It is clear this woman is on the side of the freedoms and the liberties on which this country was founded. What better way to show the injustices which have been growing in this country than to suffer through personal sacrifice and thereby making an example of the hypocrisies which are so evident in so many facets of our contemporary governed culture. I hope that more people heed her and the NY Times example of the founding principles which make this country beautiful and unique. She and the NY Times have renewed my personal faith in the quality of what this country is and has the potential to be. Thank you, Ms. Miller and NY Times.
you are missing the point. shes not covering a source in a heroic way. shes covering a criminal who used her to help commit a federal offense. shes covering the person who revealed the name of an undercover CIA agent solely to serve revenge on her husband who decided to be one of the few people in this country to speak the truth about the lead up to the war in IRAQ. shes not covering the source of a secret story where her source could be in danger...shes providing a shield for a person who felt it was more important to endanger the life of a CIA agent and the people she works with than to allow a citizen of the US to write an editorial in the NYTIMES explaining the falshoods that our administration was shoveling.
however...the rights i speak of are something we consider inalienable...she's protecting freedom of the press which is constantly under threat...she may be harboring a criminal for now, but maybe she is also upholding the integrity of one of our basic rights for years to come.
NOOOOO she is not capt EO! She is a toooool. She is a criminal, as are the sources of this leak. The press has the right (thankfully) to protect their sources in instances where the whistleblower needs protection (think deep throat). In this instance with Ms Miller, she is covering the arses of treasonous criminals (i.e. Rove) and has no right to withold that information. She is hurting, not helping. Big big difference.
I cannot stress this enough, she is NOT the free press.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"
and again. is she was protecting a whistleblower, its correct to have her protected under this amendment.. but she isnt protecting a whistleblower. she put lives in hamrs way to further an administrations revenge. her sources and what shes knows being protected is actually working the opposite of protecting a whistleblower.. which is what this situation needs.
Jail for Judith Miller?
Submitted by Bill on Tue, 06/28/2005 - 19:51.
I know we're all supposed to hate Judith Miller, but she is absolutely on the right side in her current battle with the Justice Department. And the Supreme Court's decision not to hear her case is a dangerous blow to freedom, as Miller's employer, the New York Times notes in an editorial today:
Striking a blow at the press
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Journalism suffered a harmful setback when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case of two reporters who have been threatened with jail for declining to reveal their sources. The reporters had been questioned by a grand jury investigating the unmasking of an undercover CIA officer whose husband had run afoul of the Bush administration.
It can be a crime for a federal official to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Yet somehow the case evolved to focus on the reporters, who did nothing wrong. Now that the Supreme Court has refused to consider the case, the reporters face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury.
One of the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times, never wrote an article about the case. Still, Miller faces jail along with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who did write about the agent, Valerie Plame, but focused on the motivations that may have lain behind her unmasking.
The government has every right to investigate whether a crime might have been committed. But in the process, it has done more harm than good when the prosecutor inexplicably switched gears and began threatening to punish Miller and Cooper for declining to reveal their sources.
American history is full of examples of whistle-blowers who were able to inform the public of malfeasance only through reporters who were able to guarantee them confidentiality. The federal courts' assault on this tradition could have a chilling effect on their future willingness to speak up. We stand with Miller and Cooper in defending the word of a working reporter, and the public interest.
These reporters are being hung out to dry for the Bush administration's own failings, as Editor & Publisher June 27 quotes Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of the intelligence agent who's identity was at issue:
Joseph Wilson Responds to Decision in Plame Case
By E&P Staff
NEW YORK Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, who is at the center of the controversial case, released the following statement today, in response to the Supreme Court decision to not hear appeals from reporters Judith Miller and Matt Cooper. They are refusing to name sources in the White House/CIA leak case.
"That two reporters may now have to go to jail is a direct consequence of President Bush's refusal to hold his administration accountable for the compromise of the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie (Plame) Wilson.
"Had he enforced his edict that all members of his administration cooperate fully with the Justice Department investigation, we would not be where we are today.
