Prison for Judith Miller : a dark day for freedom of the press

[justinsb]

From Reporters Without Borders
Prison for Judith Miller : a dark day for freedom of the press

It was with great sadness and concern that Reporters Without Borders learned on July 6, 2005, a federal judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to serve time in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name. She was taken into custody immediately. Judith Miller faces up to four months in jail, the length of time before the term of the federal grand jury in the case expires.

Matt Cooper avoided prison after agreeing to reveal his sources in front a the grand jury. He said his source gave him a personal confidentiality waiver, allowing him to discuss their conversation.

"It is a dark day for freedom of the press in the United States and around the world. This unprecedented sentence against a journalist who was merely exercising her professional rights is a serious violation of international law, a dangerous precedent, and the United States has sent a very bad signal to the rest of the world. As a member of the Organization of American States, the United States has a duty to comply with the texts adopted by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, whose Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression clearly stipulates that every journalist has "the right to keep his/her source of information, notes, personal and professional archives confidential" (Article 8)," Reporters Without Borders stated.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14337

[glaucon]

1. The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression

also clearly states in Article 4:

"Access to information held by the state is a fundamental right of every individual. States have the obligation to guarantee the full exercise of this right. This principle allows only exceptional limitations that must be previously established by law in case of a real and imminent danger that threatens national security in democratic societies."

Outing a covert agent clearly "threatens national security."

[justinsb]

3. Sorry I'm not buying it

If it's a crime then prosecute the New York Times for running it, or Judith Miller for writing it, but sending her to prison for not revealing her sources is, in my view, a blow to freedom of the press. I am just being consistent. I think my view would have alot more support if she were a Dem friendly reporter protecting a source in the Clinton white house. Sending her to prison may be convienient for now, and it may make alot of people here happy if Rove is busted, but it is a position that Dems will regret in the years to come when it's not about Rove anymore.

[still_one]

10. what if she committed a crime?

what if she is involved?

the prosecurter already knows her source, and her source gave her permission to testitfy. No, its more than that. This is a corruption of first ammendment rights

She wasn't there to protect a Whistle Blower, i.e. Wilson, she was there to spread propaganda for the administration

Is it alright to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is NO FIRE? Isn't that first ammendment rights?

[sadiesworld]

15. She's being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify as ordered.

No new legal ground is being broken here. None.

[jrthin]

24. You are assuming

that the prosecutor wants her for just refusing to name her source. But wanting her source may be a moot point if she indeed is part of the scheme to reveal the name of a CIA agent. Did she help to disseminate the CIA's name?

Sending her to prison is certainly not a blow to freedom but a breath of fresh air to justice. This women is attempting to stifle a whistle-blower, Mr. Wilson. That's wrong. Further, no group should have that sort of absolute legal protection--I fear there would be abuse, as this case clearly shows.

[justinsb]

25. That's what I've been saying

If she committed a crime prosecute her for it, prosecute the paper for it: But forcing her to reveal her sources is bad for the future of press freedom.

[jrthin]

44. In law, it's not what you know,

it's what you can prove. If her notes produce the answer, so be it. That is why no one should be able to commit a crime and then hide behind a legal shield. Remember, the job of the press is to expose and make the public aware. Ms. Miller's behavior is the opposite.

Further, Ms. Miller, the journalist that some in her field are tripping over themselves screaming loss of freedom of speech, is in essence victimizing supposed real journalists.

[SaveElmer]

31. What if the source on a murder story was the murderer himself...

What if there were an unsolved murder, and a man went to a reporter with a promise to reveal the identity of the murderer with the promise of anonymity. Say the reporter agrees, and then the source turns out to be the murderer himself. Should the reporter disclose their identity?

If your source is the perpetrator of the crime, it seems to me there should be no protection for that source.

Am I missing something?

[justinsb]

34. Yep

If you want a free press; if you want reporters to be able to do investigative journalism at all, you have to allow them to protect their sources - even when it doesn't work for your side. Otherwise you are turning 'rights' into 'privledges' . This thread has convinced me that most Americans (on the right and the left) don't really want a free press.

[IntravenousDemilo]

38. Miller is not a journalist

The responsibility of every journalist, as I learned in J-school, is to afflict the comfortable and to comfort the afflicted. She has instead comforted the comfortable (Rove) and afflicted the afflicted (Plame), which means she has abdicated her responsibility and ought not to be referred to as a journalist. A "journalist", maybe, but not a journalist.

[justinsb]

41. Ok, but I feel that way about most of the people

who work for CNN, MSNBC, all of the people who work for Fox etc., etc., who gets to decide where the dividing line is?

[DoYouEverWonder]

45. I think we gave up a free press a few years ago

with the selection in 2000 and we certainly gave it up with the enactment of the Patriot Act. I certainly don't feel sorry for so called journalists like Judith Miller, who are nothing more then stenographers for the PNAC and who supported the Patriot Act and acted has cheerleaders for Bu$h's illegal war. 1000's of people have died because of this women's lies and propaganda. I think Fitzgerald is going after a lot more then just one persons so called 'sources'.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Exactly. If they pass a federal shield law for journalists,

it should make exceptions for cases like Judith Miller/Valerie Plame.

Refusing to say which govt. official outed a CIA official working undercover on wmd is an example of when a journalist should go to jail.

[still_one]

2. really?

where was the dark day when the patriot act was signed? Silence from the press

where was the dark day when bush lied about Iraq? Silence from the press

where was the dark day when the DSM failed to be reported? Silence from the press

where has the press been the last five years? asleep on the job. Corporate whores who have helped perpetuate the mess we are in

[justinsb]

4. Your right

so we should support a crackdown on the media, that'll show em.

[still_one]

6. we should support a media, not a pravda machine that works

for the government

frankly, I suspect miller was working for the white house

she was the one who spread the aluminum tubes used to make nukes story, as part of her basis why we should go into Iraq, and even when it was shown otherwise, stuck to it

In other words, bring back the fairness doctrine, and require that anyone who uses the PUBLIC'S airwaves, MUST devote a certain percentage of time to NEWS, no commentary, real NEWS....

[justinsb]

9. So prosecute her

Prosecute the NY times. Prosecuting a reporter or a publication for breaking the law is one thing, it's been done before - sending her to prison for not revealing her sources is a bad precident and it will come back to bite Liberals in the ass.

[still_one]

13. I think she did break the law

she help spread the information about Plame to others

Incidently, there is nothing the prosecuter is doing that is illegal, that does not make it right or wrong, but perfectly legal

[sadiesworld]

17. The precedent had been established prior to this case.

This is NOT new.

[mrdmk]

33. We do have shield laws here and the Federal shield law in

congress at this point will not protect Judith Miller. Allow me to explain. A Doctor, a Lawyer and Cleric all have confidential (shield) laws, thus a person can talk in a confidential matter to anyone of these professionals. A reporter also have shield laws in most of the states. All of the shield laws end when somebody tries to perpetrate a crime, another words you cannot go to a Doctor and ask how can I poison a person, or go to a Lawyer and ask how can I get away with murder by claiming insanity or even a priest and say can God forgive me after I offed my neighbor, all of the above by law will have to report you. The outing of Valerie Plame was an offense against the law, thus no shield law, plain and simple.

Now if so and so came to a reporter with evidence of wrongdoing by so and so and reported the evidence, then the shield law will kick in because the person talking to the reporter nor the reporter have done nothing wrong. This is protecting the whistle blower.

Besides a lot of people go to jail for standing up for their rights. Just ask the protesters in New York during the Republican Convention, or better yet the people protesting The School of the Americas located at Fort Benning, Georgia who did absolutely nothing wrong but went to jail for what they believe in.

