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.


Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Reply via email to