Judy Miller, First Amendment Champion!

As Times reporter Judy Miller serves her sentence for civil contempt she continues to collect plaudits as a Free Press Champion of the Free World.  This ties in to the notion that being in jail has been a good career move for Ms. Miller.  From the AP, by way of the WaPo:

A leading defender of press freedom in the Western Hemisphere said Wednesday he is concerned that the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller could set a "terrible example" for the cause of press freedom in Latin America.

Alejo Miro Quesada, a Peruvian who is head of the Inter-American Press Association, said, "No journalist should be forced to disclose his sources of information."

...Miro Quesada, president of the Peruvian daily El Comercio, was leading an IAPA delegation that planned meet with Miller Wednesday night at the Alexandria Detention Center in suburban Virginia, where she has been since July 6.

The delegation hoped to tell Miller she was sending an important message to Latin Americans by refusing to disclose her sources in the Valerie Plame case.

Emphasis added.  We have previously noted that Ms. Miller and the Times seem to prefer to cast her in this light - Ms. Miller bravely concealing her sources from the government, standing tall on behalf of a latter day "Deep Throat".

In a very broad sense, this may be true - folks are scratching their heads wondering just what is driving Ms. Miller, and there may well be some source somewhere she is ultimately hoping to protect. 

However, and more prosaically, Ms. Miller is currently in jail for defying a subpoena which names a government official and orders her to testify about her conversations and dealings with that specific official.  Further, the official in question (leaks say it is Lewis Libby) has already testified to his side of the story.  This court order does not oblige her to testify about any of her sources other than the named official.

The WaPo was quite clear about this in a helpful Q&A:

Q: Doesn't Fitzgerald know the identities of Miller's and Cooper's sources? Haven't the sources signed waivers that allow the reporters to talk to the prosecutor?

Yes and yes. But Miller, who did some reporting but never wrote a story, says that the waiver is not voluntary under these circumstances and that she is upholding the journalistic principle of never breaking a promise of confidentiality to a source.

My impression is that the Times is committed to promoting their "protect the identity of the source" version of the Miller story in defiance of the facts.  For example, their editorial from July 7 presents the situation accurately in the second sentence, and obfuscates thereafter:

This is a proud but awful moment for The New York Times and its employees. One of our reporters, Judith Miller, has decided to accept a jail sentence rather than testify before a grand jury about one of her confidential sources.

...The point of this struggle is to make sure that people with critical information can feel confident that if they speak to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, their identities will be protected.

...Most readers understand a reporter's need to guarantee confidentiality to a source. Before he went to jail, Mr. Farber (a Times reporter mentioned earlier) told the court that if he gave up documents that revealed the names of the people he had promised anonymity, "I will have given notice that the nation's premier newspaper is no longer available to those men and women who would seek it out - or who would respond to it - to talk freely and without fear."

While The Times has gone to great lengths lately to make sure that the use of anonymous sources is limited, there is no way to eliminate them. The most important articles tend to be the ones that upset people in high places, and many could not be reported if those who risked their jobs or even their liberty to talk to reporters knew that they might be identified the next day. In the larger sense, revealing government wrongdoing advances the rule of law, especially at a time of increased government secrecy.

It is for these reasons that most states have shield laws that protect reporters' rights to conceal their sources. Those laws need to be reviewed and strengthened, even as members of Congress continue to work to pass a federal shield law. But at this moment, there is no statute that protects Judith Miller when she defies a federal trial judge's order to reveal who told her what about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as an undercover C.I.A. operative.

...Ms. Miller did not write an article about Ms. Plame, but the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, wants to know whether anyone in government told her about Mr. Wilson's wife and her secret job. (Aside - that may be what Fitzgerald wants, but that is not what the subpoena orders - it is limited to one person).

...The Times has been in these fights before, beginning in 1857, when a journalist named J. W. Simonton wrote an editorial about bribery in Congress and was held in contempt by the House of Representatives for 19 days when he refused to reveal his sources. In the end, Mr. Simonton kept faith, and the corrupt congressmen resigned.

Well, combine the comparisons with past cases where reporters really were concealing the identity of their sources with the false and misleading assertions about this case, and we can see why our friends from Latin America have become confused.

And the Times continued to wander off-track as they continued their coverage of this case - here is an article by Anne Kornblut from July 27 which notes Ms. Miller in passing, describing her as "a reporter for The New York Times, in jail for refusing to divulge her source for the same information about Ms. Wilson".