"Equally, some senior administration officials who spoke to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller today cravenly stand by while the two journalists face jail time because of a conversation they had with them. It is an act of extraordinary cowardice that those officials not step forward to accept responsibility for their actions."
and not for nothing but Mark Felt knew about and was therefor complicit in the breaking of the law in Watergate.....silence about a crime makes you an accessory. the press should not be bound by any legal authority to act their behalf, it's the job of the state to prove its case against the defendent.
this is the article in question from July 2003 please tell me where in this article she exposes or sources anything relative to the agent in question;
July 21, 2003
Scientist Was the 'Bane of Proliferators'
By JUDITH MILLER
Dr. David Kelly, the British microbiologist who committed suicide last week while caught up in a dispute about whether the British government doctored intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons programs, played a key role in Western efforts to uncover biological warfare programs in the former Soviet Union and Iraq.
A Oxford-educated scientist who took pride in his status as a civil servant, Dr. Kelly was Britain's leading specialist on biological weapons.
Donald H. Mahley, the Bush administration's special negotiator for control of chemical and biological weapons who traveled to former Soviet biological facilities with Dr. Kelly in the early 1990's, said Dr. Kelly possessed "that rare combination of technical skill and political savvy that made him the bane of proliferators."
With a background in agricultural science, Dr. Kelly had been the chief science officer of Britain's Natural Environment Research Council of Virology. In 1984, he became the head of microbiology after rising through the ranks of the Ministry of Defense's chemical research center at Porton Down.
In 1989, he was one of two British officials who first debriefed Vladimir Pasechnik, then the most senior biologist ever to defect from the Soviet Union's biological warfare program.
Dr. Pasechnik's assertions that the Soviet Union had produced long-range missiles to deliver germs and had made a genetically modified version of plague that was impervious to vaccines and antibiotics stunned policy makers in London and Washington.
Dr. Kelly's analyses helped persuade Britain and the United States that the Soviet Union had an advanced covert germ weapons program. His work also confirmed Western suspicions that Moscow was cheating on the 1975 biological weapons treaty, officials and experts said.
"He helped uncover the biggest, most secret and horrendous biological warfare program ever mounted," said Tom Mangold, the co-author of "Plague Wars: A True Story of Biological Warfare," which described Dr. Kelly's role in deciphering the Soviet program. After Dr. Pasechnik's disclosures, there began a series of exchange visits to Russian and American biological facilities; Dr. Kelly took part in those visits for three years starting in 1991.
During one of the visits, he badgered a scientist into acknowledging that the Soviet Union had experimented with smallpox at a lab at Vector. The admission confirmed Western fears that the Soviets were trying to develop a smallpox weapon.
Col. David R. Franz, who worked with Dr. Kelly on missions to Russia and Iraq, said Dr. Kelly "had a unique ability to store and process knowledge.
"But he was so quiet about what he knew and what he was thinking," Colonel Franz said, "that you never knew what it was until he said it."
During one visit to a bioweapons site at Omutninsk, Colonel Frantz said, the Soviet scientists stonewalled the Western experts. Shy and self-effacing, Dr. Kelly thanked the midlevel manager who had shown them the facility, saying he knew that the tour had been difficult for him. "And the scientist just melted and said, I'm so sorry I can't be honest with you," Colonel Franz said. "It was poker, and David had set that up."
Dr. Kelly later joined the United Nations commission that was authorized to monitor Iraq's pledge to disarm itself of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
He played a central role in uncovering Iraq's biological weapons program, former inspectors said. In 1995, after four years of denial, senior Iraqi officials conceded that Baghdad had produced thousands of gallons of liquid anthrax and botulisum.
According to Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish diplomat who was the first chief of the United Nations inspection team, that disclosure prompted Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, to flee to Jordan, a move that led to later disclosures about Iraq's germ warfare program.
After visiting Baghdad after the fall of Mr. Hussein's government, Dr. Kelly told associates that he believed that Mr. Hussein operated advanced chemical and biological research and development programs, and probably had chemical weapons.
