning. That's more than I can say for many people who talk a good game, but fold like a cheap suit when the rubber meets the road (now there's a metaphoric sludgeheap).

next!

Judith Miller is protecting HERSELF AND HER CAREER. She lives off of the delicious "insider information" that she gets from being a faithful water-carrier for the bush junta. She wouldn't have a career without it.

I imagine she expects to be well-compensated for her trouble. She's playing her part so well.

It's sad and disturbing to contemplate how many people might buy into the martyr-journalist spin. That's what the bush junta has hoped for all along -- that they could re-frame this act of treason into a bogus "freedom of the press" issue, instead of the clear act of treason it actually is.

It saddens me to see you've apparently bought it...

sw

that practically everyone here offers opinions as if they were fact. I don't need to have things explained to me in CAPS. I get the drift. Your condescending response is no different than what I would expect if I went to Free Republic and asserted that I admire Bill Clinton (Which, BTW, I do...and actually, your response is not as condescending as others). My post was designed to initiate debate. Instead, I am called "naive" and "foolish". What a hoot.

I'm not a lawyer but I'll tell you why not. The fifth amendment is not a "no muss, no fuss no testifying necessary" constitutional right. The 5th Amendment protects you against self-incrimination. It's not a get out of jail free card and it's not an I don't want to testify about my friend card. You cannot invoke the right to remain silent when asked questions about someone else, unless your answer is incriminating to you. (there is an exception when you are the spouse of the subject of the question.)

I repeat: unless your answer would be INCRIMINATING TO YOU. That would be a funny thing to do, if she were just a cooperative witness, not a target.

In taking the 5th as a witness in a Grand Jury proceeding, a proceeding which everyone so far assumes is about someone else, Miller would be saying, HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M GUILTY OF A CRIME--FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS!

Unless she has made a prior arrangement for her testimony with the prosecutor, then, either she will become the subject of the same grand jury investigation, or she'll become the subject of a separate investigation. Her only other options at such an embarassing moment, when the prosecutor has asked something she doesn't want to answer, are to start lying, which exposes her to perjury in additition to whatever else she may be guilty of, or to confess freely, or else she can clam up again, which puts her right back in the cooler for contempt. What you're saying when you invoke the 5th in a trial is "any answer I might make that doesn't expose me to an additional charge of perjury, would probably convict me of the present charge." In a grand jury proceeding you're admitting guilt to something in front of a body that is there for the express purposes of saying you're probably guilty of something. (Guess what happens next.) If she stops talking after once having begun to talk, you can bet the moon that they won't just let her go after prosecuting other people. They'll want to know all about what made her stop talking.

In other words, you walk into a grand jury room a witness, take the 5th, and you're guaranteed to walk out a defendant. Grand Juries indict people. That's what they do. 99.99% of the time.

I am a lawyer. I was a criminal prosecutor for a number of years. I was cross-designated to prosecute federal cases. I've presented GJ cases numerous times. Too many to count. The Fifth Amnendment protects anyone from incriminating themselves. And you are correct that you can raise it only when the testimony is potentially incriminating to you. But in the context of a tightly focused GJ investigation, if you belive any questions will be asked of you that are potentially incriminating you MUST decline to answer ANY questions, lest you waive your rights under the Fifth Amnendment. I would advise anyone who is a potential target to clam up on each and every question. (In fact, in a murder case I was prosecuting many years ago, the issue in the case was the identification of a shooter in a mob case based upon his distinctive voice. We subpoenaed the suspected shooter and his attorney advised him not to talk at all. He brought a sign saying he is invoking his Fifth Amendment rights which he raised every time he was asked any questions, even his name). You cannot pick and choose which questions you will answer if you believe your testimony may incriminate you.
As for becomming a target if Miller testifies, you have a point there. But it's your weakest argument. She may already be a target, you don't know, and I don't know. But if she asserts her rights under the Fifth Amendment, the prosecutor has to prove his case in some other manner. Your better argument is that it's better to hide behind a privilege that doesn't make you look like your hiding something. It still begs the initial question though...she's going to jail when she has an option to avoid it. How many of the brave patriots here would do the same? I know what jail is about. I sent plenty of people there myself. It's no damned fun, no matter where you serve your time. It takes a certain amount of guts to suck it up and go when you can avoid it. So, all of the people here who disagree can do so. I think it's admirable when someone voluntarily gives up their freedom, so sue me.

