Help REFUTE the FALLACY that Cooper & Miller are First Amendment MARTYRS >

[Stephanie]

I don't know how I got on the Free Press mailing list, but below is their plea to me regarding Miller, Cooper and the protection of "whistleblowers" - and my reply. What's your take?


=======================

Dear Josh,

Judith Miller and Matt Cooper are not shielding an anonymous whistle-blower. They are shielding a criminal. Revealing the identity of Valerie Plame WAS the crime. Cooper and Miller are WITNESSES to this crime. Had the information not been offered them, there would be no crime.

This is absolutely the opposite of a whistle-blower case, in which a witness discloses to a reporter the criminal actions of others. Is Valerie Plame's career as an undercover CIA operative criminal? That's the only way that the leakers could be considered whistle-blowers. Since it is not, the leakers are simply treasonous criminals who used classified information to try to PREVENT a whistleblower, Joseph Wilson, from talking about what he knew to be true - that there was no Iraq/Niger uranium deal. So in effect you are siding against the whistle-blower.

You have it wrong. Please reconsider this campaign.

Stephanie


----Original Message Follows----
From: "Josh Silver, Executive Director" <[email protected]>
Subject: Shield journalists and whistleblowers
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:47:45 -0500 (CDT)

Dear Media Reformer:

Last week, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case that could imprison two reporters for refusing to reveal their anonymous sources to a federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The decision deals a serious blow to the rights of journalists and to the First Amendment. It has cast a chill over investigative reporters who promise confidentiality to sources in exchange for sensitive information on government wrongdoing.

Crucial information will not be made public without laws to shield journalists from this sort of government inquiry. Forty-nine states have such “shield laws” on the books or judicial precedent that recognizes a reporters’ right to protect their sources. But there’s no protection for reporters in federal court.

“The Free Flow of Information Act,” a bipartisan bill pending in the Senate (S. 340) and the House (H.R. 581), would establish a federal shield.

Sign our petition at http://www.freepress.net/action/shield to support a federal shield law protecting journalists and their confidential sources.

Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine could be sentenced to jail as soon as tomorrow. But the impact of their case will be felt for much longer. All anonymous whistleblowers are at risk if journalists face jail time for refusing to reveal their sources. Fearing reprisal, whistleblowers will not come forward.

Without a federal shield law, matters of vital public importance will never see the light of day. This isn’t merely bad for journalists. It’s dangerous to our democracy.

Please sign the petition urging Congress to pass S. 340 and H.R. 581. Go to http://www.freepress.net/action/shield .

Then forward along this message to everyone you know.

Onward,

Josh Silver
Executive Director
Free Press
www.freepress.net

P.S. The Newspaper Guild is holding rallies tomorrow to protest the jailing of reporters and to promote a federal shield law. Events are planned for Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dayton, Denver, Los Angeles, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Rochester, San Jose, St. Louis, St. Paul and Washington, D.C. Go to http://www.newsguild.org for more information.

[bear425]

1. Good succinct letter - and exactly the way I feel, too. n/t

[Stephanie]

2. I don' t know what this org is

and I'm suspicious - why can't they see the forest?

[bear425]

5. I'd be interested to hear their response. Hope you get one. n/t

[napi21]

3. You answered your own question. The criminal here is not a

whistle blower! The information was not exposing criminal activity, but retaliation against someone who told the gov't things they didn't want to hear. In this case, Cooper & Miller were used as perveyors on confidential information, and certainly NOT whistle blowers!

[Stephanie]

6. Wilson not only told the govt what they didn't want to hear, but the world

He printed his findings in an op-ed in the NY Times, after George Bush lied about the uranium in his SOTU speech (the sixteen words). So retaliation is RIGHT! Members of the govt attempted to retaliate against a whistle-blower who went PUBLIC. It's very clear.

[merh]

36. Fitzgerald told the Washington Post that his investigation

was about the "outing" of a potential whistleblower. He sees the leaks and the relaying of the covert identity as the attack on a whistleblower.

These folks have it all wrong. Fitzgerald is protecting the whistleblower. :hi:

[trotsky]

4. Perfect response.

The distinction is clear. This was not part of an investigative piece, it was the deliberate leak of classified information that undermined our fight against terrorism.

[Stephanie]

7. So who is promoting this fallacy?

Why don't these journalist orgs get it?

[trotsky]

12. I think it's just a knee-jerk reaction.

Forcing a reporter to reveal their sources. Automatically BAD! Well, as we know, not necessarily. I imagine though in journalism circles you might not want ANY exceptions.

[flyarm]

46. i would think that any< real> journalist

would not want to be used for covering up a government crime against the security of American people, after all their resposnsibility in the constitution is to protect the American people "from" the government!
not the other way around!

this is an abdication of the medias responsibility to the American people , we "let " them use our air waysfree of charge just for that reason..to protect the American people from her government!

no <good journalist> would protect the government..at all costs ... over the safety and protection of the people, not in a democracy...

but it seems we have neither at this point in history!

