Judith Miller of the NY Times, and Matt Cooper of Time Magazine are facing the very real possibility of jail time for refusing to reveal their sources of stories that were accurate.

clips from a Washington Post article about it:





http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/07/miller.contempt/




http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/07/miller.contempt/ CNN's story

An interview with the journalists: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/07/miller.contempt/

Questions to Debate:
1.) Does the First Ammendment apply to sources that give information to the Free Press, even if it is illegal to divulge the name of secret operatives?

2.) Should the journalists face jail time for telling the truth?

3.) What are the implications of this case for the democracy of the United States?

Questions to Debate:
1.) Does the First Ammendment apply to sources that give information to the Free Press, even if it is illegal to divulge the name of secret operatives?

No, the 1st does not apply to sources. Why would it? If a journalist receives Hillary Clinton's personal diary from the burglar who stole it, does that somehow magically mean the burglar is protected? No, he's still a criminal subject to arrest, prosecution, and incarceration.

2.) Should the journalists face jail time for telling the truth? Stupid question. The journalists are not facing time for telling the truth, they're facing time for refusing to tell the truth.

3.) What are the implications of this case for the democracy of the United States? Pretty good, if the journalists go to jail. Otherwise they have free reign to use the 1st Amendment as a shield for anything they do. If an Islamofascist steals the Congressional security plans, then publishes them so his "operative" buddies can bump off most of Congress, under the logic that these two bozo reporters are using, the "publisher" would be immune from prosecution. All he did was report the truth....

The First ammendment has been used to justify Journalists "right" to not reveal their sources. That is why it "could be applied here.

The stories the journalists broke were TRUE. They are refusing to reveal a source, that is not lying. They are telling truth, just not all of it. In 31 states, it is law that journalists do not have to disclose their sources. They are responsible for accuracy, but not for divulging their sources. They, as a "profession", believed that they had that right under Federal law also,

There is a conflict here between two age old establishments, the Judicial Branch, and the Free Press.

Thing is, if journalists cannot guarantee anonymity to their sources, "We the People" will essentially lose our eyes and ears about the government. I don't think that's good. Quite frankly, I don't trust them. Poli = many, tics are bloodsucking insects...you do the math.

Your analogy doesn't apply to the story. The "leak" probably came from within the government, Amerifascists, or perhaps Christiofasists, not Islamofasists. I'd like to know who, as it appears their intent was to discredit a Bush opposer. Even though I'd like to know who, I think that for the Free Press to remain "Free" they must be able to offer anonymity to those willing to speak out. "Freedom of the Press" is also part of the First Ammendment, not just "Freedom of Speech". This is not a simple matter.

This is a complicated matter than cannot be summed up by calling it a "stupid question", Bikerdad.

Actually, the most disturbing thing to me, is that Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller are being held in contempt of court for not writing a story that outed Valerie Plame. A quote from the CNN story you cited above:


The bigger question for me, is why isn't the government questioning and jailing Robert Novak, the guy who actually did write the story, and bragged about it in his newspaper column? He has since stated that if questioned, he wouldn't reveal his sources, either. So why are we picking on people who never wrote a story, and caused no harm, but we're giving a pass to the guy who did write the story, and did cause harm?

I'm going to echo NiteGuy's sentiment. How come Robert Novak gets off scot free? I smell a rat. Could the rat possibly be the new White House Deputy Chief of Staff?

Also, I'd like to see "Jeff Gannon", the gay male escort and erstwhile conservative "journalist" who somehow got into the White House, be subpoenaed and testify about how he found out about Valerie Plame. Was it pillow talk from his other job?

Keep Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper out of jail at least until these two other guys cough up some significant information, especially Robert Novak who stirred up the you-know-what in the first place.

NiteGuy and PE you beat me to it, but the same thought has crossed mind, so I'm going to post what I was writing when PE posted.

2.) Should the journalists face jail time for telling the truth?

I really don’t think so, but since the Justice Department is going down this. something’s rotten in Denmark, road I wonder why we’re having such selective prosecution. Robert Novak was the first journalist connected with this story. Yet he sits weekly on Capitol Gang, trots off to Paris and writes his column for the Baltimore Sun.



http://www.counterpunch.org/giebel10022003.htm

The government should be more interested in finding out which Bush employee leaked the news in the first place than persecuting Cooper and Miller. Aside from wanting uniformity in justice, I think Novak should be able to protect his sources as well. Such tampering with the fourth estate by the Justice Department threatens the independence of journalism. Unhindered journalism is especially needed with the current Washington regime that needs more than a little light shined into its dark crevices.

Uhh, for those of you who are attempting to cast this as a Bush Administration witch hunt, let me remind you that it was the press and Bush's critics who demanded a Special Prosecutor.

As for why Novack isn't being pursued, no idea. Maybe you should toss that out into the Blogosphere and see what surfaces.

It boggles my mind that y'all seem to think that a journalist can commit crimes in the name of "freedom of the press." You can either defend these two on the basis that they didn't commit the crime in question, or hitch your wagon to this lunatic FoP argument that, btw, the Courts have already shot down in the past. I do mean it when I say lunatic, because as far as I can tell, even the individual who ratted out Plame didn't commit a crime. Ya see, the devil is in the details.



Here's the basic logic of the issue, and what came down 33 years ago from SCOTUS

First Amendment Center

So, in the interest of "protecting the First Amendment", are you ready to give the government the power to decide who is a "legitimate journalist" protected by this newer, stronger shield? Maybe we'll allow a "independent" organization to credential journalists, kinda like the Bar Association does with attorneys. Yeah, that'll improve journalism...

