Judge Holds Judith Miller in Contempt

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge held a New York Times reporter in contempt on Thursday for refusing to testify in the investigation of whether the Bush administration illegally leaked a covert CIA officer's name to the media.


U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan ordered the reporter, Judith Miller, held in confinement at a suitable place. He did not specify where she would be confined, but it most likely would be in jail.

The judge, who last month upheld a subpoena requiring Miller's testimony before a federal grand jury about her confidential sources, stayed any confinement, pending an appeal by The New York Times.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1895&ncid=1895&e=1&u=/nm/20041007/us_nm/bush_leak_dc

normally I would not support someone giving up their sorce, but this is treason.

Don't We All?

In these dangerous times what we need most of all is sound strategic counsel from rich Iranian spies, and I commend Judith Miller for her courageous leadership on this issue.

Spartans, you're next.

case and she's also up to her neck in the NO WMD!


judy had her day in the sunshine and now it's time to pay the PIPER!

*

I'm no fan of Miller, but I can't fault her for not revealing her sources. Would I like to see her do it? Of course! But the day will come when a source is going to be damaging to a Dem. I really do believe all reporters should honor the confidenciality rules. There has to be other ways to get this information. Remember Deep Throat? We still don't know for sure who that was.

not propagandists.

And it's not that hard to tell the difference, so don't try that defense.

still there. I used to really like Woodward, and I suspect it was because he succeeded in causing the ousting of Nixon. I don't like him much now, because he seems way to supportive of shrub.

I think the perception of a journa;ist is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure, anybody can call themselves a journalist, but if you don't follow the standards it makes it harder to prove you actually are a journalist in a court of law.
While the benefit of the doubt does exist, it folds in extreme cases, which I consider Judith Miller to be.

A court can compel a journalist -- no matter how legitimate -- or pretty much anyone else to answer an immunity-qualified question. The penalty for not answering is being held in contempt of court, as Miller is now. This process has nothing to do with subjective journalistic standards.

The source for Woodward and Bernstein were exposing a crime against the nation and against our democratic process. The source for Miller and Novak and the reporters involved in this case were committing a crime against the nation.

The Plame exposure was purely political. It was used to threaten others against exposing the corruption in the chimp's administration and it may have even been about a lot more than that if you've been reading the various Plame threads.

The exposure of Plame not only ruined her career but put her life and the lives of everybody she worked with in jeopardy. It exposed a CIA front company that had been working for over a decade on tracking the proliferation of WMD thereby putting the whole nation and the world at greater risk. It was a treasonous act committed by enemies of this country and they should all rot in jail. if Ms. Miller wants to protect these criminals then she can sit in jail as well as far as I'm concerned.

Watergate and Plame couldn't be more different.

she is not in the same boat as Novak. She is wanted for other info here.

This is not the old days - if the roles were reversed, the Republicans would be fighting twice as hard and much dirtier to jail the reporter.

It's too bad that everything in politics today is scorched earth, but the Republicans have taken over every branch of government by playing mean and dirty and we're never going to take the country back without doing the same.

If so, and if they were offered immunity by the DA, then they certainly would go to jail for refusing. That's the law. Whether you support it or not is immaterial. Hell, it happened to Susan MacDougal for refusing to cooperate on far less serious matters than the Plame case.

Furthermore, it's entirely possible that W&B didn't know who "Deep Throat" was at the time, any more than we do now. Niether Miller nor Novak have given any indication that they didn't know their inside source. I suspect if they thought a claim of anonymous sourcing would hold up in court, they'd make it to get themselves off the hook.

Her reportage, based as it was on Chalabi and softballing the PNAC Israel-above-everything folks, should be enough to drum her out of the journalistic family by itself. Tens of thousands of people have died, and we have no idea what's in the offing. Smile, lady, it's all a game.

n/t

He's pretty much at the end of his career anyway, and I doubt he wants to waste much of the rest of his pathetic life in jail. I think Miller's a dumbass for taking the hit on this -- although she could be doing it to bump her reputation as a solid inside reporter.

but for different reasons.

not for this.

Lock her up for her position as Chalabi's stenographer. But this is horseshit.

In particular, this is a federal grand jury determining whether or not there is enough evidence to put someone on trial for TREASON. This is deadly serious stuff. Even journalists don't fuck around with a grand jury subpoenas unless they want to write about jail from the inside.

Or maybe you want to scrap the entire legal system?

for her shameless warmongering disguised as journalism. She can burn in hell for all I care about the bitch.