[Disturbed]

9. Good response.

These reporters are protecting criminals who engaged in a criminal act. Reporters have no rights to do that.

[H2O Man]

8. Your response is perfect.

People who are doing the Chicken Little routine seem to overlook the simple fact that Branzburg has been the law of the land since 1972, and it has not harmed journalism in the least. More, the 1972 decision allows for the protection of whistle-blowers. The person who is clucking about the sky falling due to the recent decision to stick with a law that works is ignorant at best.

[Stephanie]

10. I was thinking maybe they're a RW group but it's found by McChesney!

http://www.freepress.net/content/mission

History
Free Press was founded in late 2002 by author and professor Robert McChesney. Prior to incorporating as a non-profit organization in August 2003, Free Press operated as a sponsored project of the Media Education Foundation. During its first year Free Press undertook the following start-up activities: outlined a strategic plan; established a three year operating budget; raised sufficient funds for first year operations; launched the website; established relationships with important constituencies; recruited and hired staff; elected a board of directors and recruited an advisory board. Learn more about about our board and our staff.

The birth of Free Press reflects a growing awareness that media reform is essential to fostering a functional democracy and advancing issues that most people actually care about. Free Press is working with existing media reform organizations to make the media reform movement a more bold and proactive force to advance meaningful media policy in the public interest.

[H2O Man]

15. Yes.

There are ignorant people in the democratic party. A person could think that the current case presents a serious threat to journalists. But they are still just as wrong as if they were republicans saying the same thing.

People I like and respect say such foolish things as "Woodward and Bernstein couldn't have done their thing," or "the Pentagon Papers never would have come out!" Oh, bullshit. Get a calander, and and show me if Deep Throat and the Watergate scandal was wrapped up before 1972. And notice that none of them can come up with any application of this to the Pentagon Papers -- because there is no serious connection.

[lockdown]

27. Daniel Ellsberg agrees there's no comparison

Just posted this in another thread, Ellsberg was on BBC Newsnight earlier and backing Fitzgerald, saying overall it was in the national interest that they reveal their sources. On comparisons to the Pentagon Papers, he said an equivalent situation would have been White House plumbers setting out to discredit or blackmail him, Ellsberg.

[H2O Man]

41. Right.

Ellsburg knew he was going to be attacked. He was confident that he was capable of standing up to the assaults.

A couple of interesting things: despite at first refusing to help, a CI psychiatrist eventually did a profile of Ellsburg. The profile indicated that Ellsburg was not "unpatriotic" in any sense; rather, he was attempting to be fully patriotic by answering a higher call.

Also, it is worth remembering that when he first leaked the papers in question, though they pretended to be upset, the Nixon forces were giddy .... they tried to call them the "Kennedy/Johnson" papers, but the name didn't stick. The top dogs at the administration believed Ellsburg had helped them

[myrna minx]

11. Would you please sent your letter to the Star Tribune?

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1405/5486953.html

Unfortunately Cooper and Miller are seen as "heroes" to the "Reader's Rep." Your letter is far superior to anything that I could scribble down.

[Stephanie]

13. you are welcome to copy and paste

as much as you like - I just rewrote it to add a bit about the naming of Plame as a bit of RETALIATION AGAINST A WHISTLEBLOWER (Wilson), which is a very good point mentioned in one of the posts above. But feel free to use mine as a template to write yours and copy out as much as you like.

[BurtWorm]

14. Amen, Stephanie!

Journalists seem confused by this case, even on the left. You've said it very well: the "source" is a criminal in the govt., not a whistleblower. They're protecting someone who used his power to attack a critic of the govt. The First Amendment is not in place to protect the govt. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Stephanie]

16. And the retaliation happened after Wilson's article in the NY TIMES

So it's Wilson the whistleblower's ability to print the truth in the paper of record that is threatened - and progressive journalists are going to side with government on this? A government that RETALIATES against a whistleblower because of views expressed in the op-ed page of the NY Times is to be PROTECTED by journalist groups? Huh?

[warrens]

17. This guy had a great column on this subject

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0507030406jul03,0,7612301.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl

[Stephanie]

19. Thanks, that's great - EXCERPT>

<snip>

Miller insists that her subpoena, by compromising the confidentiality of news sources, threatens the public's right to know. But there are some things the public has no right to know--including the names of covert agents. If Plame's exposure had made her a terrorist target, that would be painfully obvious.

The law in question was passed in 1982 after rogue agent Philip Agee outed more than 1,000 CIA operatives, potentially jeopardizing their lives. No one has argued it should be repealed. But if federal employees can leak names to journalists without fear that the reporters may testify against them, the law would have all the value of a Confederate bank note.

