Freedom of the Press? What's That?

[Dade]

Judge Orders Jail for N.Y. Times Reporter By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating who in the Bush administration leaked an undercover CIA operative's name.

ADVERTISEMENT

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said of the showdown in a case that has seen both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney interviewed by investigators.

Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He said he would do so now because his source gave him specific authority to do so.

"Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again," Cooper said as he took the podium to address the court.

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

As for Miller, unless she decides to talk, she will be held until the grand jury ends its work in October. The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.

Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it "a sad time."

"My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong," Cooper added. "I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today."

"Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it," New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told reporters.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who represented Miller, told reporters: "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity."

"Judy Miller has not been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime," Abrams said. "She has been held in civil contempt of court."

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had responded in court to Miller's refusal to name her source by saying "we can't have 50,000 journalists" each making their own decision about whether to reveal sources.

"We cannot tolerate that," he said. "We are trying to get to the bottom of whether a crime was committed and by whom."

Another Miller attorney, Robert Bennett, said earlier that prosecutors traditionally have shown great respect for journalists and "have had the good judgment not to push these cases very often."

Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Last month the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald urged Hogan to take the unusual step of jailing the reporters, saying that may be the only way to get them to talk.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald had disclosed Tuesday that a source of Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify the source, nor did he specify whether the source for each reporter was the same person.

Cooper said he had been told earlier that his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality but that he did not trust such waivers because he thought they had been gained from executive branch employees under duress. He told the court that he needed not a general waiver but a specific waiver from his source, which he did not get until Wednesday.

"I received express personal consent" from the source, Cooper told the judge.

Hogan and Fitzgerald accepted Cooper's offer.

"That would purge you of contempt," Hogan said.

Prior to the hearing, Miller argued that it is imperative for reporters to honor their commitments to provide cover to sources who will only reveal important information if they are assured anonymity. Forcing reporters to renege on the pledge undercuts their ability to do their job, she said.

Last week, Time Inc., last week provided Fitzgerald with records, notes and e-mail traffic involving Cooper, who had argued that it was therefore no longer necessary for him to testify. Time also had been found in contempt and officials there said after losing appeals it had no choice but to turn over the information.

The case is seen as a key test of press freedom and many media groups have lined up behind the reporters. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources.

Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked Plame's identity. Her name was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, impugned part of President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

Wilson was sent to Africa by the Bush administration to investigate an intelligence claim that Saddam Hussein may have purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson said he could not verify the claim and criticized the administration for manipulating the intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Novak, whose column cited as sources two unidentified senior Bush administration officials, has refused to say whether he has testified before the grand jury or been subpoenaed. Novak has said he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved and that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

Cooper spoke to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove after Wilson's public criticism of Bush and before Novak's column ran, according to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who denies that Rove leaked Plame's identity to anyone. Cooper's story mentioning Plame's name appeared after Novak's column. Miller did some reporting, but never wrote a story.

Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned besides Bush and Cheney are Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general.

Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete except for testimony from Cooper and Miller.

=======

Thoughts on this disturbing landmark?

[The Glue]

Yeah...divulging an undercover CIA operative's name is about an inch away from guaranteeing that the operative in question will be killed. Soon. Freedom of the press is one thing. Facilitating murder is another.

Late.

[Dade]

You don't sense a chance for abuse here?

[_UT_]

Couldn't what she did be considered treason?

Leaking undercover operatives' names isn't freedom of the press. Digging into politicans' past and reporting what you find is.

[The Glue]

Originally Posted by Dade

You don't sense a chance for abuse here?

Abuse of what?? The operative's life?? The well being of that operative's family?? Yeah...all kinds of abuses. But of course, a person's life isn't as important as a reporters' right to try to get that person killed in the name of making President Bush look bad, is it??



All bets are off when you're dealing with information that sensitive.

Late.

[BOSTON]

I think the whole Freedon of The Press law went right out the window when the press surrounding George W Bush were hand picked robots trained to not ask our great president and "real" questions reguarding policy.

[The Glue]

Originally Posted by Tommy Gavin

I think the whole Freedon of The Press law went right out the window when the press surrounding George W Bush were hand picked robots trained to not ask our great president and "real" questions reguarding policy.

Pay attention to the context, moron. What this person did was leak the name of an undercover CIA operative. This 'reporter' signed someone else's death warrant. That doesn't fall under Freedom of Speech, Einstein.

Yeah...anything to make Bush look bad is okay with you, Boston. No matter who it kills. After all, it's not like it's your name that got leaked as a CIA agent...it's not like it's your life that was put in danger...what the fuck does it matter to you?

You know what, you're a quintessential Liberal. Always willing to sacrifice someone else's well-being or even their life, against that person's will if it would further even the lamest of your own whims. You're a fucking loser and I'll see you in hell, douchebag.

