Rove might say (although maybe not with a straight face) that the crime of leaking Plame’s name was justified by the greater public good that resulted — i.e. the discrediting of a reckless and less than honest critic of the war against terrorism. (Remember, I’m giving Rove’s hypothetical point of view here.) Certainly, most conservative "journalists" would probably agree.
Back to Main
July 7, 2005
WB: Jail Bait
Comments
Josh Marsghall reminds us:
Don’t forget: This isn’t the first time Plame prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tangled with Judy Miller while investigating a leak out of the Bush White House.
A little more than a year ago, I reported on TPM how Fitzgerald had quite aggressively investigated another Bush White House leak in late 2001 and early 2002. Fitzgerald had been investigating three Islamic charities accused of supporting terrorism — the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, and the Benevolence International Foundation. But just before his investigators could swoop in with warrants, two of the charities in question got wind of what was coming and, apparently, were able to destroy a good deal of evidence.
What tipped them off were calls from two reporters at the New York Times who’d been leaked information about the investigation by folks at the White House.
One of those two reporters was Judy Miller.
Whistleblowers often break laws when they reveal evidence of wrongdoing.
That’s also the only reason journalists may ever face jail time; if their sources are breaking the law, and the journalist won’t say who it is.
That happens in every such case, it’s not a distinguishing feature of this one.
The promise of anonymity is granted to those who use the press to expose wrongdoing, usually at higher levels than themselves. But that principle does not extend to granting anonymity to those who use the press to commit wrongdoing, and worse, to do that from higher levels.
Here, the law that was broken is the one against blowing a CIA agent’s cover. And the wrongdoing exposed was that Joe Wilson’s wife gave her husband a job – an insinuation, without evidence, of nepotism.
That’s distillation of the leak.
Amplifying the situation, Joe Wilson had accused the White House of lying about Iraqi WMD in a widely-read op-ed just weeks beforehand. And the anonymous source was at the top levels in the White House.
And the CIA agent was working in the control of illicit weapons materials at a time when that may be the most important security job in the country.
It’s an indictment of the bizarrely weak news sense of all of the reporters involved that they all pursued the nepotism angle. And that is the one they say they will go to jail to defend.
In going to jail, they are not defending the institution of a free press, but defending it’s corruption, defending it’s collaboration in a political disinformation campaign. That’s an assault on the free press, not a defense of it. The only remedy is for what remains of the free press to tell it like it is.
Posted by: Max Power | Jul 7 2005 8:03 utc | 2
I think Max has it right. The press in this instance was acting in collusion with the government, furthering its goals by collaborating in its destruction of an individual.
When caught out as complicit in the crime they can ‘fess up or do time.
In any case the result for the journalist, or the person taking up the space where a journalist ought to be, is to go to jail until the Grand Jury disbands. That comes with the territory. I’ll take that over a tour in Iraq, and so will Judith Miller.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 7 2005 8:33 utc | 3
OT, but the GWOT just arrived in London.
The whole Tube network is shut down this morning, the day after London won the Olympic bid. It’s being blamed on a “power surge” for now – echoes of Spain until the truth the comes out? There are also rumours of a bus exploding in Russell Square.
Seven years of bombing til the Games?
Posted by: Dismal Science | Jul 7 2005 9:25 utc | 4
OT, but the GWOT just arrived in London.
GWOT – Is that the “Global War on Thinking”?
Posted by: Pee Dee | Jul 7 2005 9:40 utc | 5
Terrible news. Bombing campaigns are nothing new to London, of course.
Posted by: Max Power | Jul 7 2005 10:33 utc | 7
The inclination to provide reporters the opportunity to shield their sources presumes the reporter has legitimately determined that doing so clearly serves the “greater public good.”
The problem is that source anonymity in effect allows the equation that “two wrongs can make a right”:
original wrong being exposed by the anonymous source
+ secondary wrong of shielding a source/protecting a criminal
————————————————————-
better informed public + potential justice (the “right”)
Even when the reporter is trusted and the wrong being exposed is serious absolutists will consider this equation unacceptable. But even those willing to grant the reporter source anonymity to achieve a greater goal should be highly skeptical and cautious. It’s dangerous to give a free pass to potential prosecution witnesses, or allow reporters to become actors in their own stories. How do you know that the “right” will yield enough “good” to outweigh the two “wrongs”?
