Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Times' Miller, Justice Dept. at Odds Again

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:07 AM
Original message
Times' Miller, Justice Dept. at Odds Again
Times' Miller, Justice Dept. at Odds Again


Wednesday October 19, 2005 8:31 AM

AP Photo NVJH105

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - New York Times reporter Judith Miller and the Justice Department are facing off once again: This time they disagree about a proposed federal law that would allow reporters to keep the identity of their sources secret.

Miller, who spent 85 days in jail this summer to avoid telling prosecutors about her sources, was promoting such a law Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In prepared testimony, she acknowledged her own stories suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were flawed by sources with wrong information. But Miller argued that ``even flawed reporters should not be jailed for protecting even flawed sources.''

Many sources with accurate information needed by the public will provide it only to reporters who promise confidentiality even before the reporter can assess the information, she claimed.

Representing the Bush administration, Chuck Rosenberg, a U.S. attorney in Texas, said in prepared testimony that the bill as drafted would seriously impede the government's ability to ``enforce the law, fight terrorism and protect the national security.''

snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-535...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. NO special laws for journalists, especially when they aren't
journalists!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Complete immunity to participate in coverups and political dirty tricks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. No kidding. It's like a whore arguing to protect the identity of her pimp
But with Judas Miller, of course, it's at a much crasser level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. A fed shield law would not have shielded Miller. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think Miller knew the information was false
In Judith Miller's case, I have a hard time believing that she accepted information given by Chalabi as accurate. A good reporter should do some fact checking before publishing the kind of articles she did, which swayed the public to believe a lie. Either she's stupid or lazy, or lacks the judgment to be a reporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. or maybe she isn't a reporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. no respectable reporter gets one side of the story
Judy, it seems, didn't bother to consider sources who did not agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seansky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. she has really, really jeopardize the journalistic profession, and stained
any principle/respect the public had for them...there isn't going back, even with a shield law. A great damage in our minds has been done and that represents a great part of what makes us trust/believe in journalists and what they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. And just at the time when I'd like to be asking Judy about anthrax....
http://www.shundahai.org/area_12_camp_nts.htm

NEVADA TEST SITE -- In a nondescript mustard-color building that was once a military recreation hall and barbershop, the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities.

Adjacent to the pool tables, the shuffleboard and the bar stands a gleaming stainless steel cylinder, the 50-liter (53-quart) fermenter in which germs can be cultivated....

_____________

The above story was apparently published in the September 4, 2001 edition of the New York Times. Isn't it fascinating that the spoon-fed WMD press "expert" was writing about such things just a day before Mohammed Atta showed up on Jack Abramoff's boat, just a week before the September 11 attacks, just two weeks before the first anthrax letters went out, and a lifetime before anyone cared about Saddam's defunct and nonexistent weapons and programs?

Judy, you need to be doing a lot more talking and a lot less stonewalling, or you may one day find yourself researching deadly chemicals such as sodium thiopental, pavulon, and potassium chloride.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. WTF Atta on Abramoff's Boat... When did this happen..
Who reported it.. What did they know & when did they know it????

LINK!!!

LINK!!!

LINK!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
10. Nice try Judith!!!.....You're such a fool !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. their may be a need for a federal shield law but god knows that
judith miller should not its standard bearer; she is the case study why their should be no such shield.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC