It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:31 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Is This Still AMERICA?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:43 pm 
Offline
Involved
Involved
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:23 am
Posts: 21
July 6th, 2005 5:06 pm
Judge Orders Jail for N.Y. Times Reporter


By Pete Yost / Associated Press

A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating who in the Bush administration leaked an undercover CIA operative's name.

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said of the showdown in a case that has seen both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney interviewed by investigators.

Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He said he would do so now because his source gave him specific authority to do so.

"Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again," Cooper said as he took the podium to address the court.

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

As for Miller, unless she decides to talk, she will be held until the grand jury ends its work in October. The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.

Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it "a sad time."

"My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong," Cooper added. "I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today."

"Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it," New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told reporters.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who represented Miller, told reporters: "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity."

"Judy Miller has not been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime," Abrams said. "She has been held in civil contempt of court."

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had responded in court to Miller's refusal to name her source by saying "we can't have 50,000 journalists" each making their own decision about whether to reveal sources.

"We cannot tolerate that," he said. "We are trying to get to the bottom of whether a crime was committed and by whom."

Another Miller attorney, Robert Bennett, said earlier that prosecutors traditionally have shown great respect for journalists and "have had the good judgment not to push these cases very often."

Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Last month the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald urged Hogan to take the unusual step of jailing the reporters, saying that may be the only way to get them to talk.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald had disclosed Tuesday that a source of Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify the source, nor did he specify whether the source for each reporter was the same person.

Cooper said he had been told earlier that his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality but that he did not trust such waivers because he thought they had been gained from executive branch employees under duress. He told the court that he needed not a general waiver but a specific waiver from his source, which he did not get until Wednesday.

"I received express personal consent" from the source, Cooper told the judge.

Hogan and Fitzgerald accepted Cooper's offer.

"That would purge you of contempt," Hogan said.

Prior to the hearing, Miller argued that it is imperative for reporters to honor their commitments to provide cover to sources who will only reveal important information if they are assured anonymity. Forcing reporters to renege on the pledge undercuts their ability to do their job, she said.

Last week, Time Inc., last week provided Fitzgerald with records, notes and e-mail traffic involving Cooper, who had argued that it was therefore no longer necessary for him to testify. Time also had been found in contempt and officials there said after losing appeals it had no choice but to turn over the information.

The case is seen as a key test of press freedom and many media groups have lined up behind the reporters. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources.

Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked Plame's identity. Her name was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, impugned part of President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

Wilson was sent to Africa by the Bush administration to investigate an intelligence claim that Saddam Hussein may have purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson said he could not verify the claim and criticized the administration for manipulating the intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Novak, whose column cited as sources two unidentified senior Bush administration officials, has refused to say whether he has testified before the grand jury or been subpoenaed. Novak has said he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved and that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

Cooper spoke to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove after Wilson's public criticism of Bush and before Novak's column ran, according to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who denies that Rove leaked Plame's identity to anyone. Cooper's story mentioning Plame's name appeared after Novak's column. Miller did some reporting, but never wrote a story.

Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned besides Bush and Cheney are Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general.

Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete except for testimony from Cooper and Miller.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14442
Location: NC
Image


Image


Save the First Amendment--from Karl Rove

Link: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000973352

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:49 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 1955
Location: upstate new york.
on the other hand, maybe she didn't have any real resources and she just made things up?

her track record on reporting is something to be questioned, especially when she used chalabi as a "legitimate" source of WMD.

altho i believe in freedom of the press, etc, part of me doesn't have any sympathy for her.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:53 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:11 am
Posts: 5620
Location: western New York
All of me doesn't have any sympathy for her and it doesn't have anything to do with freedom of the press.

She was a mouthpiece for the administration. Whether she was being paid for it or not I don't know, but if not she is just stupid.

I don't have sympathy for anyone pushing the war especially those who have access to information and knowingly print lies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:15 am 
Offline
Involved
Involved
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:23 am
Posts: 21
:|

I don't have sympathy but I have great concern when I feel we are losing another freedom we had prior to King Bush.

God Bless us all and those that follow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:28 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:11 am
Posts: 5620
Location: western New York
Losing freedoms is one part of what the Bush administration is all about. Miller will be fine, she appears to have a relationship with the administration and this does make a great show, eh?

The problem is that it is a precedent--true journalists will be forced to give up resources or be imprisoned.

Just another reason to not feel any sympathy for Miller.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:34 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 1955
Location: upstate new york.
my feelings lie the same with sensorship of the press....i may not like fox news and how/what they report, but they have the right to report as they see things, just like any other news source. (before anyone replies, honesty is another subject) therefore, i can't wish sensorship for fox because i don't like them...i simply never listen to them.

same for journalists....right wing, left wing, whoever, they all share equal rights regardless if i agree with their writings or not. afterall, we are still america, and we on the "left" can't wish for censorship of the right...our perogative is to enlighten others about the half truths and lies and encourage people not to listen to them....but, we can't condemn them.

i may not like what or how she reports, but she is a journalist....i only hope she meets some "nice" people in jail. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:05 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:11 am
Posts: 5620
Location: western New York
In case I didn't make myself clear, I didn't say Miller should have been censored, I just don't have sympathy for her.

As for censorship, my point is that Miller, or anyone going to jail will encourage more censorship. Once something like this happens, it sets a precedence. Look for more people being forced to reveal sources or face jail.

Puts a damper on journalism, which has not been healthy for a long time as it is.

And why is Novack allowed to actually print the story and still be free while people who did nothing with the information are not? 'Journalists' who did not reveal Plame's name did nothing wrong, Novack did.

What is wrong with this picture?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:25 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 1955
Location: upstate new york.
i understood your position, dori. :)

i was merely stating mine...no intent to challenge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:59 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:11 am
Posts: 5620
Location: western New York
Thank you mga. Guess I am getting too sensitive, eh?

But I do know I am not clear often on things and thought I had misled you.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have to say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:11 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 1955
Location: upstate new york.
not a problem...after being on the internet for so many years, i've learned that often times how i read a post is not how the poster intended it....we usually say the same things differently. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:20 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:11 am
Posts: 5620
Location: western New York
I find that interesting. I was recently in a battle with someone who insisted on NOT understanding what I was saying. Funny thing is, I believe we agree on more than we disagree on but there doesn't seem to be any way to say that that is understandable.

Kind of humorous to be called a Republican, friend of Republicans, wanting the war to go on, wanting the troops to be killed.

Guess that is why I clarified myself to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group