The Bush Jr. Administration and the journalist talking to them were being stupid in talking to each other about a person in the CIA. There is no excuse for that lack of intelligence.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Reporter working for the White House?

Nooooo....Say it ain't so! :sarcasm:

[girl gone mad]

23. When the press is spreading lies and disinformation...

on the government's behalf, then it is the people who require protection from the press.

I'm all for transparency in government, and with the media being as powerful at it is, I believe we need some transparency in the media as well.

Protecting a whistleblower is one thing. Protecting a White House operative who broke the law in an attempt to smear a whistleblower who was trying to shine light on the administration's false premise for war, now that is something else entirely.

[QC]

5. They should give her a rifle and send her to Iraq

since she was so hot for this war.

[girl gone mad]

7. Unprecedented?

I don't think so.

[Solly Mack]

8. Was the Press worried about civil rights when they were aiding and

abetting Bush?

Why should I worry about them now?

I think as much of the Press as the Press thinks of the people.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Exactly! How about the Pentagon embedding reporters?

Does the press see nothing wrong with that??? I DO.

[Solly Mack]

22. Amazing they want to paint themselves as keepers of freedom

Free press and all that...always paying lip service to the 1st amendment...

When time and time again they've proven themselves bought and paid for - and just as corrupt as the assholes that paid for them.

[pinkpops]

11. She said herself that she knew she deserved to be in jail for

refusing to snitch. Of course in reality her history shows she would be glad to snitch out less important sources. This one is really really special. If the MSM would do their job and take off the kid gloves I would have more sympathy.

[Jacobin]

12. The idea that there is still a real press in this country is absolutely

and totally fucking laughable.

These whores for the junta want to be put on some pedestal? I can't stop laughing. I'm sorry.

Besides which fact Judy Miller is taking the 5th, not the first. Read the comments by the judge who wrote the opinion, after having seen some of the documentation produced by Fitzgerald in camera.

The violins being played by the neo-con press are simply absurd

[justinsb]

18. Ok but from where I'm sitting

It is a blow to press freedom in the States that will make things much worse for you in the long run. It , in part, means that there never will be a reliable press in the states because finding 'sources' is going to be much harder.

[Jacobin]

40. There IS no press in the United States

There IS no journalistic integrity.

There IS no media to protect.

It is all a completely state/corporate run propaganda organization to further the aims of the junta. What paper seriously reported on the DSM and WHEN? Three weeks after they came out in Britain...and then only to marginalize those who thought them meant something.

I mean, give me a huge fucking break.

I find people who seriously claim that we have a media in this country separate from the junta to be naive and not in a strong position to play violins for criminals who are jailed for participating in treason. Hell, Judy went so far off the reservation in her quest to help PNACers in their agenda that she has offended even the CIA!!!

[justinsb]

48. It begins...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4058435&mesg_id=4058435

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Excuse me? She is covering up a CRIME!

She faces up to 4 months in jail and I HOPE she gets much, much more time. She can rot there for all I care. She was a HUGE player in feeding the propaganda put out by the WH and Chalabi, a KNOWN felon, and she deserves to be right where she is.

[justinsb]

21. If she were protecting a dem

I think you'd see it differently. Personally I see the position of people here on this issue as oportunistic and in the years to come when journalists are forced to reveal their sources on all kinds of stories I think you'll be outraged. But, it's your country.

[Ikonoklast]

26. This is not about freedom of the press

She is part of a criminal conspiracy that has national intelligence implications and quite possibly put peoples' lives in jeopardy. As a mouthpiece for the criminals in the White House, she can only plead the fifth as the first amendment does not apply in this case. Funny how lukewarm the Pugs support her on this.

[justinsb]

27. From where I sit it is about freedom of the press

I'm not endorsing what she did, she shouldn't have run the story, the NY Times shouldn't have run the story. But confidentiality of sources is , to me, a freedom of the press issue.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. She didn't write the story. Robert Novak did.