This already shaky compromise to the public good comes apart at the seams when there are doubts about the bona fides of the reporter and/or his source. It raises a dilemma: How to provide a shield to reporters who “do the right thing” and not a legal loophole to those who would abuse it?
In essence the “bad actor” changes the equation. If the protected source gives false, misleading, or incomplete information, or the reporter improperly uses anonymity as a cover for some hidden ulterior motive, the “greater public good” loses and the bad actor gets an undeserved benefit. Rack up another victory to the law of unintended consequences.
Ultimately, source confidentiality and shield laws can only be a good thing if you consider reporters on the whole to be trustworthy and honest, to act as our proxies to judge the intentions of their sources, to make good decisions and collect important information we might not otherwise get. You must also be willing to lose some smaller fish in exchange for some bigger catches. If you don’t believe they merit such trust you shouldn’t give them any more privileges than anyone else.
Unfortunately, there is currently no clinical test that will give an accurate assessment of who qualifies as a “real reporter”. If there was, I’d make a positive test a prerequisite for entry to the White House Briefing Room.
Posted by: clem | Jul 7 2005 11:01 utc | 8
There was an insightful post on the whole question of ‘leakers’ on Kos yesterday that warrants more attention than it received. The argument was that the increasing use of unnamed sources — ‘an anonymous source at the weather bureau today revealed to this reporter that the weather tomorrow will be hot and hazy’ — has a lot less to do with uncovering truth than it does with raising the bottom line. Investigative journalism is costly work and slow –like any piece of research it takes time to double-check facts and to work out the logic of an empirical argument. Not surprisingly, newspapers that are increasingly managed by corporations that only look to the bottom line are taking the easy way out. It is cheaper to curry favour with so-called ‘sources’ than it is to get in deep into an investigation.
I thought that argument made a lot of sense, and that those who are placing all that weight on ‘protecting sources’ ought to think whether in fact all that is being protected is the publisher’s bottom line. The days of investigative journalism at the national level are pretty much over. It was nice while it lasted, but it is not coming back in our time.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2005 11:33 utc | 9
Elsberg did not actually break any big laws and was never convicted of anything. Elsberg consulted with a good lawyer before releasing the papers and was told that the admin would go after him despite the lack of a case – he was right. This is what led the Nixon Whitehouse to attack him and violate his righta and is one of the origins of Nixon’s later downfall.
Posted by: dc | Jul 7 2005 12:13 utc | 10
I would say that intellegence sources and methods should never be leaked for two reasons. First, such leaks can result in harm to or the death of a source and people related to that source. Second, such leaks could have significant negative effects on a country’s security in both the short and long terms.
That is what was revealed in this case – not any actual security information, but the source/method. If some information had been leaked, I would say that journalistic privledge trumps national security (provided the leak was limited in scope). However, I don’t see how journalistic privledge can trump not only the possible danger that a source and those who have interacted with that source might face, but also the potential structural damage to national security.
So, I say if Miller is protecting the leaker of this source/method (Plame), she should rot.
But I think she should rot anyway, as Billmon does, for spreading disinformation. So I’m probably just rationalizing.
Posted by: Tom DC/VA | Jul 7 2005 12:48 utc | 11
Reviewing Miller’s work, it’s evident that she is not so much a journalist as an agent in the administration’s disinformation campaign.
As such, why should she enjoy any special privilege? Would we extend the same privilege to James Guckert? Why?
I think that before a reporter seeks to invoke journalistic privilege, he/she should be able to demonstrate that he/she is an actual honest journalist and not a paid or covert shill for a dishonest government. The only thing that makes Miller any different from Rove himself is that she got her name in a bunch of bylines. That’s it.
Maybe no privilege
but certainly no privilege to spread unsourced lies told by secret factions with control of parts of the State who seek control of the world from the shadows with help of fellow traveler journalists. “Pentagon official” my ass.
She should rot forever.
Posted by: razor | Jul 7 2005 13:30 utc | 13
Billmon, I hope my question is not lost in the London news.
Here is the question I posed to the WaPo associate editor Robert G. Kaiser for today’s 11 a.m. ET Q and A:
Why assume Cooper and Miller are analogous cases?