He said it was conceivable that deadly weapons and other material were still buried in Iraq, but he was critical of the way in which American armed forces had gone about hunting for them, and expressed the fear that material might have been looted, hidden or carried away. "It may be virtually impossible to construct through traditional forensics what Iraq had done," he once said.
He also expressed frustration that the weapons hunters in Iraq included so few people who were knowledgeable about the country and its scientific and weapons experts.
"And we have now have lost one of the most knowledgeable of them," Debra Krikorian, a former American inspector, said of Dr. Kelly.
Dr. Kelly's wife, Jan, said he had been under enormous pressure, but in e-mails sent hours before his death, he gave no hint of that, telling an associate, for instance, that he looked forward to returning to Iraq.
Doesn't anyone else have a problem with the fact that Judith Miller is the one being thrown in jail when Robert Novak is the one who printed the CIA agent's name in his column? Judith NEVER mentioned her name. Matthew Cooper of Time did, but I don't think he or anyone else did until after Novak's column came out.
There is something else going on here, something we don't know about. It was mentioned in an article about Novak in last week's NYTimes, can't remember the name of the story. I suspect it is all because Karl Rove is the leak and the shite is going to hit the fan when this information comes out.
Perhaps Judith isn't talking because Karl told her he'd send her to Guantanamo if she did. That would be worse than prison.
first off. judith miller probably isnt in jail for what she has done as a journalist..fitzgerald has investigated her in the past and as much as shes a writer for the nytimes shes also been a key actor in the bush aministrations line to sell lies about iraq... keep in mind all her articles pushing bunk stories...
so. my guess would be that shes in jail now not because of here refusal to reveal sources but because shes in line for some criminal charges soon enough.. i cant imagine the DOJ would push this if there werent a criminal case at the bottom of it.
judith miller is in jail because the bush administration wants to stifle free press. period. you need a free press for democracy to thrive. the white house is not interested in a thriving democracy.
additionally - this is just another example of the spineless jellyfish in the white house. let judith miller go to jail instead of actually holding the person responsible accountable.
but norm.. its the bush whitehouse that leaked or was part of the leak of Valerie Plams ID to punish an administration critic (joe wilson).. judith miller is on the same team as bush.. she would write up about how certain it is that iraq has wmd and so forth..
also.. theres rumor that the "leak" was judith miller, and that she was the person who informed karl rove, instead of the other way around. so the possibility exists that miller is in jail not for withholding her sources ID but for commiting a crime.
and, please.. the 1st amendment ist somethign written for all citizens of the US.. and isnt written to absovle people of their citizenship responsibilities.
norm--wake up and get your facts straight. your rampant blind bush-bashing across these boards only undermines those bright folks who have real, well-formed arguments against the bush administration.
st.
um - what facts don't i have straight?
my bashing is not blind. rampant perhaps - but we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the rampant questioning of authority of a few individuals. sorry if i'm bugging you.
this case is about far more than who outed valerie plame. this will set precedent that will allow prosecutors in future cases to force reporters to reveal sources who are serving the public good. in other words, the power to threaten journalists with jail arising from this case will not be limited to the facts of this case.
the failure to see the big picture on your part does not constitute factual errors on my part.
i'm with you on protecting the right of ms. miller to protect her source--never said i wasn't. but to attempt to make a connection back to the bush admin.'s desire to stifle free press is nonsense. it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue on your part and, as well-intentioned as you may be, you undermine your entire argument.
criticize fairly and accurately is all i'm saying.
not meaning to pick on you--it's a problem we all have at times. sometimes it's hard to separate our personal biases from the facts. maybe i'm just on edge today. this seems silly now.
you don't see a connection to the bush administration?
let's review. administration officials purportedly committed a crime but reporters covering the story were threatened with jail first. patrick fitzgerald - the special prosecutor behind the jailing of judith miller - was appointed by - that's right - john ashcroft. these are facts - not personal biases.
the fundamental mis-understanding is on your part - but in all fairness it's also on the part of most of america. as a nation we don't pay attention until it's too late. polls now indicate that the majority of the country think bush lied about wmd in iraq. but when i put forward that idea years ago on this site i was told to "get my facts straight" and reviled for my "blind bush bashing".