<snip>

The only protection that might help is an absolute shield, akin to the attorney-client or doctor-patient privilege. But as University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone notes, even those have exceptions. If a client asks his lawyer how to get away with robbing a bank, the conversation is not protected, because the privilege was never meant to facilitate violations of the law.

The sort of privilege sought by the news media, however, would do just that. Reporters who are witnesses to a crime could evade the normal duty of citizens to tell what they know.

Journalists like nothing better than exposing self-seeking behavior by special interests who care nothing for the public good. In this case, they can find it by looking in the mirror.

=======

[Serial Mom]

18. A GREAT quote to use

Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people...

~Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice


I think the founding fathers wanted a free press and for that press to protect their sources, but only if those sources gave up information about the abuse of government officials, not government officials BEING the sources!

[Stephanie]

20. And not to protect govt officials when THEY are the abusers!

It's just ass-backward.

[Serial Mom]

22. Exactly ....

Free press is to stop the abuses of government! The press should be publishing all the lies & deceit that this administration has spewed from it's vile mouth!

[peacetalksforall]

21. Whistle blower exposes a crime - journalist protects to the extent they.

are able.

Politicians commit a crime as part of a political action - normal law applies.

I don't know much about Matthew Cooper, but if you lump Miller and Novak together you have a team who partners with the WH. If you take CNN, Novak's boss, and the NYT, you also have a corporate-executive partnership with the WH. Miller, Novak, Rove, Hughes, Card, Bartlett, Lubby, Cheney and all their partners are propaganda partners. They are on the same team

It is ludicrous of her to say she is protecting the public's right to know - she who with the NYT worked with the WH to fix the war. Ludicrous.

They tried to say that everyone knew who Plame was.
Then they tried to say that she was not an operative.
Then they tried to say that they didn't know she was an operative.

The truth is - she and her CIA front company were at odds with Cheney and Rumsfeld. This is not just about retaliation for the SOTU disaster and to bring the Wilsons down. This is about bringing the CIA down. Whose side do you think Novak, Miller, and their bosses are on?

[Generator]

23. Good post and thanks for the opening post to bring this up

What I wonder is if Cooper and Miller aren't complicit with the White House's intent to bring down those that dare disent with FACTS, then what the fuck do they really believe they are doing?

Who are they kidding?

They are protecting THEMSELVES and themseleves only. They are protecting "all journalists" from having to give up their sources. Ah but Cooper and Miller-doncha get it-you were being used to make news, used to change lives, manipulate history with knowledge that wasn't yours to have and that was in fact a crime! You are in fact accesories to crime..or were to be in Miller's case. Doesn't this bother you? Oh I know the only thing that matters is your precious access to the thieves running the country. I know that's really the deal, heh?

I know oh how I know after watching the "media" grovel and lick and whine all these last few years..how much you VALUE your job, your paycheck, your position of power.

If your "sources" are using you..why are you protecting them? You won't be able to call Karl (or insert name here)for an inside tip anymore..boo hooo..I feel your pain.

Of course then again, maybe they fear for their LIVES or their family or something. It does give one pause to wonder.

[Stephanie]

26. When you say "she and her CIA front company" - you mean V. Plame

for a minute I read it as J. Miller -

Yes, of course, they had more than the retaliation reason to out Plame. Some people think that the real purpose was to destroy Plame's network of colleagues and assets - to destroy her ability to track WMD.

However, in this case, we can win with a far simpler argument. I want the journalists, especially very progressive journalists like Bob McChesney, whose organization is quoted in the OP, to get the distinction here on a simple level. ROVE, or whoever it was that leaked Plame's name from the White House, is not a WHISTLEBLOWER. ROVE, or whoever it was, is a CRIMINAL.

Do you remember in the 70's when Jimmy Breslin was corresponding with a serial killer? Should Breslin have claimed First Amendment privilege for his source, Son of Sam? Is Son of Sam a whistleblower? By the arguments in the PR posted above, he would be.

[peacetalksforall]

29. I am one who believes her outing was to close down her teams'

investigations of nuclear and wmd trafficking. After reading the DU thread titled American Judas, I believe the investigations and tracking inhibited Cheney and Rusmfeld.

Every one knows about Bolton trying to get people fired. In the thread I mention, there are stories with names and quotes relating to a truth advocate getting fired from the CIA (I believe it was the CIA). Involves Cheney.

[countingbluecars]

24. Great post.

I simply deleted the e-mail from freepress when I received it. Your post inspired me to write explaining why I would not sign their petition. Thanks.

[robertpaulsen]

25. One more time: SCOTUS SET THE PRECEDENT IN 1972!!!

I've posted this multiple times on several threads. I'm going to keep posting this until LIBERALS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER get the message.

