She didn't write the story. That's the gist of what I get. Why is she in jail. She didn't publish the name of the CIA agent, didn't help the government to turn on one of it's own. She instead took the info and did nothing with it because she saw it for what it was.
Had she written the story that would eventually blow the cover of the agent, ok, lock her up, that's a crime. Why isn't Novak in jail? The source committed the crime by telling people who the agent was. This reporter kept it to herself. See, I have always had the idea that the criminal justice system was almost set up to be a game. (a lot of you are not going to like this opinion). If you play the game right, you don't go to jail. That doesn't only mean follow the laws, but also means if you break the laws in the right ways. Also we have two freedoms that give us as Americans the ability to keep our liberties. The first and second amendments. These, I think, are the foundation upon which all of our other rights are built. When we allow the government to destroy either, we allow ourselves to be led into slavery. Christ I mean, this to me is very disturbing. Like revolution (not going to say we need it now, but if they continue down this road could see the need) around the corner. How do we go back, is my question, without violence? Tim -----Original Message----- From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:28 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: the advent of thought crime I'd be interested in you opinion. Dana On 7/9/05, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See, would Nixon have resigned without someone breaking the law? The post > reporters didn't go to jail for that did they? What about the Vietnam > papers? All the stuff leaked from CIA over the years about assassination > attempts and coups against legal governments in third world countries? > Should the reporters go to jail for that? > > I need to look into this more when I am not at werk :)= > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:11 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: the advent of thought crime > > > I am not sure whether she has refused to testify at all vs testify as > to her source, but what the prosecutor really wants is the name of her > source, right? So the distinction seems academic. I thought the Time > reporter was released from his pledge by his source.... but I coud be > wrong. > > Here's another discussion I'd consider moderate and objective (your > mileage may vary) > > http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2005/07/seeing_ > both_sid.html > > online edition and blogs ยป > > July 07, 2005 > Seeing both sides of the Judith Miller case > Stephen Baker > I've been steering clear (at least on this site) of this debate over > confidential sources. It's getting plenty of attention elsewhere and > only touches the theme of this blog--blogging--obliquely. But I think > it's important for everyone at least to understand and respect both > sides of the issue. That's why I was disturbed to see the judge in the > case, Thomas F. Hogan, demean Miller's stand. Here he is in today's > Times: > > "That's the child saying: 'I'm still going to take that chocolate chip > cookie and eat it. I don't care." > > 10:46 AM > > > mainstream media > > > Trackback Pings > TrackBack URL for this entry: > http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1192 > > Comments > Seems like this case could bear on bloggers more directly than it > might first appear. If journalists have no way to protect their > sources, what chance will bloggers--most of whom lack the financial > backing of media organizations--have against government pressure? > > Posted by: Rob Hof at July 7, 2005 01:04 PM > > A self-important, runaway federal prosecutor has sent an conscientious > New York Times reporter, Judith MIller, to jail because he apparently > hopes to give some bureaucrat the Martha Stewart treatment. > > He wants to make examples of the reporter and the bureaucrat because > the former has defied him and, apparently, the latter may have lied to > federal officials, which is a crime. > > Instead, he's the pariah, the betrayer of our Constitution and heritage. > > The special prosecutor is being unethical, because the ethical thing > to do is to act in behalf of the greater good. > > In all cases, freedom of the press produces more benefits to our > country than the outcome of any criminal prosecution or the defense of > any legal principle or rule, other than the First Amendment. > > Without freedom of the press, we are a dictatorship. When there is no > freedom of the press, rumors rule and rulers are mistrusted. The rule > of law is a joke and prosecutors, judges and government officials are > despised. > > It's easy to hate government and politicians when you don't know what > you're talking about, and without freedom of the press, there will be > millions of know nothings who will spew hatred as never before. > > That's where we are and where we're going. > > Posted by: Donald E. L. Johnson at July 7, 2005 07:01 PM > > The problem with the Judith Miller case is that everybody is looking > at it as a First Ammendment issue. Judith Miller is not being > prosecuted for what she wrote. She is being prosecuted for obstruction > of justice. Her source leaked sensitive information that they had been > sworn to keep secret, and in doing so, committed a federal crime. > > I believe strongly in the first ammendment, but I beleive in the > responsible exercise of free speech. Printing a story that endangers > the life of an individual already at high personal risk for the good > of our country is unethical, but that is not what she is going to jail > for. > > Miller is going to jail for protecting a source who knowingly > endangered an individual in the service of our country. That is a > freedom none of us should have. > > Posted by: M. A. Smith at July 8, 2005 09:37 AM > > While I don't agree with M.A. Smith on this issue, I respect him/her > for weighing both sides of the issue. But I don't think we know that > Miller is protecting the leaker. She may only be protecting a person > who told her (or didn't tell her) about the leaker. > > Posted by: steve baker at July 8, 2005 10:17 AM > > I've posted this on my blog: > > With all due respect, the press has a special place in our > Constitution and society. Without a free press that is free to gather > information from all sources without recrimination, you have even more > government secrecy and corruption. > > Because our country is so large and complex and our media's resources > are so limited, we already are faced with unprecedented governmental > secrecy and corruption, especially in the major metro areas like NYC, > Chicago, LA and Washington, DC. > > Reporters need all the help they can get to ferret out the corruption > and misdeeds in government, and most whistle blowers won't talk unless > promised that their names won't be used in any way, including in the > courts. > > What we as readers have to do is understand that honest reporters > treat confidential sources with some suspicion and check out what they > say before going to press. This, apparently, is what Judith Miller > did. She listened to her source (s) and decided they didn't have the > goods and never did a story, possibly because she didn't want to break > a law. > > What about dishonest, lazy reporters? Yes, they exist, but they don't > last. Reporters who abuse the use of unnamed sources eventually are > found out and are fired, driven out of the business. Their editors > figure them out and/or their sources do, and they're out of the > business. > > If you trust powerful government bureaucrats and ambitious > politicians, not to mention government contractors, etc., to work > honestly without public oversight, you're missing the point. Power > corrupts. And as much as I wish there was more intellectual integrity > in journalism than there is, I'll trust the journalists a heck of a > lot more than any politician or government official. > > Posted by: Donald E. L. Johnson at July 9, 2005 01:04 PM > > Did you read today in the NYT that the Cleveland Plain Dealer is > withholding publication of an investigative series because it features > reporting from illegally leaked documents, and they're worried about > the reporters going to jail? The chilling effect has begun. > > Posted by: steve baker at July 9, 2005 01:27 PM > > > > n 7/9/05, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > However, while the freedom of the press issues might be collateral > > > damage, this might be longer lasting and more significant than the > > > arrogance of one administration or the peril of one agent. > > > > My understanding of the jailing of the reporter was because of her > > refusal to testify at all in the face of a subpoena not that she would > > not reveal her sources at all. The other reporters called in on this > > independent council have at least testified - in private - in regards > > to the request (inquest). > > > > Hatton > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164150 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