While Cooper may be a champion of journalistic principle, is it not possible that Miller, an advocate of the Iraq invasion and expert on WMD, led Rove to information he was not entitled to know, namely Plame’s (secret WMD) CIA work, and thus collaborated in the White House effort to discredit Joseph Wilson? It would be vital to learn whether Miller’s conversations with the White House predated Cooper’s, Novak’s, etc. If true, Rove is not “the” source (didn’t Rove instruct other reporters to “go ask Judy”?) and everyone ends up “protected”.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jul 7 2005 13:32 utc | 14
Kudos Max,
Despite the horror in Britain, ultimately this morning’s actions are not America’s problem, the most important story in America remains the Fitzgerald investigation. Max’s views on Miller are dead on. She is clearly carrying water for high level wrong doers in the administration, as she has been doing for the last several years in the guise of a NYT journalist.
While I agree with Billmon that the precedent this case sets, will be a foothold for misuse against real whistleblowers, the crisis represented in the content of this case is of a much higher level of calamity than the damage Judy is doing to her profession. What we are witnessing as Billmon has so carefully documented, is a conspiracy of ruthless people who attempt to use existing laws as a shield for criminal enterprise, as well as an ongoing attempt to change the law and the nature of the judiciary itself to further future criminal endevours. (The coming play for the supreme court is nothing compared to the hail mary military tribunal system, Team Bush tried to pull off last term.)
Billmon, the reality here is that the “good guys” are the crooks, and so the legal system, when it benefits the corrupt becomes a shallow parody of itself. Mourn not for journalism, mourn for the idea of America, which is what is ultimatley at stake in Team Bush’s ongoing batshit insane game of political chicken.
If anything it should be apparent to you, Billmon, there is no such thing as a journalist in this modern society. If Bill Moyer’s kick in the ass out of PBS was not enough of a wake up call, Miller’s wrong headed venom should do the job. Truly she is the Rita Skeeter of the trade. Ask yourself Bill, why are you writing on the internet with the obvious value and insight you posess, rather than in the pages of an established “news magazine” or “paper”? Because you are actually interested in doing journalism, while the modern press is just a collossal public relations/advertisment machine. Is it any wonder Team Bush often wants to by-pass the middle man and completely control its own press coverage? Isn’t really the power of Karl Rove, that he can rule the Press with an iron fist, rather than his abilitiy to strategize?
Doonesbury’s poorly thought out Sunday comic, is nothing more than the howl of the “cool kids”, as they lose control of the party. Too bad for Trudeau. Too bad for Sulzeberger.
Posted by: patience | Jul 7 2005 13:36 utc | 15
If reporters claim such an important role in society, that of working for truth with the goal of informing the citizenry for the good of democracy, and I believe their claim is justified, then, as Miller stated, they should be willing to sacrafice, to go to jail for what is right. Hopefully time will vindicate a reporter of conscience. Judith Miller, however, is not a reporter of conscience and I am certain will not be vindicated by history. My sentiments lay with Billmon’s: I hope she rots for the lies she told and her part in promting our illegal war.
Posted by: stoy | Jul 7 2005 13:53 utc | 16
Re my post above:
If Miller herself “revealed” Plame’s NOC status to her White House pals, is she not exempted under the special law regarding outing an undercover agent – i.e. is it the case that the law does not apply to journalists?
And thanks patience, you said it well.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jul 7 2005 14:03 utc | 17
I wonder if journalists should change the understanding of what is meant by a standard offer of confidentiality.
It seems to me that most anonymous sources would not require an absolute pledge of confidentiality, but would be satisfied with a pledge that “I will only reveal your identity if legally required to so by a court.” This certainly would be true for most Administration and government sources.
There may be some extraordinary whistleblower situations in which an absolute pledge of confidentiality (“I’ll go to jail rather than reveal your identity”) might be required, but shouldn’t journalists reserve that for rare situations? To a true whistleblower, the specific reassurance provided by such a pledge and the knowledge that it is rarely provided by journalists (particularly if backed by the news organization) would be preferable to the uncertainty such sources may feel about what more generalized pledges of confidentiality may mean to particular reporters or their news organizations.
Posted by: Ben Brackley | Jul 7 2005 14:06 utc | 18
I have to think an ethical journalist would have hung up the phone…. and then proceeded to write the story of administration officials selling out national security to score cheap political payback. There were certainly a lot of ways to write the story or handle it differently from Novak.