This is from John Dean:

Finally, if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over — despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-sources6feb06,0,6080347.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

This is getting seriously disgusting, the absolute ignorance by organizations who shouldn't have to rely on peons like me to do their friggin homework for them. Whistleblowing has nothing to do with this case and this was most certainly not "exchange for sensitive information on government wrongdoing". THE GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING WASTHE EXCHANGE FOR SENSITIVE INFORMATION!!!
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
:argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

on edit - BTW, great letter. I might have to write one like that, I fear that a LOT of well intentioned organizations may make the same mistake freepress.net did.

[garybeck]

28. I also wrote to them. they are misguided on this issue

there is a difference between protecting a whistleblower and protecting a criminal.

[Stephanie]

31. Son of Sam is my new argument

Should Jimmy Breslin have protected his source, Son of Sam? Or should he have assisted the police in capturing Son of Sam? Was Son of Sam a "whistle-blower"?

[Sparkly]

30. Excellent, Stephanie -- this has been making me nuts.

I'm trying to think of a case in which the leak IS the crime, but should be protected anyway. Maybe such a thing is possible, but it's definitely not at issue here.

Journalists' standards should not require them to go to jail, risk their reputations if they testify, or get off the hook (in the case of "shields") when some asshat commits a crime and is then too cowardly to come forward.

[WillyT]

32. *yelling* HEY STEPHANIE !!! - Have You Seen THIS Yet, Might Help !!!

Save the First Amendment--from Karl Rove - E&P

Link: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000973352

DU Discussion Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4021846

WillyT says, "Check it out!"

:hi:

[Stephanie]

34. Thanks very much

I sent it to them.

[WillyT]

45. Here's Another:

The Judy Miller Media Hug-Fest - LA Times

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks6jul06,0,1169727.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

DU Discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x137377

Enjoy!

:hi:

[Stephanie]

33. Fitzgerald himself explains it for you >

Fitzgerald urged the judge to jail the reporters as soon as possible and to start enforcing a $1,000-per-day penalty he had levied against Time.

"We shouldn't enable people to think court orders are optional," Fitzgerald said. "When President Nixon got the order to turn over the tapes, he didn't say, 'Let me think about my alternatives.' " "This case is not about a whistle-blower," Fitzgerald added. "It's about potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063000205_pf.html

[ProfessorPlum]

35. Excellent letter

I can't figure out why the media doesn't seem to get this.

On edit: nominated

[Stephanie]

37. They are having a knee-jerk response to Karl's spin

Rove has spun himself as a "source" or a "whistleblower" and they are all falling for it. We can't be required to disclose our "sources"! They are being lazy and not looking at the distinctions.

[helderheid]

38. Stephanie - THANK YOU. This whole issue had my head spinning

and what you wrote freepress (and I've been on their mailing list and agree with them mostly) is exactly how I understand this as well. THANK YOU!

[helderheid]

39. NOMINATED

[Blue Belle]

40. I can't believe the Free Press is defending a reporter...

from the New York Times! It really mustbe bizzarro world. :eyes:

The only chill that has been put over investigative reporting has stemmed from this Administration"s intimidation of the Press. Investigative reporting in this country has gone the way of the dinosaur since 2000.

[dogday]

42. Did the public really have the right to know?

Did the public really have the right to know who Valerie Plame was? Did she do something like give secrets or treason or did she have sex with Bush? What was it that this lady did that she needed to be exposed for. Was she using her position to get money? What was it?

Any reporter in their right mind has to ask the question, what does this bring to the public? What type of information are we armed with that makes the world a better place now that the cat is out of the bag. When you ask these questions, you come up with a big fat nothing. Nothing happened, no corruption, no cover up. So what was the public's right to know Ms Miller?

It was that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson.... Damning Evidence. They need to stop hiding behind an amendment that was meant for legitimate journalism, not payback from the White House....

[Stephanie]

43. THE FREE PRESS REPLIES - HELP ME CHANGE THEIR MINDS >>>

They replied with this, from the Newspaper Guild, which originated this campaign:


With the way the law is now at the federal level, the messengers (i.e. the reporters) are going to jail while those culpable are still free. This is a classic case of the right wing using journalists as "human shields" to obscure their misbehavior. Not unlike using Dan Rather's poor reporting to obsure Bush's National Guard "service." Because they chose not to go after Novak (or because he secretly revealed his source and is hiding that fact), the prosecutors picked and chose their targets. And they did not include "friends" in the media. Judith Miller didn't write a word about this. Matt Cooper wrote a story days after Novak had written his column. Time-Warner turned over Cooper's notes, which name his source. Why is he still on the line? Because the prosecutor and the courts want to make a point. The prosecutor has said NO reporter can promise confidentiality to a source. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO THAT. The proposed national shield law we are supporting would allow exceptions, including for national security and if information necessary for a criminal investigation can't be gotten any other way. In this case, the prosecutors already HAVE the information. Without the ability to shield the identity of a whistleblower, investigative journalism is dead. No reporter who wants to do real journalism can function if their sources can't trust them. Judith Miller is controversial. Forget the person; the principle is the cornerstone of a free press. It's fundamental.