This is all very logical. Nevertheless, in 1972 the Supreme Court rejected precisely this argument in a closely-divided decision. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the majority of the Court conceded that grand jury subpoenas could plausibly have some impact on the willingness of sources to provide information to the press, but it concluded that there was no proof that the effect of such subpoenas would be significant. Moreover, the majority noted that if it recognized a First Amendment privilege for journalists, it would then have to decide as a matter of constitutional law who is and who is not a "journalist." Could this new privilege be claimed by a reporter for a school newspaper? By a blogger? By a person writing a book, even if she's never written one before? The majority explained that it would be very harmful for the Court to undertake such an inquiry, because it would be the equivalent of "licensing" the press, something that has always been anathema to the First Amendment.


Interesting historic quote, BD. Why not consider every US citizen as a journalist? Any of us can, and many of us do, publish to the Internet.

Which of course wasn't so universally available as it is now.

The Press has become a much larger thing than it was in 1972.

I think the reason they wanted a Special Prosecutor was to find out who leaked the information in the first place—Karl Rove perhaps—not prosecute journalists. Too bad Arthur Miller’s gone. This would be our first case where real witches have been hunting alleged witches.



Correct, we didn’t have Rush Limbaugh (ah air pollution has become worse ) or the cable TV networks that work 24-hours-a-day.

The rub, "who is the Press"? I'd tend to lean towards the "everyone who can put something out there to be read. For instance, each one of us is, at the moment writing "op ed" for the America's Debate publication.

The rules of the Debate, however, want us to divulge our sources. What if you had a buddy in Washington, who told you something that was a major piece of information, and was true, about some scandal the we were debating here. He told you on condition of anonymity. Would you include it in the debate, and refuse to give your souce?

Furthermore, if it got out, and you came to the point that these people are at now, would you feel obligated to tell who told you? If he was working on behalf of the general interest of the "people", and it would ruin your buddy to tell?

I realize that the analogy is not accurate to the circumstances, it is however related to the precedent that this case adresses.

With very few exceptions, this is the greatest myth of journalism. Journalists are no different than anybody else. They are working in their own interest. Their interest may coincide with "the people", but just as often it does not.

Heck, according to what Rush Limbaugh says, he is working in the interest of the people. Undoubtedly, many of you would disagree, but it can't be denied that of "the people" who bothered to vote last election, more found themselves in accord with Rush's views than, say, Ward Churchill. Both have published books and articles. Would both be "legitimate shielded journalists"? If not, who decides?

"Karl Rove perhaps"? Why would he even know? More importantly, if they want to go after Rove, and the journalists have clammed up, how is the Special Prosecutor supposed to get the info? So what we now have is a Special Prosecutor, appointed after all the baying of "The Press" and Bush's critics, tasked with finding out who leaked info to one or more journalists. The only way to find out who leaked is to either get reallllllly lucky, or ask journalists. Yet "The Press" is screaming that they have special privileges, and are being persecuted, by the very hounds they released. Anybody see the irony here?

Yea and verily, let us grant to the government the power to decide who is and isn't a "journalist." The select few will have immunity from criminal acts committed in the interest of "the truth." Let's apply this to Dan Rather, who maintains that forgeries still told the "truth." Or to my Islamofascist example before, who believes he is acting in the interest of "the truth."

If someone at MilPers (Military Personnel) had smuggled copies of John Kerry's full records to, say, Michael Savage and Matt Drudge, and both went public with them, would you have extended the 1st Amendment shield to their source?

Perhaps, Bikerdad, you did not see my previous post. That's exactly what these two reporterss are alledging: That they did not commit the crime in question.
They apparently were approached with the same information that was given to Novak, and declined to write the story that Novak published.

Yet they are the ones being threatened with jail time for not revealing who it was that offered them the information.



Well, now, let's just see about that. The CIA did refuse to officially verify her status, friends and relatives of hers who were approached by reporters after the incident became public, said she worked as an analyst for a private energy company, and in a follow-up column after the original, Novak says that it was an un-named, unofficial source inside the CIA that told him she was an analyst, and unlikely to be sent overseas again. That doesn't mean she still didn't have a cover in place, and in fact Novak admits his source asked him not to reveal her name, just not as strongly as they usually do, if it's a high security matter. I'd say that Rich Lowry is wrong in his assessment of her status.

As to the second part of the law, intentionally trying to undermine U. S. intelligence, isn't that exactly what the administration was trying to do? To discredit Joseph Wilson's investigation of the Yellowcake documents by insinuating that there was a conflict of interest in having his wife, a CIA operative, recommending him for the job of looking into the affair?

I do understand your point in all this Bikerdad, but try to see mine as well. Are you saying that back during the Nixon administration, it would have been acceptable to have the special prosecutor simply jail Woodward and Bernstein for failing to reveal who "Deep Throat" was, during the height of the Watergate scandal?

If so, what's to stop the next unscupulous administration under fire from appointing a special prosecutor friendly to them, simply to find out who their accusers are, so that they can then have them harrassed, or otherwise marginalized?

The press has to be able to have some leeway in protecting sources, or quite simply, nobody will ever come forward again, for fear of retribution from the politicians they are turning in.

Bikerdad a more apt question might be “why wouldn’t" he know?

In his book, The Politics of Truth former Ambassador Joseph Wilson writes:



Or consider this from John Dean’s Worse Than Watergate:



Please note that I prefaced Rove’s name with “perhaps” Even if he wasn’t the source of the leak, his reference to Plame as “fair game” is pretty seedy, even for Rove. If Rove didn't leak the information, I would lay odds that he knows who did.

I think Novak and Rove deserve scrutiny more than Miller and Cooper.

Correction to previous post: In a previous post I had Novak with the Baltimore Sun, H. L. Mencken's old paper, but in fact, Novak is with the Chicago Sun-Times.