So I have always wondered, where was Miller’s story?
The 1st amendment and ethical journalism will survive the jailing of Miller and in fact both will probably emerge the stronger for it.
Posted by: bcf | Jul 7 2005 15:06 utc | 19
bcf,
And if Miller herself contributed the tidbit to the WH / Rove that Plame was a player at the CIA (they were both working on WMD, no?), and Miller herself collaborated with their effort to discredit Wilson?? Wouldn’t be the first time Miller helped out her WH pals.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jul 7 2005 15:30 utc | 20
I agree with bcf–why is everyone talking about Cooper and Miller’s honorable action now, and not questioning why they thought the marginally odd Plame-Wilson connection to a mostly useless fact-finding investigation (it’s a straw, of course, but not one that broke Bush’s back) is somehow more important than a high-placed traitor.
Or, hang “important,” how about something more basic… interesting? Seamy? Pulitzer prize-worthy? It’s been two years of apparently less-than-competent secret-trading and no one’s gone after this? Either something very weird is going on, or we should be less concerned about Miller and Cooper’s journalistic ethics than their instincts.
bcf,
Consider this: Miller herself could have led her pals at the WH to the info about Wilson’s wife. After all Miller and Plame were both working on WMD and Miller might have known Plame’s status.
Wouldn’t be the first time Miller collaborated with the WH efforts. Thus Rove is not “the” source and Miller gets to be the martyr.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jul 7 2005 15:34 utc | 22
Good for you, Billmon.
Here’s my elevator speech on the Judy Miller angle: “A precedent like this is a terrible thing, but at least— it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving and wretched media whore.”
Posted by: s9 | Jul 7 2005 15:40 utc | 23
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how journalistic principle has anything to do with this case.
This is NOT about protecting a whistle blower now so that other whistle blowers will feel assured in the future. This is about protecting the Times access to Administration sources so they can continue to be the first to spout Rove’s propaganda.
Think about it. If Judy Miller names Karl Rove as her source, is it reasonable to believe that Rove, Fitzgerald’s investigation notwithstanding, will feel intimidated from planting other damaging stories in the future? Not bloody likely.
The worst that can happen is that Karl Rove may refrain from giving Judy Miller the story again. But rest assured he’ll go elsewhere, to say (insert favorite media whore here). There is no chilling effect, except for Judy Miller.
In the end, all that Judy Miller is protecting with her ‘principled stand’ is her own, and the Times, favored position as a government mouthpiece.
Indeed, I’m guessing the real reason Miller is holding out is because she doesn’t want to have to testify to just HOW incestuous her and the Times’ relationship with the Bush Administration really is. If Miller was forced to reveal, in detail, the extent to which her ‘journalistic principles’ have been compromised, (just how DID she get such great access to Chalabai?) the consequences for the Times’ and her reputation would not be pretty.
There is nothing in this case to suggest that any public interest is being protected here. The Times is sending Miller to jail simply to cover their own collective asses.
Posted by: Night Owl | Jul 7 2005 16:09 utc | 24
The illusion of a “free press”, no matter what rationalizations we use to defend it — including protecting scum like Miller — will not save us from the moral ravages of the neocon blinded. We will be, instead, left as on some desert island, howling at the moon that, by God, we stood up for “principle”.
Sorry for the generalizations — for me its at least as emotional as rational.
Posted by: DonS | Jul 7 2005 16:15 utc | 25
“Despite the horror in Britain, ultimately this morning’s actions are not America’s problem”
I guess you really are out of your fucking mind, patience. Not America’s problem??? When does it become our problem? When Al Qaeda sets off a dirty bomb somewhere close to where YOU live?
“If anything it should be apparent to you, Billmon, there is no such thing as a journalist in this modern society.”
If anything IS apparent to me, it’s that you’re a complete idiot.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 7 2005 16:24 utc | 26
Maybe Miller going to jail isn’t something we should rejoice in. However, it is still great fun. People go to NASCAR races all the time secretly awaiting that fantastic wreck, cars flipping and colliding, a lil’ fire and noise. Do they want anyone hurt? No, but they want to see that wreck. Judy is that wreck we all wanted to see. Were we wrong to hope for it? Sure, just as wrong as that redneck race fan at Darlington. But hey, it’s still a mighty fine collision to behold.