[Stephanie]

47. Here is my response so far - help me with it please >

With the way the law is now at the federal level, the messengers (i.e. the reporters) are going to jail while those cupable are still free.

>Those culpable cannot be sent to jail without the testimony of a witness. Miller & Cooper are the witnesses.

This is a classic case of the right wing using journalists as "human shields" to obscure their misbehavior. Not unlike using Dan Rather's poor reporting to obsure Bush's National Guard "service."

>Dan Rather was a victim of a sting operation. The facts related in those documents were not in dispute - only the authenticity of the typeface. This is a typical "innoculation" maneuver by Rove - discredit the source, and you have discredited the report, facts notwithstanding.

Because they chose not to go after Novak (or because he secretly revealed his source and is hiding that fact), the prosecutors picked and chose their targets. And they did not include "friends" in the media. Judith Miller didn't write a word about this. Matt Cooper wrote a story days after Novak had written his column. Time-Warner turned over Cooper's notes, which name his source. Why is he still on the line? Because the prosecutor and the courts want to make a point.

> No, because the prosecutor wants corroboration. He has to show a criminal conspiracy to out Plame, or that there was more than one count of doing so.

The prosecutor has said NO reporter can promise confidentiality to a source. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO THAT.

>But in fact there is not ABSOLUTE right to promise confidentiality to a source. If a source tells you he is going to blow up the U.N. on Friday, do you have the right to withhold that information from the police? Seriously? It's the free speech vs. yelling fire in the crowded theater argument. There actually are some limits to speech.

The proposed national shield law we are supporting would allow exceptions, including for national security and if information necessary for a criminal investigation can't be gotten any other way. In this case, the prosecutors already HAVE the information.

>The prosecutors may know who the culprits are, but they don't have enough corroboration to make their case, so they are seeking more. Miller & Cooper are witnesses to the crime, not investigative reporters protecting a source.

Without the ability to shield the identity of a whistleblower, investigative journalism is dead.

> The leaker is NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER. Joseph Wilson was the whistleblower. He reported in the New York Times that Bush was lying about Iraq trying to get uranium from Niger. The White House opted to RETALIATE against Wilson for what he published in the Times. This is a case of abuse of power. Karl Rove, or whoever was the leaker, is NOT a whistleblower.

No reporter who wants to do real journalism can function if their sources can't trust them. Judith Miller is controversial. Forget the person; the principle is the cornerstone of a free press. It's fundamental.

> Protecting a confidential source may be the cornerstone of a free press, but this is not a case of protecting a source. This is a case where a government official attempted to use journalists to retaliate against a whistle-blower. Most journalists wisely did not cooperate with this scheme.

[helderheid]

48. I wish I was as articulate as you

[flyarm]

44. my letter to free press , i recieved it as well and i was fire engine

pissed!

sorry i started a thread on it as well..sorry about dupe, i just deleted!!

here is my response!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

please write free press they are lying about cooper and miller!
i got a petition today about cooper and miller from free press..it is nothing but propaganda..
please take a minute to tell them fitzpatrick is not taking away constitutional rights of miller and cooper...
he is following the law of our land!!

their petition acts like cooper and miller are protecting us..we the people..they are saying basically that cooper and miller are protecting their source that was a whistleblower..what a bunch of crap!

here is the email address to write a letter..lets all write please, and let them have a piece of our minds...we must not let them use the regular propaganda..we must be vigilant to stop it!!

this is a snip of their petition they are sending out!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

snip:
Last week, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case that could imprison two reporters for refusing to reveal their anonymous sources to a federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.


The decision deals a serious blow to the rights of journalists and to the First Amendment. It has cast a chill over investigative reporters who promise confidentiality to sources in exchange for sensitive information on government wrongdoing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

well i wrote back and i urge you to do so as well..now!!

Free Press : Contact Us
http://www.freepress.net/about/contact.php

FROM THE MEDIA is the issue and their petition


this is my letter to them!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

from media is the issue...

YOU ARE SOOO FULL OF CRAP!
the shield laws are not for protecting "we the people" from criminals in our government..its for exposing the criminals in our government who are committing a crime against "we the people"..if you freaking jerks did your job we would not have had 9/11 and we would not be in a war of lies, and Valerie plames leaker would already be in jail! FOR TREASON!

Who ever outed Valerie Plame was not a "whistle blower"..can you get your small little minds around that?? can you?? Whoever outed Valerie Plame was a damned criminal who put our nations security at risk, and probably was afraid she would expose more crimes in this administration! Who ever outed Valerie did more damage to our nation than Watergate..what part of that are your small little minds not grasping??
Whoever outed Valerie Plame is a traitor to our nation, and no where does "freedom of speech" protect criminals who commit treason upon our nation...can you get that into your sick little minds?? or are you a cover up too, for the bush crime family??

