Judy Miller needing killing
So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions. http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1104064
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 You're just trolling, right? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like its infringing on freedom of the press to me. The issue isn't HER. The issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell might reveal me as her source. And of course, reporters might be less likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between protecting the source and jail. "On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official ? later revealed to be "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)" That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE NEVER EVEN WROTE. Thats dedication. Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema.
LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions.
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1104064
- -- Chris Clymer - Chris@ChrisClymer.com PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVnALyAc5jM0nFbgRAhiIAKCCDAizX/32F3U8BEAEZo1jmbufjACeOATk UAp601vKKywgkklcAWd0iaI= =73ed -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of chris.vcf]
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as protecting a source. Most shield laws, or proposed shield laws, as I understand them, protect a journalist from revealing a source who is exposing wrongdoing that is in the public interest. This is not the same thing. The act of leaking the identity of Ms. Plame is, itself, a crime, not the exposing of wrongdoing. Now, sending her to jail certainly betrays the spirit of shield laws, but freedom of the press does not necessarily protect a journalist who is shielding a felon. On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer <cclymer@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
You're just trolling, right?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like its infringing on freedom of the press to me. The issue isn't HER. The issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell might reveal me as her source. And of course, reporters might be less likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between protecting the source and jail.
"On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official ? later revealed to be "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)"
That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE NEVER EVEN WROTE. Thats dedication.
Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema.
LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions.
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1104064
- -- Chris Clymer - Chris@ChrisClymer.com PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDVnALyAc5jM0nFbgRAhiIAKCCDAizX/32F3U8BEAEZo1jmbufjACeOATk UAp601vKKywgkklcAWd0iaI= =73ed -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 My understanding is that she only went to jail because of a federal law passed in the early 80's designed to protect undercover federal agents. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that were it not for that law, there would be no need for a "shield law"...just stronger clarification of that law. Did this issue go before the supreme court...have they ruled that the law is constitutional? Freedom of the press should protect a reporter from prosecution fromt he reporting of ANYTHING. Reporting about a felon is fine(i don't think current laws dispute this). If in addition to that, the reporter is breaking ANOTHER law by shielding a felon, thats another issue altogether. We're talking freedom to report things, not freedom for a reporter to do anything they wish. Shawn Duffy wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as protecting a source.
Most shield laws, or proposed shield laws, as I understand them, protect a journalist from revealing a source who is exposing wrongdoing that is in the public interest. This is not the same thing. The act of leaking the identity of Ms. Plame is, itself, a crime, not the exposing of wrongdoing. Now, sending her to jail certainly betrays the spirit of shield laws, but freedom of the press does not necessarily protect a journalist who is shielding a felon.
On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer <cclymer@gmail.com> wrote:
You're just trolling, right?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like its infringing on freedom of the press to me. The issue isn't HER. The issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell might reveal me as her source. And of course, reporters might be less likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between protecting the source and jail.
"On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official ? later revealed to be "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)"
That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE NEVER EVEN WROTE. Thats dedication.
Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema.
LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions.
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1104064
-- Chris Clymer - Chris@ChrisClymer.com PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8
- -- Chris Clymer - Chris@ChrisClymer.com PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVo3MyAc5jM0nFbgRAtKQAJ427wj//CP8W7eyV4zzzlytFX1RZwCfd3Zi pmfTHmDlqSqLwMNAlZs++gY= =MAHe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of chris.vcf]
On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer <cclymer@gmail.com> wrote:
You're just trolling, right? [snip] Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema.
The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. GH _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+0000, Gil Hamilton wrote:
Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government.
Blame the framers. They separately enumerated freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom of the press includes something extra. -- Do you know what your sin is?
Justin <justin-cypherpunks@soze.net>wrote:
On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+0000, Gil Hamilton wrote:
Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government.
Blame the framers. They separately enumerated freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom of the press includes something extra.
Yes, it specifies printed material rather than spoken; this wouldn't have been unusual to them -- English law has long distinguished libel from slander, for example. Your statement implies that you think the framers were being deliberately vague or encoding various sorts of subtle nuances in the amendment's language. It's much simpler to presume that they said what they intended to say. GH _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Problem there is - Miller didn't write the story, pass on the info to anyone else, or indeed do much more than have a conversation with an unnamed source where a classified name was revealed. The Grand Jury is aware that Miller had
Gil Hamilton wrote: this info but refused to reveal who the informant was. On the other hand - Robert Novak got the same information, REPORTED it - and isn't in any sort of trouble at all. Somehow this isn't the issue though... and I wonder why?