I think it is important to put poltical bias aside when judging wheter what she did was courageous or criminal or perhaps both. It doesn't matter who she is hiding or what this person did. She is standing up for a journalistic principle. Some day when the cards are reversed and the source is a democrat or liberal involved in some conspiracy I hope that you people blasting her now hold to your same posisition.
norm--so i guess i'm not understanding your argument. are you contending that bush threatened miller, cooper, and novak with imprisonment if they revealed their sources? so we can expect novak and cooper to receive jail sentences now? but what about miller? she's being held because she's protecting the source of the leak. i don't get your point.
the bottom line is that miller is not protecting a criminal (who's been tried and found guilty?) and should be allowed to maintain her source's anonymity--regardless of political affiliation (which is all speculation right now anyway).
and to respond to your comment about p. fitzgerald:
do you agree with your boss (or former employers, if more applicable) on all things architectural? i know i don't. just because you were hired by someone with whom you might share similar general viewpoints, it doesn't mean that in all instances you agree or that you're simply a puppet of your employer. get over the naive assumption that appointees are "little ashcrofts" or "little clintons" or "little whoevers". it's just not the case.
Judith Miller, i still think is in trouble for something else.. i dont believe shes in jail because of here refusal to reveal her source... keep in mind there were 8 pages in the letter to the grand jury that have been redacted because of information that is critical to the case.. it is somewhere within those 8 pages that allowed the grand jury the luxary to agree to imprision judith miller if she wouldnt testify.. not if she wouldnt reveal her source.
anyhow.. on to the next part about this.
why is novak free and clear? he wasnt even issued a subpoena.. me thinks he squeeled to fitzgerald..
re: novak
that's the consensus view and seems to make the most sense, though unless he ever acknowledges the event (which, based on his journalistic precedent, is unlikely) we probably will never know.
st.
my point is that miller is in jail because the bush administration wants to stifle the free press. no - i'm sure they did not say go arrest journalist a, b, or c. but ashcroft was in office because he was of the same mind - not just on this issue - but many. and ashcroft appointed fitzgerald because he was off the same mind. dissenting views are NOT allowed in this administration. dissenters are shown the door. yes men are promoted.
i agree with judith millers stand. this case is about someone in the administration who allegedly did something wrong. but the precedent will be set so that reporters will be forced to reveal people who are trying to do something good. as the nytimes put it this morning; "...She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government." there are limits to the freedom of the press. but if we allow those limits to be dictated at the whim of the george bushes and the john ashcrofts of the world then our republic is in grave and deepening danger.
my point is that miller is in jail because the bush administration wants to stifle the free press
absurd. if anything, they would be applauding miller and relieved that she didn't reveal the names of what many speculate is an intentional bush admin. leak. you're telling me that they would rather sell themselves out and risk the legal (not to mention, political) ramifications of intentionally exposing national secrets (identity of CIA operative) just to attack an abstract (also non-existent, in this case (see the '72 supreme court's decision on branzburg v. hayes)) idea like freedom of the press!? as conspiracy theories go, this one is a doozy.
judith miller being in jail has nothign to do with teh ideologies fo the current administration or their track record of lashing out at the rights of the press.
this would happen no matter who was in office. although. it is true that if the bush admin werent in office, there probably wouldnt have been a leak of a covert agents identity to punish a critic.
hotsie...
how can you say that and offer no basis for your argument? this is a precedent setting case. so by definition this has never happened before in quite this way. as an article i read put it...if nixon had fitzgerald on his staff watergate never would have happened.
Judith Miller is my hero
It is clear this woman is on the side of the freedoms and the liberties on which this country was founded. What better way to show the injustices which have been growing in this country than to suffer through personal sacrifice and thereby making an example of the hypocrisies which are so evident in so many facets of our contemporary governed culture. I hope that more people heed her and the NY Times example of the founding principles which make this country beautiful and unique. She and the NY Times have renewed my personal faith in the quality of what this country is and has the potential to be. Thank you, Ms. Miller and NY Times.