That said, there is a straw in the wind suggesting a crack in the Times facade - on both Aug 1 and Aug 5, Ms. Miller was "in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury in the C.I.A. case".  Much better, although only readers immersed in the details will understand this change in her Times status.

I wonder if the Times Public Editor would find this to be interesting?  Byron Calame can be reached at -- public@nytimes.com

Comments

[BumperStickerist]

Judy Miller, First Amendment Champion!

Now, that's a Wheaties box worth buying.

[kim]

The prize inside is a little Libby.
===================================

[Syl]

LOL!

[MeTooThen]

TM,

This is getting tiring.

And weird.

Judith Miller has been imprisoned for her refusal to comply with a court order.

She is in contempt of court.

Plain and simple.

There is no legal or constitutional precedent to protect her from having to obey this court order.

None.

Furthermore, Ms. Miller, or her advocates, are claiming that Ms. Miller's reason for refusing to comply with the court order is because, "...the waiver is not voluntary under these circumstances and that she is upholding the journalistic principle of never breaking a promise of confidentiality to a source."

Please.

Ms. Miller is witness, prosecutor, judge, and jury, when it comes to adjudicating "the promise of confidentiality" of this alleged source.

She cannot take yes for an answer.

[sim]

What did the Times know, and when did it know it?
===================================

[kim]

Of course, the Sulzbutler did it.

For Judy, martyr to press freedom works out better than stooge for the master of the bazaar.
====================================================

[Syl]

"There is no legal or constitutional precedent to protect her from having to obey this court order."

Well, doh. That's why she's in jail.

It's called civil disobedience...breaking the law to make a point, a statement.

Congress is working on a federal shield law. If it passes, that means someone heard her.

It's not that hard to understand.

[kim]

What makes a lot of sense is that she is protecting Val and Libby and is calculating that Fitz won't pursue her past October. I still hope he nails Wilson for perjury, but maybe he thinks that's too easy for him.
===========================================

[SteveMG]

It seems conceivable to me (er, otherwise I wouldn't post it I guess) that Miller is protecting much more than just her conversations with Libby.

Miller has clearly culled a series of sources and received from them a whole host of classified information over the years; not just (reportedly) from Libby but from other sources in government. Both in this Administration and the previous one.

And that if she is forced to talk about contacts or discussions with Libby, that that could potentially open up an entire range of questions about how much classified information she's received over the years from government officials and employees.

Apres Libby, les deluge.

SMG

[kim]

Too many people have too much to lose from too many competing camps for her to get harassed for sealed lips much longer. Ooh Fitzie, whatta we gonna tell yo mama, when they say ooh-la-la?
===================================

[Neil]

Miller is determined to keep her silence and the NYT has her back but the NYT's position could change as facts are revealed.

Absent her testimony, Miller she serves out her civil contempt coercive incarceration. She forces the prosecutor's hand: He charges her with criminal contempt and obstruction of justice. She is found guilty

[Anonymous Liberal]

Along the lines of what SteveMG was saying, it's possible that Miller cannot testify about her conversation with Libby without giving up another source. For instance, if she told Libby something like "Mr. X told me that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative." If that were the case, she really can't testify about her conversations with Libby without giving up the source she's protecting. If that's the case, though, then 1) Miller wasn't doing a very good job of protecting that source in the first place and 2) Libby has likely already told Fitzgerald who Mr. X is. But it may be that Fitzgerald cannot prosecute Mr. X without Miller's testimony. And there's always the possibility that Miller really is protecting Libby. She may know that she has the goods on Libby and doesn't want to be the one who brings him down. Or she could be lying through her teeth. So many possibilities.

[MeTooThen]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, criminal contempt.

And yes, obstruction of justice.

For the editors at the NY Times who pressed for this very investigation, their comeuppance will be the criminal prosecution of Ms. Judith Miller.

Sorry, Judy.

And for what it's worth, I am sympathetic to the notion that Ms. Miller may be in an uncomfortable position, and that freedom of the press is vital for our nation's well being.

But L'affaire Plame was launched and fueled by a hostile press as a proxy for those who sought to discredit and injure a sitting wartime president, for the benefit of the party in opposition.

If RovEvil acted outside the law, he should be punished. So be it.

But he didn't.

And he won't.

...

As noted above, Ms. Miller knows too much.

She's just not saying.

Just sayin'.