BWAHAHA, Freepers Frothing at the mouth for Judith Miller's impending

[Walt Starr]

imprisonment:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432818/posts

Stupd Freepers don't understand Miller is being imprisoned because she refuses to give up the person who outted Plame! Miller is taking the fall for Bush and the Freepers are cheering her going to prison!

I hope Miller reads that thread, myabe she'll give up the person who committed treason!

[blm]

1. What idiots. Miller's protecting the White House, just as she always does.

Miller gives the WH everything they need and always did and the freepers are too dumb to understand that?

[Warpy]

15. Well, she's also standing up for journalistic principle

something that's misplaced in this case because she's covering up a CRIME. She can be tried as an accessory.

Face it, Nofacts is off the hook because he sang like a wee birdie, according to PBS a month or so ago. They're just trying to get other people to back up his story.

The longer this goes on, the less I think it was Gannon/Guckert. Honestly, who would have believed HIM? Who'd have taken HIS word about having the White House run interference on any prosecution?

It has to be Libby or Cheney, and you can bet your ass Idiot knew about it.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. You know he knew

[Stirk]

22. I seriously doubt that.

Judith Miller describes the role of a journalist this way:

"My job as a reporter on intelligence matters is not to do an independent assessment of what the government says. My job is to inform the American People or our readers of what the government is saying".

Basically, she thinks journalists should be the government's P.A. system.

She may be standing up for a journalistic principle in an incidental, unintended sort of way- sure. But her only real goal is to cover her boss's ass. I expect she'll be paid very handsomely.

[LightningFlash]

2. You never know....

And if she does, I bet it will be a Mr. Ambassador who never was. The tin man.

.....John Bolton. :argh: :argh:

[pearlie]

3. Hi kids.

This one caught my eye. Ya know, that gal is just plain stupid. Them conservatives can hail her as a hero, but she can warm up that jail cell for Rummy as far as I'm concerned.

[LightningFlash]

7. Spoken like a true southern.

Welcome to DU!

:hi: :hi:

[myrna minx]

8. Welcome to DU, pearlie.

:hi:

[quisp]

11. welcome to DU

[newyawker99]

34. Hi pearlie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Tamyrlin79]

4. more freeper dumbassed-ness

what can you say? They are so stupid they can't tell friend from foe.

[librechik]

5. Safire= Douchebag for Liberty

just another criminal.

Of course the freepers misunderstand. The Miller/Plame issue has nuance, and they don't do nuance.

[Dr.Phool]

6. Maybe she'll find those WMD's

She was always writing about in Leavenworth.

[Jim Lane]

9. If Miller goes to prison, Novak should go to prison

Miller has never written one word about Valerie Plame. Novak is the one who actually revealed Plame's identity in print. Of course, as a dependable lackey for the right wing, he seems to be immune from prosecution.

[leveymg]

12. Novak gave up his source, or otherwise cooperated.

Miller and Cooper didn't - raises the question as to whether there were multiple "leakers" in Cheney's office.

Did Dick out Plame, or did he have Scooter (and an other unknown) do the dirty deed? - reads like a Dash Hammett novel, doesn't it?

[johnaries]

13. I guarantee Bolton's involved.

I'm betting money the list of names the WH refuses to give up proves it.

[kevsand]

14. I've wondered about this as well.

It would be not at all unusual for someone at the top (Rove or Cheney) to say "Spread the word" and have multiple underlings making simultaneous phone calls to whichever journalists they have special relationships with. It's the equivalent of a full court press in spin control. For something as sensitive as this, however, I would have thought that they would have kept it smaller scale. Maybe they didn't get a rapid enough response by keeping it small, and broadened the number of contacts. In any event, it is entirely possible that there were multiple leakers.

[kittenpants]

26. Did Novak give up his source?

I hadn't heard that--I thought his deal was outting the other 'journalists' who recieved the leak.... douchebag!

[AnnInLa]

10. She put up her own website yesterday to

explain to her public why she is being persecuted, and how brave and valiant she is in defending our Constitution. Don't have a link, but you can probably find it by googling.

[stopbush]

16. Stupid freeps. Miller was THE main cheerleader for *'s illegal war.

Her "news stories" - which were nothing but Chalabi lies regurgitated as unadulterated WH spin - were given above-the-fold-front-page space in the NYT.

Yep. The freeps either don't know friend from foe...or, they don't mind tossing an ally to the wolves once they're done with them.

I assume the WH has some deep dirt on Miller to keep her in line. That said, bought-n-paid for stooges like her tend to sing like canaries when push comes to shove. She's no Martha Stewart, after all.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

18. Reading NYT

or reading in general is a big No-No for freeptards.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. If I were Miller, I'd be pissed as hell

and ready for revenge. Frankly, I don't read her stuff but I've read about it. And this Administration has single handedly destroyed her credibility. She fell down in not adhering to basic journalistic principles to asking questions and backing up the planted "sources". But it was this Administration that used her and is directly responsible for her to stand for the protection of sources.

I understand the reasons behind a journalist's wish to keep anonymous sources confidential. And, apparently, her source(s) have not waivered confidentiality...hmmmmm. I disagree with standing up for it in this particular situation though.

Were I in her shoes, I'd sing like a bird to a grand jury for this one. Nevermind throwing my career down the toilet. It seems that's already taken place through the planted sources on WMDs with the runup. So, IMO, there's nothing to lose and only respectablity to gain in acting as a whistleblower.