That is all.
you are missing the point. shes not covering a source in a heroic way. shes covering a criminal who used her to help commit a federal offense. shes covering the person who revealed the name of an undercover CIA agent solely to serve revenge on her husband who decided to be one of the few people in this country to speak the truth about the lead up to the war in IRAQ. shes not covering the source of a secret story where her source could be in danger...shes providing a shield for a person who felt it was more important to endanger the life of a CIA agent and the people she works with than to allow a citizen of the US to write an editorial in the NYTIMES explaining the falshoods that our administration was shoveling.
oh holy god, i agree with hotsies
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH.......heh.
my bad. thanks hotsies.
however...the rights i speak of are something we consider inalienable...she's protecting freedom of the press which is constantly under threat...she may be harboring a criminal for now, but maybe she is also upholding the integrity of one of our basic rights for years to come.
NOOOOO she is not capt EO! She is a toooool. She is a criminal, as are the sources of this leak. The press has the right (thankfully) to protect their sources in instances where the whistleblower needs protection (think deep throat). In this instance with Ms Miller, she is covering the arses of treasonous criminals (i.e. Rove) and has no right to withold that information. She is hurting, not helping. Big big difference.
I cannot stress this enough, she is NOT the free press.
has anyone been convicted of a crime yet?
is anyone here even getting the story correct?
Im getting the story correct.
And this is the first amendment
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"
and again. is she was protecting a whistleblower, its correct to have her protected under this amendment.. but she isnt protecting a whistleblower. she put lives in hamrs way to further an administrations revenge. her sources and what shes knows being protected is actually working the opposite of protecting a whistleblower.. which is what this situation needs.
for more on this.. follow.. www.tpmcafe.com
from http://www.ww4report.com/node/689
Jail for Judith Miller?
Submitted by Bill on Tue, 06/28/2005 - 19:51.
I know we're all supposed to hate Judith Miller, but she is absolutely on the right side in her current battle with the Justice Department. And the Supreme Court's decision not to hear her case is a dangerous blow to freedom, as Miller's employer, the New York Times notes in an editorial today:
Striking a blow at the press
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Journalism suffered a harmful setback when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case of two reporters who have been threatened with jail for declining to reveal their sources. The reporters had been questioned by a grand jury investigating the unmasking of an undercover CIA officer whose husband had run afoul of the Bush administration.
It can be a crime for a federal official to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Yet somehow the case evolved to focus on the reporters, who did nothing wrong. Now that the Supreme Court has refused to consider the case, the reporters face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury.
One of the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times, never wrote an article about the case. Still, Miller faces jail along with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who did write about the agent, Valerie Plame, but focused on the motivations that may have lain behind her unmasking.
The government has every right to investigate whether a crime might have been committed. But in the process, it has done more harm than good when the prosecutor inexplicably switched gears and began threatening to punish Miller and Cooper for declining to reveal their sources.
American history is full of examples of whistle-blowers who were able to inform the public of malfeasance only through reporters who were able to guarantee them confidentiality. The federal courts' assault on this tradition could have a chilling effect on their future willingness to speak up. We stand with Miller and Cooper in defending the word of a working reporter, and the public interest.
These reporters are being hung out to dry for the Bush administration's own failings, as Editor & Publisher June 27 quotes Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of the intelligence agent who's identity was at issue:
Joseph Wilson Responds to Decision in Plame Case
By E&P Staff
NEW YORK Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, who is at the center of the controversial case, released the following statement today, in response to the Supreme Court decision to not hear appeals from reporters Judith Miller and Matt Cooper. They are refusing to name sources in the White House/CIA leak case.
"That two reporters may now have to go to jail is a direct consequence of President Bush's refusal to hold his administration accountable for the compromise of the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie (Plame) Wilson.
"Had he enforced his edict that all members of his administration cooperate fully with the Justice Department investigation, we would not be where we are today.