Late.

[BOSTON]

Originally Posted by The Glue

Pay attention to the context, moron. What this person did was leak the name of an undercover CIA operative. This 'reporter' signed someone else's death warrant. That doesn't fall under Freedom of Speech, Einstein.

Yeah...anything to make Bush look bad is okay with you, Boston. No matter who it kills. After all, it's not like it's your name that got leaked as a CIA agent...it's not like it's your life that was put in danger...what the fuck does it matter to you?

You know what, you're a quintessential Liberal. Always willing to sacrifice someone else's well-being or even their life, against that person's will if it would further even the lamest of your own whims. You're a fucking loser and I'll see you in hell, douchebag.

Late.

Awww poor little Bush boy can't take a little criticism....this thread is now also making you look bad due to the way you started to cry like a little girl when I posted something that was true.....I don't know what you are doing posting here so much anyway when you should be praying.

[The Glue]

Quintessential Liberal. You've avoided the main point of the charges, the knowing and willful endangerment of an American agent and instead concentrated on an attack on me. Stop fucking spamming my forums. Take whatever issue you have with me to WZ and stick to the topic, which by the way, you lose on.

Besides, you're the only one of the two of us that cries like a broad on these boards.

Late.

[BOSTON]

Originally Posted by The Glue

Quintessential Liberal. You've avoided the main point of the charges, the knowing and willful endangerment of an American agent and instead concentrated on an attack on me. Stop fucking spamming my forums. Take whatever issue you have with me to WZ and stick to the topic, which by the way, you lose on.

Besides, you're the only one of the two of us that cries like a broad on these boards.

Late.

You know what Glue you are right....I don't know why I ever doubted you.

[The Glue]

Thanks. ^^That's about all I'll need from you for me to accomplish a little progress here. Thanks again.

Late.

[BOSTON]

Originally Posted by The Glue

Thanks. ^^That's about all I'll need from you for me to accomplish a little progress here. Thanks again.

Late.

Let me guess you will go cry back to Trev once again to have me banned....and you are calling me a bitch today.

You know while you are at it why don't you show him this too:

You're a fucking loser and I'll see you in hell, douchebag.

That doesn't sound like intelligent conversation to me....

[Dade]

Anyway, my worry is that people will cry foul whenever they get bad press. They need to make boundries clear. I never said it was ok to out a federal agent

[Brandy]

Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

I think as much as I want to be all about the freedom of press because of my liberalness, I have to agree with Fitzgerald.

NO ONE is really entitled to promise complete confidentiality. Hospitals, psycologists, civilians, and journalists have to report whatever needs reported to solve crime.

I had to testify against someone and I thought they did nothing wrong, but I was told that I had to testify, I told them I wanted to take the fifth, that I didn't think this person deserved to be in jail. They told me that if I didn't testify I would go to jail. And I still think I shouldn't have had to tell. But everybody has to tell when it comes to courts.

[Ric Flair]

Jesus, God...its happening already, theyre arresting those who speak out. This is dangerous, dangerous times, Bubba, and only a foolor a whore would not understand that.

I dont understand it, I really dont. She has a CIA operatives name, and she shouldnt have to give it out. Theres no reason why she should. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, there is definite Nazi undertones to the things happening in America, and this is proof:

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

Ye Gods, what does that even mean? Confidentiality about what? Anything? Becasue if so, I have to go downtown and tell the DA about what me and some of my friends do. Jesus, I have enough things told to me in confidentiality, that if I were to tell it, Half the Commonwealth of Kentucky would be in Jail by morning. Im sure we have confidentiality, somewhere done we, Herr Fitzgerald?

Good God, lock up the guns and booze...Loose Lips sink Ships...Gods Mercy on you Swine...

Originally Posted by Brandy

I think as much as I want to be all about the freedom of press because of my liberalness, I have to agree with Fitzgerald.

NO ONE is really entitled to promise complete confidentiality. Hospitals, psycologists, civilians, and journalists have to report whatever needs reported to solve crime.

I had to testify against someone and I thought they did nothing wrong, but I was told that I had to testify, I told them I wanted to take the fifth, that I didn't think this person deserved to be in jail. They told me that if I didn't testify I would go to jail. And I still think I shouldn't have had to tell. But everybody has to tell when it comes to courts.

NO NO NO! What the hell is this? We cant have this goign on! If you dont want to have to tell the governemnt something you shouldnt have to. Im more worried about them forcing me to rat out someone than letting that someone get away with a crime. We have the fourth and fifth ammendments becasue of this. Teh things you alla re talking about are the same thigns that the Nazis did in germany, if you didnt tesitify....off to Dachau you went!


GOD HELP US!