[GeekMonkey]

19. if she's part of the media, she HAS to be liberal, right?

the liberal media being so widespread an all

she must be a liberal if she's protecting traitors, since we all know that all liberals are traitors

all that cheerleading she did for the war in Iraq was just to make ppl think she wasn't a liberal

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[WilliamPitt]

21. If Miller goes to prison, we are all in deep shit.

The day journalists' ability and right to protect sources is broken for good will be the day the last vestiges of effective journalism are destroyed forever.

Miller and Novak are crappy exemplars of this ideal, but it isn't about them. It's about the precedent set if they are broken. It's about the 10,000 other journalists who will never again be able to get sources who can trust they will not be exposed and themselves destroyed.

I don't give a crap about Miller and Novak. But if this wall is breached, we are all in a lot of trouble. Not even getting Bush on the Plame thing will be worth the damage done and the precedent set.

[Walt Starr]

24. Big difference in this case, Will

In nearly all cases I've ever seen, the journalist is protecting a source from the government.

In this case, the "journalists" are protecting the government from scrutiny.

[WilliamPitt]

25. A distinction without a difference

A source is a source.

[Walt Starr]

30. I see a big difference

so I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Beaverhausen]

33. This "source" had a political agenda- there was no "story" to be told

I want to agree with you but come on...the sole purpose of giving up Plame's name was to get to Joe Wilson. There was nothing else to be learned or revealed from the publication of that information.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. You Said That Already, Will

The lack of response before may just be because people aren't agreeing with you. There is no confidentiality privilege and there never has been. That's a myth, and you know it.

And there is no right for any journalist to reveal the name of a potential felon in the midst of a criminal investigation.

That, sir, is NOT a distinction without a difference. It's a difference wider than wide.
The Professor

[WilliamPitt]

28. You are correct

Journalism isn't like the legal profession. There is no American Bar Association for reporters, no long table filled with judges who decide on the merits of conduct, nor are their iron-clad codicils outlining conduct. There are the rules of whatever publication you work for, and then there are standards that have more to do with tradition than anything else.

The 'confidentiality privilege' you seem so ready to throw aside is not carved in stone as it is with doctors and patients or husbands and wives. But confidentiality is the bedrock of the profession nonetheless. If a reporter cannot protect his or her sources, that reporter is out of business and the truth is buried.

Without confidentiality, there would have been no Deep Throat, no Pentagon Papers, and none of the comments from anonymous analysts and intelligence officers in the run-up to the Iraq invasion would have come out. Walter Pincus, Greg Palast and Julian Borges would be writing pure speculation instead of hard fact.

Yes, Miller is protecting a felon or several felons. Yes, there is a difference between protecting a government whistleblower and protecting a government criminal. But I still say it is a distinction without a difference. A source is a source, and because there is no iron-clad protection or source confidentiality makes it all the more important for each and every potential violation of that confidentiality - no matter the specific circumstances - to be fought tooth and nail.

Every publication I have seen comment on this agrees with my assessment. Editor and Publisher agrees with my assessment. They are not doing so because they are colluding with Bush and his crew. They are doing so because source confidentiality is the lifeblood of the business, and it is unprotected, so every time that gets trimmed, we all lose.

Everyone here wants Bush's head on a platter, none more than me. I have spoken with Joe Wilson several times, both on and off the record. His rage over this is thunderous. But I am not willing to throw this basic requirement of journalism under the bus for him, his wife, or for anyone else.

Miller is scum, and Novak is scum. I'd like to see them both drummed out of the business forever. They are protecting people who undermined our national security and committed treason. But if they reveal their sources in this, it will be that much easier for the government to pry loose the name of a source that is whistleblowing. Novak and Miller aren't worth that price.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Don't Think The Analysis Is Valid

Not arguing whether others in your profession concur. I'm arguing that it's not a logical extension to suggest that denying the privilege of reporter confidentiality to felony investigations casts a pall over the entire concept.

What i would suggest is that it casts a pall over reporters being able to use confidentiality to protect a lawbreaker. That's it.

I think it an enormous leap in logic to suggest, no matter who in your profession is making such suggestions, that insisting a reporter turn in a perpetrator of a felony during an active investigation calls into jeopardy the entirety of journalistic sourcing paths.

That's a leap worthy of Bob Beamon!

I think the difference is profound and it's not a minor distinction. Reporters should have the ability to protect their sources unless it is clear that a felony that abrogates the public trust is at issue. That's sufficiently narrow to protect the issue over which you're concerned and still ensure that similar breaches of public trust cannot be committed behind a dubious cloak of confidentiality.
The Professor

[robertpaulsen]

35. One more time, Will: SCOTUS SET THE PRECEDENT IN 1972!!!

I've posted this multiple times on several threads. I'm going to keep posting this until DUers 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

Branzburg vs. Hayes. That's the precedent.

[MessiahRp]

23. Now they need to arrest and imprison Novak for his role in this

That fat POS has gotten away with this for too long.

Rp

[kittenpants]

29. the hatred I have for that man amazes me...

I thought it would be impossible for CNN to feel shame anymore, but whenever they (rarely) talk about this case they sound very embarrassed in admitting that Novak works there.

[Disturbed]

32. If the Cooper and Miller cases are a bedrock of Journalist

sorces protection why did the Sc refuse to hear the cases?