"Equally, some senior administration officials who spoke to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller today cravenly stand by while the two journalists face jail time because of a conversation they had with them. It is an act of extraordinary cowardice that those officials not step forward to accept responsibility for their actions."
and not for nothing but Mark Felt knew about and was therefor complicit in the breaking of the law in Watergate.....silence about a crime makes you an accessory. the press should not be bound by any legal authority to act their behalf, it's the job of the state to prove its case against the defendent.
this is the article in question from July 2003 please tell me where in this article she exposes or sources anything relative to the agent in question;
July 21, 2003
Scientist Was the 'Bane of Proliferators'
By JUDITH MILLER
Dr. David Kelly, the British microbiologist who committed suicide last week while caught up in a dispute about whether the British government doctored intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons programs, played a key role in Western efforts to uncover biological warfare programs in the former Soviet Union and Iraq.
A Oxford-educated scientist who took pride in his status as a civil servant, Dr. Kelly was Britain's leading specialist on biological weapons.
Donald H. Mahley, the Bush administration's special negotiator for control of chemical and biological weapons who traveled to former Soviet biological facilities with Dr. Kelly in the early 1990's, said Dr. Kelly possessed "that rare combination of technical skill and political savvy that made him the bane of proliferators."
With a background in agricultural science, Dr. Kelly had been the chief science officer of Britain's Natural Environment Research Council of Virology. In 1984, he became the head of microbiology after rising through the ranks of the Ministry of Defense's chemical research center at Porton Down.
In 1989, he was one of two British officials who first debriefed Vladimir Pasechnik, then the most senior biologist ever to defect from the Soviet Union's biological warfare program.
Dr. Pasechnik's assertions that the Soviet Union had produced long-range missiles to deliver germs and had made a genetically modified version of plague that was impervious to vaccines and antibiotics stunned policy makers in London and Washington.
Dr. Kelly's analyses helped persuade Britain and the United States that the Soviet Union had an advanced covert germ weapons program. His work also confirmed Western suspicions that Moscow was cheating on the 1975 biological weapons treaty, officials and experts said.
"He helped uncover the biggest, most secret and horrendous biological warfare program ever mounted," said Tom Mangold, the co-author of "Plague Wars: A True Story of Biological Warfare," which described Dr. Kelly's role in deciphering the Soviet program. After Dr. Pasechnik's disclosures, there began a series of exchange visits to Russian and American biological facilities; Dr. Kelly took part in those visits for three years starting in 1991.
During one of the visits, he badgered a scientist into acknowledging that the Soviet Union had experimented with smallpox at a lab at Vector. The admission confirmed Western fears that the Soviets were trying to develop a smallpox weapon.
Col. David R. Franz, who worked with Dr. Kelly on missions to Russia and Iraq, said Dr. Kelly "had a unique ability to store and process knowledge.
"But he was so quiet about what he knew and what he was thinking," Colonel Franz said, "that you never knew what it was until he said it."
During one visit to a bioweapons site at Omutninsk, Colonel Frantz said, the Soviet scientists stonewalled the Western experts. Shy and self-effacing, Dr. Kelly thanked the midlevel manager who had shown them the facility, saying he knew that the tour had been difficult for him. "And the scientist just melted and said, I'm so sorry I can't be honest with you," Colonel Franz said. "It was poker, and David had set that up."
Dr. Kelly later joined the United Nations commission that was authorized to monitor Iraq's pledge to disarm itself of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
He played a central role in uncovering Iraq's biological weapons program, former inspectors said. In 1995, after four years of denial, senior Iraqi officials conceded that Baghdad had produced thousands of gallons of liquid anthrax and botulisum.
According to Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish diplomat who was the first chief of the United Nations inspection team, that disclosure prompted Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, to flee to Jordan, a move that led to later disclosures about Iraq's germ warfare program.
After visiting Baghdad after the fall of Mr. Hussein's government, Dr. Kelly told associates that he believed that Mr. Hussein operated advanced chemical and biological research and development programs, and probably had chemical weapons.