She was one of 6 journalists the source shopped the story to. Novak was the only one to write about it. She just knows WHO the source is and is covering it up for the WH.

[justinsb]

32. Fine the prosecute Novak n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. He already testified and now Fitzgerald needs to corroborate

his story with Cooper and Miller (we think), otherwise it's his word against the source.

[justinsb]

49. It begins...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4058435&mesg_id=4058435

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. The source she's protecting committed a TREASONOUS act.

It's not just any old source. There is a difference. This is a matter of National Security and I do believe I read somewhere that people connected to Valerie Plame were killed BECAUSE they were connected to her. This isn't just your ordinary everyday source. She was investigating WMD. THAT just happened to be the EXCUSE the idiot-in-chief used to illegally invade Iraq.....they had WMD. Another coincidence?

[dansolo]

54. Not if the dem had committed a crime

Sorry, but that won't play here. I have no more sympathy for law breakers who have a D after their name than for a Republican, assuming that the charge is legitimate.

[glitch]

30. The real blow was allowing Judith Miller to call herself a journalist.

The damage the corporate media has done to 1st amendment protections is what journalists should be talking about.
The extent to which they won't is not helping their cause, and ours.

[Disturbed]

36. If she were protecting a dem.

I would say that she is contempt of court and should be sent to a prison. She got a break. They sent her to Club Fed. I hope that she gets charged with Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to commit fraud and gets sent to a real prison for about 30 years.

[noamnety]

35. Where was the outcry

the last time she actually DID reveal a source who wished to remain anonymous?

There was no court pressure then, she just felt like exposing a source for the hell of it, apparently.

I didn't see any great handwringing from people afraid that whistleblowers would no longer come forward. I didn't see any huge outrage about that dangerous precedent.

[justinsb]

37. Sorry, I don't know about the incident to which you refer

I would have been pissed about that too. I consistently believe in the anonymity of sources. Even when I really, really wish they'd spill the beans.

[noamnety]

39. Here's a thread on it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4054279

[justinsb]

43. Thanks

I agree, she should not have named her source then either. I'm not worried about Judith Miller, I'm worried about precedents and what happens when a reporter has a source that BushCo want named.

[noamnety]

46. The only "precedent" Judith Miller has set

is that we now know she'll protect a source if the WH doesn't want it named.

Otherwise, nothing has changed. And that isn't much of a change anyway.

[justinsb]

47. Wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4058435&mesg_id=4058435

[noamnety]

51. What does he mean by this?

"That has changed so dramatically in the last few years."

Are there other cases besides Miller/Cooper? He seems to be blaming it on a change in climate overall, not on that precedent, unless I read that wrong - but I don't remember other similar cases recently.

[justinsb]

52. I don't remember any similar cases recently

that resulted in "a New York Times reporter being jailed" he's not releasing the stories because he doesn't want to be forced to reveal the source of the documents that the story is based on. So Rove may be busted, but these stories (rumored to be about the 2004 elections) may never see the light of day.

[jazzjunkysue]

50. Quick! Stick a feeding tube in her, and the Chimp will be right over to

save her. What a guy!

[tocqueville]

53. I posted the following message to RSF

I think RSF ([email protected]) is badly informed on that one. I think they see something like NYT versus big bad Bush. But as we know it's more complicated than that. And I don't want a French organisation for freedom of expression to play Rove's game, unconsciously.

Sorry for the French, I wanted to post that on the French DU group, but I can't, not being a donor.... yet...
_________________________________________________________________

Réagissant à l'article :

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14337
Prison for Judith Miller : a dark day for freedom of the press

Suivant l'affaire Rove (Conseiller personnel de G.Bush) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove aux USA je voudrais vous indiquer que la question de la condamnation de Miller n'est pas simplement une question de liberté d'expression :

1) Judith Miller protège une source probablement par conviction politique, mais pas celle que l'on croit. Elle est très connue aux USA dans les milieux Démocrates pour
avoir honteusement propagé la thèse des ADM etc... http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article12729.html. Vous pouvez facilement vérifier ces assertions

2) The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression also clearly states in Article 4:

"Access to information held by the state is a fundamental right of every individual. States have the obligation to guarantee the full exercise of this right. This principle allows only exceptional limitations that must be previously established by law in case of a real and imminent danger that threatens national security in democratic societies."