(Nice job, BTW. For a non-lawyer you hit the mail on the head for the most part).

She has to talk? No?

That's why taking the 5th wont work for her because they can grant her immunity.

The question becomes whether they offer "use" or "transactional" immunity. I cannot tell you (without doing research) whether a person has the right to deny "use" immunity if offered. My sense is that it can be bargained for, and if so, she could still avoid jail if she asserted her Fifth Amendment rights. If I were a defense lawyer, I would push for "transactional" immunity. It is broader than "use" immunity and it is unlikely that the prosecutor would grant this broad and immunity to a potential target. ("Transactional" immunity gives you a target a free pass to testify about anything, without the prosecution being able to use it against you...even to the extent that they cannot develop other evidence to prove it. "Use" immunity keeps the prosecution from going after you based upon the testimnoy, but still allows them to prosecute you if other evidence is later developed). At the state level we very rarely used immunity in GJ proceedings. It is used much more often (yet selectively) at the federal level. They also use "proffers" of testimony much more frequently at the federal level. Tough to say whether Fitzgerald would offer "transactional" immunity, or even "use" immunity to Miller. It is a slippery slope and he would be criticized for doing so, unless he was holding some pretty strong cards. Having said that, it appears that she would be a more likely recipient of an offer of immunity than her source. i.e., you don't give the shooter immunity to testify against the getaway driver.

Puke operative.

I think she's involved in the big middle of the whole nasty enterprise.

I don't buy this "Poor Judith who didn't even write a story is in jail." I think Judith is protecting herself as well as others.

Her "ethics" are situational. The story was that she called someone who asked to be off the record and our gal Judy sent the woman an e mail letting her know she was going to run with her name if she did not hear from her. The woman in question did not look at her e mail and Judy went with her name rather than using the information without a source on background. Tricky girl. I don't have a link, I think I did read this on a blog within the last few days. on edit, it was digby at Hullabaloo.

and she repeated all the Bushian lies as fact. She didn't investigate. She didn't present opposing views. She raised her pom-poms for Bush. She didn't do her job as a journalist and tell the American people the truth. She swallowed the Bush Kool-Aid without digging.
She's lazy and opportunistic.
So. No. I don't admire her.

I've been searching for one?

the PNAC crew. Nothing to admire about someone protecting murderous traitors.

That journalists can go to jail for revealing their sources.

...Supreme Court:

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.

A felony was committed, therefore, she must testify before the Grand Jury or be held in contempt. We all know the choice she made, but IMHO, it was to protect Judy Miller and nobody else.

I personally believe it is horribly misguided.

...but feel free to admire that pond-scum all you like.

They were so close on the outside.

She's not a journalist, she's a propaganda operative. Remember those stories leading up to the war, about all those WMD?

I hope she is sentenced to making caskets for the Iraqis for the rest of her life.

This has to be repeated and repeated and repeated until it finally sinks in with people. I don't care how many Pulitzer prizes have been given her, as cover, no doubt for her lies.

Thank you Frederik for pointing out the obvious about this fake, "Judy" Miller. Hard labor at Abu Ghraib making caskets for the Iraqis she helped murder would be a perfect punishment. Let the punishment fit the crime.

She was willing to promote criminal lies in support of a criminal agenda that caused thousands of uneccessary deaths and suffering---and now she postures as some kind of hero because she honorably shelters the murderers?

There is no way you can spin it. It is sort of like saying the good and decent thing to do is to go to jail for Mussolini.

May there be many more people in similar positions soon! :)