He said it was conceivable that deadly weapons and other material were still buried in Iraq, but he was critical of the way in which American armed forces had gone about hunting for them, and expressed the fear that material might have been looted, hidden or carried away. "It may be virtually impossible to construct through traditional forensics what Iraq had done," he once said.
He also expressed frustration that the weapons hunters in Iraq included so few people who were knowledgeable about the country and its scientific and weapons experts.
"And we have now have lost one of the most knowledgeable of them," Debra Krikorian, a former American inspector, said of Dr. Kelly.
Dr. Kelly's wife, Jan, said he had been under enormous pressure, but in e-mails sent hours before his death, he gave no hint of that, telling an associate, for instance, that he looked forward to returning to Iraq.
Doesn't anyone else have a problem with the fact that Judith Miller is the one being thrown in jail when Robert Novak is the one who printed the CIA agent's name in his column? Judith NEVER mentioned her name. Matthew Cooper of Time did, but I don't think he or anyone else did until after Novak's column came out.
There is something else going on here, something we don't know about. It was mentioned in an article about Novak in last week's NYTimes, can't remember the name of the story. I suspect it is all because Karl Rove is the leak and the shite is going to hit the fan when this information comes out.
Perhaps Judith isn't talking because Karl told her he'd send her to Guantanamo if she did. That would be worse than prison.
now from what i have read she is Bush apologist and for that we should excoriate her, but lets get our facts straight.
There is plenty to read about this right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
first off. judith miller probably isnt in jail for what she has done as a journalist..fitzgerald has investigated her in the past and as much as shes a writer for the nytimes shes also been a key actor in the bush aministrations line to sell lies about iraq... keep in mind all her articles pushing bunk stories...
so. my guess would be that shes in jail now not because of here refusal to reveal sources but because shes in line for some criminal charges soon enough.. i cant imagine the DOJ would push this if there werent a criminal case at the bottom of it.
judith miller is in jail because the bush administration wants to stifle free press. period. you need a free press for democracy to thrive. the white house is not interested in a thriving democracy.
additionally - this is just another example of the spineless jellyfish in the white house. let judith miller go to jail instead of actually holding the person responsible accountable.
but norm.. its the bush whitehouse that leaked or was part of the leak of Valerie Plams ID to punish an administration critic (joe wilson).. judith miller is on the same team as bush.. she would write up about how certain it is that iraq has wmd and so forth..
also.. theres rumor that the "leak" was judith miller, and that she was the person who informed karl rove, instead of the other way around. so the possibility exists that miller is in jail not for withholding her sources ID but for commiting a crime.
and, please.. the 1st amendment ist somethign written for all citizens of the US.. and isnt written to absovle people of their citizenship responsibilities.
norm--wake up and get your facts straight. your rampant blind bush-bashing across these boards only undermines those bright folks who have real, well-formed arguments against the bush administration.
st.
um - what facts don't i have straight?
my bashing is not blind. rampant perhaps - but we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the rampant questioning of authority of a few individuals. sorry if i'm bugging you.
this case is about far more than who outed valerie plame. this will set precedent that will allow prosecutors in future cases to force reporters to reveal sources who are serving the public good. in other words, the power to threaten journalists with jail arising from this case will not be limited to the facts of this case.
the failure to see the big picture on your part does not constitute factual errors on my part.
Will the real Judy Miller please stand up?
i'm with you on protecting the right of ms. miller to protect her source--never said i wasn't. but to attempt to make a connection back to the bush admin.'s desire to stifle free press is nonsense. it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue on your part and, as well-intentioned as you may be, you undermine your entire argument.
criticize fairly and accurately is all i'm saying.
not meaning to pick on you--it's a problem we all have at times. sometimes it's hard to separate our personal biases from the facts. maybe i'm just on edge today. this seems silly now.
you don't see a connection to the bush administration?
let's review. administration officials purportedly committed a crime but reporters covering the story were threatened with jail first. patrick fitzgerald - the special prosecutor behind the jailing of judith miller - was appointed by - that's right - john ashcroft. these are facts - not personal biases.
the fundamental mis-understanding is on your part - but in all fairness it's also on the part of most of america. as a nation we don't pay attention until it's too late. polls now indicate that the majority of the country think bush lied about wmd in iraq. but when i put forward that idea years ago on this site i was told to "get my facts straight" and reviled for my "blind bush bashing".
