No she didn't. She researched it. Period. But apparently the person she taked to was not Karl Rove, and is afraid to come forward. (A guess).
I do not know why Novak is not in this and I think he should make a statement on the subject since in my opinion he allowed himself to be used by Rove, and started this whole mess. On 7/9/05, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect Your PC from viruses, hackers, spam and more. Buy PC-cillin with Easy Installation & Support http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=61 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164159 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