Posted by: steve duncan | Jul 7 2005 16:37 utc | 27
Ok bill,
I’ll bite. Where are your journalists? Find me one in any newspaper, in any news magazine, or any tv newscast. Other than Sy Hersh and Bill Moyers. Really.
As to the bombing, does any agency anywhere deserve responsiblity for having this happen on their watch? Does any government head need to be held accountable? Do you somehow believe that reguardless of our current foreign policy stance, and pseudo-empirist adventure this would still have happened? Do you really think the Brits are looking to us to solve this problem? Did we look to the British to solve 9-11? Ultimately all people are responsible for keeping their own households. It is much more in every American’s interest to see this event, as the symptom of a larger problem, rather than yet another traumatic photo op for the president to force his monarchist agenda on the nation. We as a nation managed to get through 50 years of cold war without one domestic terrorist incident. Are the Al-Queda somehow more clever, or better financed than the Soviet fanatics were? Or is it that our current leadership and the officals they appoint to run our institutions are that much worse? Where would you like to focus your attention Bill, on the accident, the people driving the vehicle, or those who put the people driving the vehicle on the road?
I respect your right to personally attack my statements, but please think through your emotional and viceral responses. You’re the host. I respect your rules. But time will tell the truth of this.
Posted by: patience | Jul 7 2005 17:09 utc | 28
Shorter steve duncan:
Judith Miller in Jail = schaudenfreud
Yeah, I can buy that.
Posted by: clem | Jul 7 2005 18:46 utc | 29
Wow bill,
I only have to wait 90 minutes to find out that the senseless death of 40+ people and the injury of 700 others, has become part of the adiministration spin, via those “journalists” at fox news.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070005
The events today are tragic and senseless, and much closer to home than comfortable, but taking part in the manufactured catharsis of the spin machine is not the way I would like to honor those fallen. I would rather focus on the root of many problems, for which we Americans are actually responsible, the near-criminal organization running the country from the white house. Al-Queda or whoever is behind this, bares sole responsibility for these mass murders, but the administration who has so callously and intentionally ignored its responsiblities to end the Al-Queda organization needs to be held to account rather than be given a free pass to gather more support for its anti-American and completely irresponsible agenda.
Enough said.
Posted by: patience | Jul 7 2005 18:57 utc | 30
patience”i’ll bite” get a life. who are you calling billmon the host? clueless. you sound like a bible thumper. “enough said” lets hope. not only are many of your thoughts ridiculous and contadictory” It is much more in every American’s interest to see this event, as the symptom of a larger problem/ultimately this morning’s actions are not America’s problem” but your whole accusatory tone is offensive. billmon is not the only person here. you think your ideas are so all prevasive, pleeease. go away.
Posted by: annie | Jul 7 2005 19:36 utc | 31
Billmon,
Stick to your principles and be like Lady Justice.
Fight for journalism.
Who gains from Miller going to “Jail”? Miller gains.
The Pentagon’s favourite journalist goes from zero to hero at very little cost.
Wear a blindfold.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2005 19:40 utc | 32
“This is not a case of a whistle-blower” revealing secret information to Miller about “dangers at a nuclear power plant,” Hogan said. “It’s a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct.”
But it’s not. Whistleblowers often break laws when they reveal evidence of wrongdoing. Daniel Ellsberg probably broke a dozen or more dealing with classified information when he removed, copied and distributed the Pentagon Papers. And trying to draw a distinction between that and what Rove did isn’t as easy as it looks.
the difference here is the law that was broken by the whistle blower by the way in which he procurred his evidence. thats one separation the two cases
whereas w/rove, the information in itself (plame being covert) is not a crime. the way he used was, as retaliation. that is what she is protecting. that is the difference. the use of intimidation to keep people from coming forward is not something a government official should be engaging in. wilson was qualified to make the trip and not shown to be bent one way or another prior to it. all evidence pointed to his conclusion being spot on.
the government misconduct(rove) she is not whistleblowing on , she’s protecting.
and her “potential use of it ” would make her culpable in the crime, so in essence she is protecting herself along w/rove . under the guise of protecting her source(hero) to actually exercising her the 5th. and even w/ the fifth isn’t there some ‘time of war’ clause . and plames job as WMD expert and the missions in the ME all pertain. tell me if i’m way off the mark, just theorizing here.