I think it is important to put poltical bias aside when judging wheter what she did was courageous or criminal or perhaps both. It doesn't matter who she is hiding or what this person did. She is standing up for a journalistic principle. Some day when the cards are reversed and the source is a democrat or liberal involved in some conspiracy I hope that you people blasting her now hold to your same posisition.
norm--so i guess i'm not understanding your argument. are you contending that bush threatened miller, cooper, and novak with imprisonment if they revealed their sources? so we can expect novak and cooper to receive jail sentences now? but what about miller? she's being held because she's protecting the source of the leak. i don't get your point.
the bottom line is that miller is not protecting a criminal (who's been tried and found guilty?) and should be allowed to maintain her source's anonymity--regardless of political affiliation (which is all speculation right now anyway).
and to respond to your comment about p. fitzgerald:
do you agree with your boss (or former employers, if more applicable) on all things architectural? i know i don't. just because you were hired by someone with whom you might share similar general viewpoints, it doesn't mean that in all instances you agree or that you're simply a puppet of your employer. get over the naive assumption that appointees are "little ashcrofts" or "little clintons" or "little whoevers". it's just not the case.
Judith Miller, i still think is in trouble for something else.. i dont believe shes in jail because of here refusal to reveal her source... keep in mind there were 8 pages in the letter to the grand jury that have been redacted because of information that is critical to the case.. it is somewhere within those 8 pages that allowed the grand jury the luxary to agree to imprision judith miller if she wouldnt testify.. not if she wouldnt reveal her source.
anyhow.. on to the next part about this.
why is novak free and clear? he wasnt even issued a subpoena.. me thinks he squeeled to fitzgerald..
re: novak
that's the consensus view and seems to make the most sense, though unless he ever acknowledges the event (which, based on his journalistic precedent, is unlikely) we probably will never know.
st.
my point is that miller is in jail because the bush administration wants to stifle the free press. no - i'm sure they did not say go arrest journalist a, b, or c. but ashcroft was in office because he was of the same mind - not just on this issue - but many. and ashcroft appointed fitzgerald because he was off the same mind. dissenting views are NOT allowed in this administration. dissenters are shown the door. yes men are promoted.
i agree with judith millers stand. this case is about someone in the administration who allegedly did something wrong. but the precedent will be set so that reporters will be forced to reveal people who are trying to do something good. as the nytimes put it this morning; "...She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government." there are limits to the freedom of the press. but if we allow those limits to be dictated at the whim of the george bushes and the john ashcrofts of the world then our republic is in grave and deepening danger.
absurd. if anything, they would be applauding miller and relieved that she didn't reveal the names of what many speculate is an intentional bush admin. leak. you're telling me that they would rather sell themselves out and risk the legal (not to mention, political) ramifications of intentionally exposing national secrets (identity of CIA operative) just to attack an abstract (also non-existent, in this case (see the '72 supreme court's decision on branzburg v. hayes)) idea like freedom of the press!? as conspiracy theories go, this one is a doozy.
norm..
judith miller being in jail has nothign to do with teh ideologies fo the current administration or their track record of lashing out at the rights of the press.
this would happen no matter who was in office. although. it is true that if the bush admin werent in office, there probably wouldnt have been a leak of a covert agents identity to punish a critic.
hotsie...
how can you say that and offer no basis for your argument? this is a precedent setting case. so by definition this has never happened before in quite this way. as an article i read put it...if nixon had fitzgerald on his staff watergate never would have happened.
judit miller isnt being gutted by the bush administration.
shes on their side and one of their loyal shills.
shes going to jail because p fitzgerald is doing his job and wants her to testify.
can you come up with any basis for "your" argument?
what does this have to do with the bush administration?
EVERYTHING BAD HAS TO DO WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Are you nuts?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.