This isn't about protecting a whistleblower of government wrongdoing. This is about protecting those who committed the wrongdoing( the crime and the criminals!). Not only is leaking Ms. Plame's identity a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it represents a serious threat to National Security since it destroyed an operation that took 20 years and taxpayer dollars to build that tracked the proliferation of WMD. Crime is not protected by the First Amendment!!! God knows how many of Ms Plames operatives are dead now because of a criminal in this White House who comitted this crime of treason!!!!!!!!

The entire media is a disgrace..you have a job to do in the constitution, and yet you abdicate your jobs, unless you want to lie more and use the constitution for your own grandizing..well not this time..I hope all of your asses are fried in this!

Get out of my country unless you are willing to do what our constitution says..and that is to report crimes of the government against "we the people"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are the filth of the earth!

I no longer partake in your bullshit!
No U.S.newspapers and no tv news in my home ..you are all child blocked!
I read foreign press!
They tell the truth!

You might try it for once!
Because you are nothing but lying pieces of crap!

[izzybeans]

49. my response from a few days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1592362#1594479

[prairierose]

50. Here is what I sent.....

As a former member of the press, I do not believe that the press should have free rein to shield criminals.

Both Cooper and Miller should be willing to testify against criminals they encounter in their work and so should any other member of the press. The First Amendment does not give journalists the right to keep knowledge of crimes from the justice system.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. The Free Press and Lawyers guild are right.

And, I support their efforts to protect Miller and Cooper.

That said, I hardly consider Miller and Cooper "martyrs" but I do consider the protection of confidential sources absolutely essential to having a free press.

In the eagerness to "get" Rove, many are using the rationalization that Miller and Cooper are protecting a felon and not a whistleblower. They are overlooking the fact that potential whistleblowers would be committing a felony by doing so.

If someone from CIA, the Military, etc, who has clearances and decides to blow the whistle on the sleazy goings on of those agencies by becoming a "confidential source" they are commiting a legal felony and could face imprisonment.

They're confidentiality is necessary for them to come forward unless they are willing to do prison time.

Think about it folks.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Sorry. Simply Don't Agree

Everyone blowing the whistle on malfeasance or criminal activity is not violating any law. In fact, if the action is exposing said malfeasance in gov't or criminal wrongdoing, the whistleblower shield laws apply, meaning the whistleblower is, in fact, NOT VIOLATING ANY LAW!

That's what the shield law does in these cases. They hold the whistleblower harmless.

So, your logic is not consistent with the nature of the law that protects these folks.
The Professor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. I beg to differ. Violating secret clearances is breaking the law.

Leaking of classified information is a felony punishable by severe penalties. Daniel Ellsberg was charged with 15 felonies for "leaking" the Pentagon Papers to the press and was faced with 115 years in prison.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. And Yet, He Spent How Much Time In Jail

That's what i thought.
The Professor

[flyarm]

53. their sources were the crime, and the criminals

i suppose if a journalist had fore knowledge of 9/11 they would have the right to protect that information from the american public in your thinking?? because they had a so called obligation to the source?...no dear..they do not have an obligation to protect the criminal or the crime, the journalist has the obligation under our constitution to protect we the people...from criminals in our government or from a crime against we the people!
the constitution is very clear about that.
the fourth estate...is to protect we the people from the government..in this case it was someone in the government who was harming us..we the people..the journalist has the utmost obligation to protect us from a wayward government and a government person or persons attempting to do we the people harm!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Journalists are not "obligated". No one says they are.

In order to obtain the sources they promise not to reveal them. Whether they keep the promise is up to them. There is no law obligating them to protect the source. Any more than if one of the hijackers said to "I'll tell you a secret if you promise not to tell", to Joe Schmoe the bartender who agreed to keep mum.

However, there are a mountain of laws to protect "National Security" and those who violate those laws face the possibility of imprisonment or even death. So, if the CIA file clerk with a secret clearance, comes across a memo ordering the CIA agents in Cuba to get the mafia to assasinate Fidel Castro, or fund the Contras, or knock off Patrice Lumumba, or overthrow Salvador Allende, and decides to leak it to the press on condition of source confidentiality, she/he has to trust that that confidentiality promise will be kept. Unfortunately, in the above cases no leaks from conscious stricken CIA types occurred.

[flyarm]

55. what is really disgusting is..

there are so few Americans who have read or understand the constitution..and the laws of our land..so they can be taken so easily to the kool aide of which to drink and poison the rest of us because of their lack of knowledge of our laws.

its not brain surgery to read the constitution..Americans are too lazy to read it, or attempt to understand it..it really is a beautiful document..but like any beautiful book, it only becomes a treasure when it is read!

