judith miller faces jail time in plame affair

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    hm. first amendment rights vs. prosecuting a treason case. hard to decide.
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    I don't like to see reporters put in jail for protecting their sources, but I must admit, short of Novak himself, there are few reporters I'd enjoy seeing thrown in jail more than Miller. Her nonsense on WMDs helped pave the way for the invasion when reporters the world over should have been trying to check the validity of the claims of the Bush administration's hysterical talking heads.
     
  3. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    it couldn't happen to a nicer person, sure :)

    normally, i'm vehemently against forcing journalists to give up their sources. but if that source was complicit in high crimes, i'll have to reconsider my stance.
     
  4. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #4
    This wouldn't be required if the White House could catch its own traitors...

    or should I say wanted to?
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    Responsibility in jounalism. If you are protecting a source over a story, that's one thing. But revealing the name of a CIA agent? That's not reporting, it's treading on treasonous territory. Especially if it's to push you're own political agenda. Why isn't Novak in jail?

    Edit: And why did they mention the agent by name? Again? :rolleyes: I realize it's already out there, but come on!
     
  6. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #6
    I think Novak is the one they should really be going after. He was complicit in the crime itself or an accessory. If the crime is public diclosure, well that's what he did.

    As for the first amendment there is a beauty in the courts in that they allow for nuance. They can take into account that the purpose of the story was revenge against Wilson. If there was any compelling national interest in the disclosure then the reporters right to confidentiality might hold more sway but there was none. It was pure political revenge.

    If someone revealed the names of all our CIA agents to a reporter and they were published should that reporter and the mole get off scott free? Could a spy just claim to be a reporter and get away with it?

    No, it has to be viewed in context. If an presidential assasin was known to be a CIA agent then it certainly would be correct to reveal the identity and withold your sources. Any of us can see this. Judith Miller should fess up.
     

Share This Page