The Times On Judy Miller (Again)

The NY Times rises to defend Judy Miller and descends to parody:

Last week a Paris-based journalists' organization called Reporters Without Borders sent around an impressive petition in support of Ms. Miller. It was signed by prominent European writers, journalists and thinkers including Günter Grass, Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French philosopher, and Pedro Almodóvar, the Spanish filmmaker. The text should be required reading for the judge, the prosecutor and the White House.

Oh yes, the White House surely ought to read it - I have no doubt they are interested in the opinions of Günter Grass, Bernard-Henri Lévy, and Pedro Almodóvar.

Perhaps the Times is under the misapprehension that John and Teresa won last fall.

Arriana tackles the abusrdity of the Time position; Jesse suggests a simpler resolution.

William E. Jackson Jr. of E&P pored through earlier Times editorials on Ms. Miller a few days back.

And on the subject of the media malfeasance in this story, Digby researches Tim Russert's obfuscations.  We love it!

After the break we will point out a couple of flaws in the stirring text presented by these Euro-heavyweights who are no doubt, as Arriana observed, well-versed in the intricacies of this case.

From the petition, as reported here:

We were therefore dismayed by the news that Judith Miller, a journalist with the New York Times, had been thrown in jail on the grounds that she had refused to reveal her information sources to the court.

Groan.  We covered this in more detail in this old post, "Judy Miller, First Amendment Champion!".  For brevity, let's go to the Washington Post 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.

Ms. Miller is declining to testify about her version of a conversation between herself and a government official who has already testified, has signed a waiver, and is known to the judge, the prosecutor, Ms. Miller, and maybe even the public (leaks say it is Libby).

More from the petition:

Background

Judith Miller was found in "contempt of court" and sent to prison by a US federal court for refusing to reveal her sources in the Valerie Plame case, in which a special prosecutor is trying to find out who told the US press in 2003 that Plame was a CIA agent.

Same objection - she was not found in contempt for refusing to reveal her sources, although that sounds much more principled and glamorous than the reality.

Comments

[kim]

I'm sorry to accent people's misery, but finding the leak in the Plame case is like finding the leak in New Orleans.
================================================

[Tom Bowler]

My bold prediction is here!">http://www.libertarianleanings.com/2005/08/bold_prediction.html">here!

[kim]

Your prediction may be bold,
But the trail has gone cold.
===========================

[kim]

One wonders if the laureled signatories on that petition understand that Judith Miller is voluntarily in prison. Her incarceration results from the legal act of a free will. American jurisprudence is shining in the sunlight with her florid demonstration of freedom's shining glory. Free, in jail, her choice.
=========================================

[J Mann]

Is Miller still getting out of jail when the grand jury's term ends (this month, if memory serves)?

Because I'll tell you, if I had my way, she would stay in jail until she talked.

[AJStrata]

Sorry, I know this is not germaine to the discussion but some news is breaking on Able Danger

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/604

Cheers.

[MeTooThen]

TM,

One of the interesting things about L'affaire Plame is the intense hostility and invective directed at Ms. Miller and the NYTimes for their alleged complicity in the "spreading of lies" about WMD.

There seems to be so much rage amongst the HuffPo readers that they rally for everything from Ms. Miller being tried for treason, yes you read that correctly, to both Miller and The Times being sued in civil court for the "needless" deaths of US servicemen and women.

Wow.

It's not enough to believe that RovEvil McChimpy BusHitlerburton has/have engineered the entire war for profit, to the benefit of a single corporation, but now it seems, the "newspaper of record" is complicit in war crimes.

Yikes.

It must be a living hell for these people.

Really.

[Jeff]

MeTooThen - One of the funny things about the Miller dimension of the Wilson event is watching you and your co-ideologists fail to get your story straight. It's the NYT: The Left must be championing Miller, the MSM did it, they'll give her a Pulitzer! says Tom Bowler above. -- No, they despise her! says MeTooThen.

Ms. Miller and the NYTimes for their alleged complicity in the "spreading of lies" about WMD

Ok. How about "Miller and the NYT's demonstrable complicity in conveying things that were not true about alleged Iraqi WMD, things that a reasonable person could and should know were not true, things that the Bush administration probably knew were not true, because boy if they didn't are they incompetent."

I will give you this: there are a lot of obscure, uninfluential individuals out there on the left who say totally unreasonable things in comments on more or less prominent blogs, like Huffpo and dkos. I bet you could even find one for every prominent, influential and powerful conservative who says totally unreasonable things in the media or on the floor of the U.S. Congress.

[ATM]

Ok. How about "Miller and the NYT's demonstrable complicity in conveying things that were not true about alleged Iraqi WMD, things that a reasonable person could and should know were not true, things that the Bush administration probably knew were not true, because boy if they didn't are they incompetent."

The Clinton adminstration was telling us the same things. How do you explain that?

[MeTooThen]

Jeff,

"Ideologist?"

WTF.

As I have written here before, and will do so again, I was a Clinton-Gore voter for 12 years. And all of the information regarding the dangers of Iraq and WMD were first promulgated by the Clintonistas.

Never, never once, have any of those who previously made declarations against Saddam Hussein and his dangerous regime retracted their assertions, not Clinton, Gore, Berger, Albright, none of them.

And ATM is correct in his/her implication, there is no explanation forthcoming.

The "ideology" from which you write is partisan and wholly narcissistic hackery.