Dave Howe wrote:
The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Problem there is - Miller didn't write the story, pass on the info to anyone else, or indeed do much more than have a conversation with an unnamed
Gil Hamilton wrote: source where a classified name was revealed. The Grand Jury is aware that Miller had this info but refused to reveal who the informant was.
I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class that an "ordinary" person could not defy?
On the other hand - Robert Novak got the same information, REPORTED it - and isn't in any sort of trouble at all. Somehow this isn't the issue though... and I wonder why?
I don't know this either; perhaps because he immediately rolled over when he got subpoenaed? GH _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Gil Hamilton wrote:
I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class that an "ordinary" person could not defy? Why not? while Miller could well be prosecuted for revealing the identity, had she done so - she didn't. Why should *anyone* be jailed for failing to reveal who they had talked to in confidence? I am all in favour of people being tried for their actions, but not for thoughtcrimes.
On the other hand - Robert Novak got the same information, REPORTED it - and isn't in any sort of trouble at all. Somehow this isn't the issue though... and I wonder why? I don't know this either; perhaps because he immediately rolled over when he got subpoenaed? And yet Novak is the one who purportedly committed a crime - revealing the identity of an agent and thus endangering them. So the actual crime (of revealing) isn't important, but talking to a reporter is?
Dave Howe <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class
an "ordinary" person could not defy? Why not? while Miller could well be prosecuted for revealing the identity, had she done so - she didn't. Why should *anyone* be jailed for failing to reveal who they had talked to in confidence? I am all in favour of people being
Gil Hamilton wrote: that tried for their actions, but not for thoughtcrimes.
Miller wasn't prosecuted. She was not charged with a crime. She was not in danger of being charged if she had "revealed the identity". She was jailed for contempt of court for obstructing a grand jury investigation by refusing to testify. Perhaps no one should be required to testify but current law here is that when subpoenaed by a grand jury investigating a possible crime, one is obliged to answer their questions except in a small number of exceptional circumstances (self-incrimination would be one example). Miller is seeking to be placed above the law that applies to the rest of us.
And yet Novak is the one who purportedly committed a crime - revealing the identity of an agent and thus endangering them. So the actual crime (of revealing) isn't important, but talking to a reporter is?
You're confused. AFAIK, no one has suggested that Novak commited a crime in this case. The "actual crime (of revealing)" is what the grand jury was attempting to investigate; Miller was jailed for obstructing that investigation. GH _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On 10/18/05, Major Variola (ret.) <mv@cdc.gov> wrote:
So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema.
We put up with this "needs killing" crap from Tim May because he was imaginative and interesting, at least when he could shake free from his racism and nihilism. You on the other hand offer nothing but bilious ignorance. If you don't have anything to say, how about if you just don't say it? The notion that someone who is willing to spend months in jail just to keep a promise of silence "needs killing" is beyond bizarre and is downright evil. This list supports the rights of individuals to tell the government to go to hell, and that is exactly what Judy Miller did. She should be a hero around here. It's disgusting to see these kinds of comments from a no-nothing like "Major Variola". CP
cyphrpunk <cyphrpunk@gmail.com> wrote:
The notion that someone who is willing to spend months in jail just to keep a promise of silence "needs killing" is beyond bizarre and is downright evil.
Straw man alert. MV's notion is that a person who thinks journalists should be a special class of people who enjoy freedom of press (while, presumably, the rest of us don't) needs killing. That this person happens also to have spent months in jail, &c, is unhappy coincidence.
This list supports the rights of individuals to tell the government to go to hell, and that is exactly what Judy Miller did. She should be a hero around here. It's disgusting to see these kinds of comments from a no-nothing like "Major Variola".
I agree that her actions with regard to the Grand Jury situation are commendable (especially in light of my belief that the entire Grand Jury process is one of the most broken parts of our present legal system). Nevertheless, calling for the creation of a (licensed?) journalist "class" is stupidity so pure it's almost immoral. Repeat after me: we are all journalists. -- Riad S. Wahby rsw@jfet.org
Cyphrpunk wrote...
The notion that someone who is willing to spend months in jail just to keep a promise of silence "needs killing" is beyond bizarre and is downright evil. This list supports the rights of individuals to tell the government to go to hell, and that is exactly what Judy Miller did. She should be a hero around here. It's disgusting to see these kinds of comments from a no-nothing like "Major Variola".
While I agree that Variola has his bizarre moments, much of what he says at least merits further investigation. He partially fills a role that May filled, before his final descent into madness... I, for one, welcome his return to posting, and it's not too much effort to hit the delete button on a post-by-post basis. -TD
participants (9)
-
Chris Clymer -
cyphrpunk -
Dave Howe -
Gil Hamilton -
Justin -
Major Variola (ret.) -
Riad S. Wahby -
Shawn Duffy -
Tyler Durden