[flyarm]

56. no the freepress is wrong!

the whistle blower in this case was joe wilson, a crime was being perpetrated against he and his wife for retaliation purposes, no media has the right to cover up a government criminal in the process of a crime to hurt or destroy a whistleblower or his family ..end of story!!

the leaker was committing a crime and in this case the journalists were part of the crime!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Daniel Ellsberg was committing 15 crimes.

"Two newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, each began publishing a leaked, secret Defence Department history of the Vietnam War that dramatically revealed government deception and incompetence. The Nixon administration went into federal court against the two news organisations, separately and, citing national security and charging treason, managed to halt publication of the "Pentagon Papers" until the US Supreme Court, on June 30 1971 sided with the First Amendment by a vote of 6-3.

While Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee was, among others, understandably exultant and relieved, he also recognised that he had just stared into the abyss: "For the first time in the history of the American republic, newspapers had been restrained by the government from publishing a story -- a black mark in the history of democracy. What the hell was going on in this country that this could happen?"

To finish the flashback, the Pentagon Papers episode was just the beginning. Two days before the historic Supreme Court case, the whistleblower who had leaked the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, was indicted on federal charges of conspiracy, espionage, theft of government property and the unauthorised possession of "documents and writing related to the national defence". The day after the high court decision, White House special counsel Charles Colson asked former CIA operative E Howard Hunt whether "we should go down the line to nail the guy cold"."

[Stephanie]

66. But in this case Wilson is Ellsberg and Rove is Nixon

Wilson is the whistle-blower. Rove is a high govt official who abused his power to intimidate a witness. Wilson's publication of damaging information in the New York Times moved Rove to concoct a criminal scheme to retaliate against him. Rove attempted to enlist six different journalists in this scheme. Only Novak cooperated. Rove is not a whistle-blower. Rove is not a source. Rove ABUSED HIS POWER and the journalists who he contacted are witness to it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. And, it has come out that he did so.

I am not in disagreement with you on Rove's abuse of power. But, to turn around the argument, if another journalist should discover a "classified" memo given to him/her by a "confidential source" that clearly indicts Rove but refuses to reveal his her source, should the journalist be prosecuted? I think not.

[Stephanie]

70. No, because in that case the source would be a whistle-blower

and so protected.

[CWebster]

54. perfect. nt

[sunnystarr]

57. Where is the petition that supports Fitzgerald?

This is a blatent abuse of the first amendment and sure doesn't make the case for shielding those who broke the law. If there's a petition supporting Fitzgerald I'll be more than happy to add my name.

[WLKjr]

58. You hit the nail right on the head, and hard.

Your right, and I don't see why a lot of people do not see this as a criminal act.

The cover of a government agent was blown by someone who knew she was a agent. They decided to get even with the person who critizied the administration. Two reporters should know that this person knows this kind of information and that it was wrong for them to be hearing it. Why didn't they report it? They are just as guilty as the leaker and I hope they talk or go to jail.

[Garbo 2004]

59. Reportedly both Cooper's and Miller's contact(s) waived cofidentiality

so they're not "protecting sources" by not testifying.

I did see a comment by Miller that her "morality" would not allow her to testify. Having read her breathless "inside scoops" about WMD in the Times all I can say about her alleged journalistic "morality" is :rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

60. I like the idea of a federal shield law for journalists

Too bad Miller and Cooper are the poster children.

[Stephanie]

62. But who qualifies? What if Rove leaks classified info to Gannon/Guckert?

Should Gannon/Guckert have the right to protect his "source" in such case? If Rove leaked classified info to destroy an enemy and funneled it through Gannon/Guckert, should he be protected as a "source"?


Here is my final argument - this is what I sent back to them:

=====================

Thanks, but I think you confuse one fundamental issue.

(Since we don't know who the leaker is - let's just call him "Rove").

Rove is not a "source." Rove is a high government official who abused his power in order to intimidate a whistle-blower, because he didn't like what Wilson wrote in the New York Times. Rove attempted to co-opt six journalists in this endeavor. Only Novak complied. The others are witness to Rove's criminal abuse of power.

Your own language shows that in this case Rove is the exception to the rule:

"The proposed national shield law we are supporting would allow exceptions, including for national security and if information necessary for a criminal investigation can't be gotten any other way."

Rove's attempted intimidation of a whistle-blower did jeopardize national security, and the information on the each separate count of revealing Plame's ID cannot be gotten any other way than by testimony from each separate witness. Rove is culpable each time he revealed the classified information. Each time.

Rove is not a "source." Rove concocted a criminal scheme and tried to drag journalists into it . He does not qualify as a source, much less a whistle-blower. But Rove is not above hiding behind that nomenclature, and behind all of you who buy his spin.

Please reconsider your position.

======================

[helderheid]

63. kick

[Peace Patriot]

61. Jailing Judith Miller will not have a chilling effect on honest reporting.

Here's my post on this matter, from:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x137023

Jailing Judith Miller will not have a chilling effect on honest reporting.