That those of the left have aligned themselves with the most virulent and disgusting anti-American, anti-Semitic, and illiberal of organizations, is a stain of which they may never be able to cleanse themselves.

L'affaire Plame is the result of a hyperpartisan effort to disgrace a sitting war-time president, vis-à-vis Joseph Charles Wilson IV's lies and distortions printed in the NYT.

That the NYT demanded an investigation into this non-event and now its editorial board has the temerity (unmitigated gall) to defend Ms. Miller on the altar of the First Amendment, is absurd theater at its highest.

Ideology my ass.

/rant off

[kim]

Wilson is the villain and Chalabi is the Master of the Bazaar.
===============================================

[kim]

And Sistani has the forgiving power of Jesus.
==============================================

[Joe Mealyus]

"The Clinton adminstration was telling us the same things. How do you explain that?"

And foreign intelligence services also. But Joe Webcommenter was on to the truth from day one, and would even link to his/her own timely assertions that could prove this, but why bother, it wouldn't convince anyone anyway.

[Joe Mealyus]

"Ms. Miller is declining to testify about her version of a conversation between herslef and a government official who has already testified, has signed a waiver, and is known to the judgem the prosecutor, Ms. Miller, and maybe even the public (leaks say it is Libby)."

This may be a good description of the facts, but I still believe it leaves things out which can make Miller's position seem more reasonable.

1. She and the NYT reject the validity of the waiver. Their logic in this regard is impeccable; if reporters must testify about their conversations with anyone in government who has signed a waiver, then the ability of a journalist to promise a source confidentiality begins to disappear. (Anonymous sources who know that they might be asked at some future time to sign a waiver will have to think twice before talking to the NYT).

2. It may be that an answer to a question about source A may give the government information about source B. For example (completely hypothetically), Miller may feel that answering a question about a conversation with Libby will tell them something about a conservation with Rove. Or perhaps her conversation with Libby was about her conversations with other sources.

I think JustOneMinute's characterization/belittling of Miller's and the NYT's position only makes sense if we're certain that the government has to nothing to learn from her answers to the questions they want to ask.

(Sorry if I've made this point too many times - this is at least the second time - but I haven't seen a refutation of the logic, which may just mean I just don't get it).

[Joe Mealyus]

"American jurisprudence is shining in the sunlight with her florid demonstration of freedom's shining glory."

"Florid?" Flowery? Somehow that doesn't convey the homespun, Quakerish, oatmeally, Emersonian nature of Miller's actions. But I can't think of a better word....

"And Sistani has the forgiving power of Jesus."

I'd always seen the guy as more of a Buddha-like figure. Sorry for quibbling.

[kim]

If Sistani is the Buddha is Chalabi Asoka?

Miller's action is the bright sunflower standing sturdily on its stalk of free will rooted in democratic firmament, the pillars on the foundation. The irony of this metaphor is that she is hiding her purpose behind so much extraneous gilt and show that she has stymied the truth sucking bees from the accomplishment of their part in the play. Unless she talks, this plant will bear no fruit for the public to sate their desire for knowledge. Such an irony, a journalist, hiding facts. turning her face from the sun. It's unnatural.
==============================================
=================================================

[Crew v1.0]

Almodóvar es el bufón cineaste quien habia repetido un rumor del internet en que Jose Maria Aznar y su gobierno PP estuvo a punto de provocar un golpe de estado el sábado de 13 de marzo de 2004 a las doce de la noche, que fue el dia antes de las elecciones a pesar de los atentados del trenes de Madrid. Almodóvar fue (y ya es) uno de los mentirosos mas patetico en toda Europa.

Bien. Out.

[nittypig]

She asserts that the waiver was coerced. As far as we know she has made no effort to determine whether the waiver was in fact coerced, a la Cooper. Miller and the Times' position is exactly the one you've laid out - ALL waivers are fundamentally coerced. And given that the source has already testified about his (or implausibly her) conversation with Miller, the only thing Miller can do for the source is protect him (her?) from perjury charges. The prosecuter knows the source's version of the conversation. He wants Judy's version. Exactly what confidentiality is betrayed by telling the prosecuter something the person being protected has already testified to?

"It may be that an answer to a question about source A may give the government information about source B. For example (completely hypothetically), Miller may feel that answering a question about a conversation with Libby will tell them something about a conservation with Rove. Or perhaps her conversation with Libby was about her conversations with other sources."

In which case she could still testify about everything to do with source A and refuse to answer questions that might point to source B. Unless, as you imply, the entire conversation with source A was about source B. But since the prosecuter already has testimony about this conversation from source A it's hard to see how, per the judge, she is obstructing his investigation if he already knows all about source B. Unless source A has perjured himself (or herself?).

Fitzgerald has a good reason to hear from Judy. At least the judge thinks so. Perhaps I'd be more sympathetic if she came out and told us that she's protecting a source who was not a party to the conversation in question. But she hasn't, has she?

[kim]

Most of the theories to explain Judy's actions use a single rationale, though they are all speculative, and they vary widely. It is far more likely that she has acted from multiple purposes. Surely when facing voluntary incarceration one makes a list of advantages and disadvantages. I've yet to see a theory of her behaviour which satisfactorily addresses the almost surely multifactorial nature of her decision, her choice of entering those hallowed stone walls, her sanctuary of Chillon.
==============================================