Or M. Rove a donné une information tombant sous le coup de l'article 4 "imminent danger that threatens national security in democratic societies" en révélant à des journalistes (Cooper, Miller etc...) que la femme (épouse) de l'ambassadeur Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame) travaillait "undercover" pour la CIA. Il a vendu "ouvertement" cette dame (détruisant sa carrière) pour se venger du fait que Joe Wilson n'avait - en toute honnêteté - pas voulu confirmer l'histoire du "yellowcake uranium" qui a servi comme prétexte à Bush et Condi Rice pour motiver l'invasion de l'Iraq. C'est du moins la version acceptée par les Démocrates américains et jusqu'à présent à ma connaissance non contestée par les MSM (Main Stream Media).

lMais le plus grave est que les organisations Démocrates aus USA considérent que Rove s'est rendu coupable de haute-trahison en mettant en danger une opératrice et son réseau, qui eux travaillaient sérieusement sur la propagation des ADM à travers le monde. L'histoire est maintenant pratiquement officielle et devient très, très embarrassante pour l'administration Bush.

3) Tout laisse à penser que soit Judith Miller préfère aller en prison que de "trahir" un traitre à son pays, par pure solidarité avec l'administration Bush soit il s'agit d'une mise en scène car il n'y a plus de "secret" à l'heure actuelle et que de larmoyer sur la liberté d'expression est une bonne manière de noyer le poisson : le fait qu'un des "top top" à Washington a mis "ses" soldats en danger, pour faire taire quelqu'un qui faisait consciencieusement son boulot, mais pas dans le sens voulu par G.Bush. De plus : "Matt Cooper avoided prison after agreeing to reveal his sources in front of the grand jury. He said his source gave him a personal confidentiality waiver, allowing him to discuss their conversation." Pourquoi la même source donnerait le feu vert à l'un et pas à l'autre ?

4) RSF en qui je fais normalement toute confiance, en publiant cette protestation aujourd'hui, est en train de faire inconsciemment le jeu de l'administration Bush. Car d'après ce que je comprends la peine encourue par Miller est tout a fait légale, suivant l'article 4 cité ci-dessus. Même G .Bush a du contacter un avocat dans cette histoire, car il pourrait être lui-même convoqué.

5) Je sais bien que la liberté d'expression s'applique à tout le monde, même à ceux dont on ne partage pas les opinions. Mais est ce que RSF se plaindrait du fait qu'un juge antiterroriste en France voudrait obtenir une information d'un journaliste ayant été informé qu'un attentat se préparait, et que ce journaliste refuserait par ce qu'il est solidaire avec les terroristes pour des raisons personnelles et/ou idéologiques ? On peut prendre la "Corse" comme exemple. J'imagine qu'en France il y a aussi des limites à la liberté d'expression quand la vie d'autrui est en jeu ou qu'il s'agit de secrets défense. Et j'imagine que dans généralement ce domaine de liberté de presse on aurait plutôt des leçons à prendre des USA de Watergate.

Je tenais simplement vous mettre au courant de certains aspects, si vous ne l'étiez pas auparavant, en espérant que l'anglais dans ce message sera compréhensible.

Je fais cette démarche à titre purement personnel, je n'appartiens à aucun parti politique. Mais ça me fait de la peine quand je vois que la déclaration de RSF coupe l'herbe sous les pieds des blogs démocrates américains, eux qui sont VRAIMENT l'expression même de la dernière liberté d'expression aux USA, quand les grands médias US sont plus ou moins tenus au silence sur les sujets qui fâchent, pour des raisons purement économiques.

Sincèrement

etc...