Judy Miller needing killing

Gil Hamilton gil_hamilton at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 20 03:57:23 PDT 2005

Dave Howe <DaveHowe at gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>Gil Hamilton wrote:
> > I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller 
> > had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway.  The question is, 
> > 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, 
>she done so - she didn't. Why should *anyone* be jailed for failing to 
>who they had talked to in confidence? I am all in favour of people being 
>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 


Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list