Dave Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
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/