Posted by: annie | Jul 7 2005 20:25 utc | 34
Billmon: “When I read Miller’s little speech, I’m afraid something snapped. Fuck journalistic principles.”
Well, my own personal snapping moment arrived while reading the NYT editorial comparing Miller to Rosa Parks.
Posted by: Winston Smith | Jul 7 2005 21:56 utc | 35
Judith Miller isn’t interesting, because we know who she is, what she does, and who she does it for. She’s not the story that the papers make her out to be. Patrick Fitzgerald, on the other hand, really is interesting. I never heard of the man before his appointment to this investigation, and I know as little about him now as I did eighteen months ago. After the comedy of Ken Starr, this guy turns out to be something truly serious–serious in his work, and serious in maintaining the discipline of his staff. If witnesses haven’t said much about their testimony to the grand jury, it may well be due to the fact that they didn’t get the drift or import of his questions–which is certainly not to say that the questions were trivial. I’ve always held high hopes for this enterprise, and though I may be disappointed by the outcome, Fitzgerald himself should continue to be really impressive. It’s as if he were the “one just man” in Washington.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 7 2005 22:19 utc | 36
The shroud of secrecy thrown over this case by the prosecutor and the judge, an egregious denial of due process, only makes it more urgent to take a stand.
This sentence from today’s Times editorial completely blew my mind. Since when is it a “denial of due process” for attorneys and judges, conducting a grand jury investigation, to proceed without public comment? It’s as if the Times had decided that Ken Starr’s performance is the way these things ought to be done.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 7 2005 22:45 utc | 37
alabama
i hope what you say about fitgerald is true – but the proof of the pudding….
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 7 2005 22:51 utc | 38
I’m gonna stick my neck out here and say the few whistleblowers that I have come in contact with were not the champions of honesty and fairness that they liked the world to see them as.
Mostly their motives were selfish and frequently born out of resentment at a job they didn’t get they feel they should have or rejection from being cast out of a clique they wanted to belong to.
I’m sure over the years that there have been some whistleblowers who acted out of concern for the greater good but generally such people wear their hearts on their sleeves and are not trusted with the confidences that informants betray.
Maybe its a genetic thing but nobody likes a ‘give up’. I equate it with treason really. Somebody like Kim Philby may well have been motivated by socialist ideals but in the end he betrayed his own countrymen. Some of the senior levels of the KGB understood this and could never bring themselves to trust a traitor no matter what the motivation.
What does this have to do with the parasite Miller? Certainly she didn’t betray a fellow traveller, but she did betray a fellow citizen and her motives were as questionable as those of most ‘whistleblowers’.
I’m afraid that I don’t support the idea of journalistic immunity for whistleblowers no matter what the cause. Anonymous sources are just too frequently a ‘flag of convenience’ for lazy reporting ie if a medium reports that an government source ‘claimed that so and so did such and such’ it saves the fact checking required for the medium itself to clearly state that so and so did such and such.
Of course there will be times when a source does reveal for the public good, but there are no free lunches and if the issue is that important the source and/or the journalist should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 7 2005 22:59 utc | 39
It bothers me that this argument is always binary — there either is an absolute journalist’s privilege of confidentiality or there is no privilege at all. But compare to other, legally acknowledged, claims of privilege.
Attorney/client privilege does not exist if you have disclosed the information in question to a third party, or in the case where a conversation involves a non-criminal matter that becomes a criminal matter at a later point.
Doctor/patient privilege does not apply when the seeker of your information is your HMO, the EMT treating you after your car accident, the person you are suing for worker’s compensation or in cases of criminal liability. For example, if a patient tells a psychiatrist about committing or planning to commit a crime, the psychiatrist may be criminally liable for failing to report it. Similarly for a physician observing evidence of child abuse.
Perhaps the closest to a blanket privilege is priest/penitent but some states still limit that privilege in cases involving child abuse.
All of these limitations share a common thread: the privilege ends just at the point that maintaining it would require harming innocent people. I don’t see why the journalist/source privilege should be any different. Whoever leaked the Plame story has not only endangered the life of Valerie Plame but also the lives of all her sources. That will be true probably for the rest of all their lives. To me, that is reason enough to argue that none of these journalists have a right to confidentiality in this matter.