In fact, I think the opposite will occur. Reporters who might be tempted to act as propagandists for the Bush Cartel will see that such behavior may carry ill consequences. And those who are inclined toward real journalism will be heartened that a Pentagon/neocon shill--and a serious discredit to their profession--has been exposed. Maybe they'll even start reporting on the real story of the Iraq war and the Bush Cartel.

For those who don't know it, Judith Miller and the New York Times--which enthusiastically published her stories, often on the front page, throughout the leadup to the war--did more to promulgate Bush's lies about Iraq than any other news organization in the country.

It appears that Miller's gushy, wetting-her-pants enthusiasm for slaughtering over one hundred thousand innocent Iraqis, and upwards of 2,000 US soldiers, got her involved not only with a liar, convicted banking criminal, and double-agent, Ahmed Chalabi--one of her main sources for the lies about Iraq WMDs--but also got her involved in an act of treason: outing a CIA weapons expert, Valerie Plame, and her entire covert network, apparently in retaliation for what Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, had done--his crying foul on Bush's false claim about Iraq nukes.

Miller appears to have been in the loop on this treasonous act--she didn't publish Plame's CIA identity herself, but may have conveyed the information to others. (Robert Novak was the one who published it.) It was top secret information, of a kind that carries special punishment if it is disclosed (a law signed by Bush Senior!), for the protection of CIA agents. Prosecutor Fitzgerald undoubtedly wants to find out who told Judith Miller (likely someone high up in the White House--current spec, Karl Rove), and may also consider her complicit in the crime.

I suspect that the purpose of this act of treason--which endangered many lives, including Plame's--was not political retaliation, or not just that, but was primarily to disable Plame's CIA network, the purpose of which was to convey ACCURATE INFORMATION on WMDs to our government. The Bush Cartel DIDN'T WANT accurate information. They wanted cooked information--like the crap Judith Miller was pedaling on the front page of the New York Times.

Also, Valerie Plame and her network of WMD spies would have been in a position to suss out any effort by Bush Cartelists to PLANT WMDs in Iraq--a project that I can easily believe the Cartelists had plans to do. (I suspect that the death of Britain's top weapons inspector, David Kelly, under highly suspicious circumstances, might also have been related to a plot to plant such weapons.)

The matters at issue here have nothing to do with freedom of the press--or protecting honest or courageous (or any) sources. They have to do with the government USING the press for propaganda purposes, with corrupt and complicit sources being USED to spread disinformation, with the corruption and war profiteering of the US news monopolies (with the NYT leading the pack), with the immense disservice that the US news monopolies have done to the American people in promoting this unjustified war, and with an act of TREASON that resulted from all of this.

So I'm quite serious. If anything, the uncovering of this Bush propaganda network, and Judith Miller's part in it, will HELP restore real journalism.

Miller has been thick within neocon counsels herself. And their prime goal for at least a decade has been to achieve a big US military presence in the Middle East. It's more likely that she is among the perpetrators of this plot to invade a very weakened Iraq, and telling a pack of 100% lies to the American people about it, than she is a mere patsy journalist.

More info: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/3/17138/30618

-----

I don't know as much about Matthew Cooper's work as I do about Miller's, but I do know that Time magazine played its part in pushing Bush lies and propaganda for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and helped to install a fascist coup in the White House. I have no sympathy for him or for them. I hope their news monopoly goes down in flames--and, if it doesn't do so of its own accord because of its lying news coverage, I hope the American people dismantle it--and every other lying, warmongering news monopoly--as soon as we get back our right to vote.

We, the people, are the only true sovereigns of this land. It is our right to determine what our government does, not Diebold's right, not ES&S's right, not the Bush Cartel's right, not Time magazine's right, and not the New York Times' right. These are arrogant powers every one of whom deserves to be tossed right out of the country. For Time magazine and the New York Times to wrap themselves in "freedom of the press"--after what they have done over the last five years--is the lousiest joke I've heard in a long time.

Karl Rove as a whistleblower. I mean, THAT is a bad joke.

And unthinking progressives who are suckered into defending them are probably the same people who think Bush was re-elected in 2004, or that, even if there were some "irregularities" in the election, we had all best forget about it and think about "next time."

The BALD FACT that Bush-Cheney campaign chairs, and "Pioneer" donors, and rightwing billionaires now own and control our election system with SECRET, PROPRIETARY software, doesn't seem to strike them as odd. Fuzzy thinking like this is hampering, not helping, our recovery of our democracy.

[ooglymoogly]

69. it seems we at du are the only ones getting this

or is it that the mainstream media does not want to get it.

[David Zephyr]

72. Thanks, Stephanie. We are on the same wave length today.

Excellent post, Stephanie! This has been driving me nuts and your post goes a long way in helping unmask the Miller fraud.

Hope you can check out my complimentary thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4027784.

[Stephanie]

73. I already posted in it!

You are right on the money. Please consider sending your essay to the Newspaper Guild.