Posted by: Paul Camp | Jul 8 2005 5:16 utc | 40
As a current law student, I have a few troubles with this notion of absolute journalistic privilege. No other profession in this country enjoys such a right. Lawyers, like doctors, enjoy a limited client privilege. However that privilege is not absolute and the conduct of these professionals is policed, at least minimally, by professional accredidation. To become a lawyer and be subject to privilege, I will have to pass a bar exam and professional fitness review. The bar is obviously a bigger hurdle considering that there are a lot of unethical lawyers out there, however if I abuse my profession I can be disbarred. There is no professional accredidation for journalists and if there was one, I would be sure that Miller’s previous work has brought such disrepute on her profession that she would likely face a disbarment hearing. Further, the contract that lawyers must abide is one where we represent our clients as vigorously as possible. For a journalist, the client is the public, the reader, not necessarily the government. I would love to hear someone argue that Miller’s work and current “civil disobedience” has anything to do with vigorous representation of the public. Actually to the contrary, she has consistently been a hand-maid to the powers that be, diseminating disinformation from WMDs to Kofi Annan.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 8 2005 7:55 utc | 41
Paul Camp nails it.
National security trumps journalistic privilege.
So long as Miller shields the leaker, we are all in danger of the leaker continuing to leak or do other damage to the security of the USA.
Posted by: citizen Able | Jul 8 2005 14:56 utc | 42
Whoever leaked the Plame story has not only endangered the life of Valerie Plame but also the lives of all her sources
outing her, along w/endangering lives also outed and irreparably damaged her cia front company Brewster-Jennings. a huge stab in the back for national interests, an expensive one too.
Posted by: annie | Jul 8 2005 15:46 utc | 43
You know, I want to agree with citizen able and annie and others that betraying national security abrogates any journalistic privilege.
But then I think again about how national security is a word on the page before it’s an idea. So to a law court, exposing Iran-Contra could also be called a betrayal of national security. Disclosing Negroponte’s security detail arrangements for the night Nicola Calipari was eliminated could be betrayal of national security. Disclosing details of the some future training of army units against domestic political opposition could be called national security.
Judith Miller stinks to high hell and this is chess, not tic-tac-toe.
Posted by: citizen | Jul 8 2005 16:58 utc | 44
well, i did say national interests. if there are instances where lawyers can’t claim client attorney privilege, doctors cannot hold confidentiality, then why should all journalist be held to a different standard.gov officials are our servants. to shield behind a journalist in order to break the law, manipulate information and punish an arm of the gov (cia) for not falling in line, this to me is the height of fascism, places rove above the law. this isn’t simply a case of outing one cia operative to slap wilson in the face. this is the executive branch bitch slapping the cia for not towing the line appropriately.
Posted by: annie | Jul 8 2005 17:34 utc | 45
this little shit of a journalist should be held responisble for the deaths that are at the end of her pen. they shit ink about thos who shed blood. the massacres are always a penthouse away
in the mood i am in i would create a abu ghraib just for journalists who have led us to this misere
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 8 2005 18:47 utc | 46
Sometimes I wonder if Judy is’nt hiding something beyond source identification. I can’t believe she’d go to jail on principal, I can believe she’d go to jail to shield some career busting revelation about HERSELF. There is afterall, documented history of journalists both feeding and working for the FBI/CIA. Sometimes I wonder if Judy is’nt a deep cover Armstrong Williams, cuz she would go to jail to prevent that from comming out. Just wondering.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 8 2005 18:58 utc | 47
Sometimes I wonder if Judy is’nt hiding something beyond source identification. I can’t believe she’d go to jail on principal, I can believe she’d go to jail to shield some career busting revelation about HERSELF. There is afterall, documented history of journalists both feeding and working for the FBI/CIA. Sometimes I wonder if Judy is’nt a deep cover Armstrong Williams, cuz she would go to jail to prevent that from comming out. Just wondering.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 8 2005 18:59 utc | 48
greg palast
“Every rule has an exception. My mama always told me to compliment the chef at dinner. But that doesn’t apply when the chef pees in your soup. Likewise, there’s an exception to the rule of source protection. When officialdom uses “you-can’t-use-my- name” to cover a lie, the official is not a source, but a disinformation propagandist — and Miller and The Times have been all too willing to play Izvestia to the Bush’s Kremlinesque prevarications.”
Posted by: annie | Jul 13 2005 7:33 utc | 49