Yet again, I find myself annoyed…

Judith Miller is going to jail. On the high side of the coin, she may serve as much as 3 months for refusing to give up the source in her never-written story about mega-top-secret-superspy Valerie Plame.

I’m not particularly happy about this. There are numerous reasons to want a judge to throw the book at her. Mainly, it sets a bad precedent. If she’s allowed to just rattle off anything she wants in a story (although the story here was never actually written, oddly enough), what happens when someone wants to nail the Bush administration and starts leaking confidential details on war planning, etc.? Hell, it was a press leak that let Osama know that the CIA was onto him and was following him via his satellite phone which he soon stopped using. Do we really want to trust reporters to decide what’s best for national security and what they should and shouldn’t be outing?

That being said, I think this whole thing could be ended very quickly. President Bush should pardon Judith Miller. Right about now, I know that you are all scratching your head wondering what in the hell I’m smoking.

Here’s my thought…

1. Pardoning Miller would be an excellent way for the President to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that there is a constitution and that it’s pretty plain that there is freedom of the press. Does she know something? Certainly, but she does have a right, despite a decision all those years ago that reporters don’t, to maintain confidential sources. A presidential pardon is irrevocable and irreviewable, and would be an excellent way to prove that the President is not happy with the machinations of the Supreme Court.

2. Pardoning Miller would also put the Dems in an interesting position. They would almost have to support the President, seeing as they’re the party of free speech and free ideas (to hear them talk, of course). Pardoning Miller would probably set off a firestorm, however, of Democrats talking about law and order, the rule of law, the importance of the court, and the necessity of throwing the book at law breakers. The absurdity of wanting to throw the book at Miller, but at the same time wanting to free Mumia would not be lost on the average american. They would also put the people who praised Woodward and Bernstein over Deep Throat in an awkward position. They would have to agree with the President or throw the book at W&B.

3. A pardon would end the senseless pressure that will invariably be put on Miller after she’s out of jail. She can still, theoretically (and correct me if I’m wrong, folks, I’m just going on what I know) be charged with conspiracy, and go to jail for a much longer time. Going to jail now does not let her off the hook in any way, so her time spent in jail right now could be the beginning not the end.

The President could end all of this with a pardon. I doubt he will, seeing as he never seems to do what I would like him to do anyway, but it would be nice. Miller does not deserve to go to jail over this, and protecting her would go a long way toward protecting the first amendment in this country, something it seems no branch of the government is willing to do lately.

This entry was posted in In The News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • pam

    There are limits to Freedom of The Press, just as there are limits to Freedom of Speech.

  • Sirrios

    Just as there should be limits to the right to bear arms Pam?

    Or does that not count?

  • pam

    Sirrios- There are gun laws in this country. Not everyone has a right to a gun in this country. Just as a reporter can not hide behind freedom of the press when the source they are “protecting” is guilty of a crime. I fail to see what your point is.

  • Sirrios

    I kind of figured you would Pam. So what is the point of continuing?

  • pam

    exactly.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Have you already forgotten how Bush promised to leave no stone unturned to find out who was responsible for the crime of outing Valerie Plame and putting her life and all her contacts at risk? Then as now his statement was about as believable as OJ’s claim of devotion to finding his ex-wife’s “real” killer.

    Pardon Miller? What a perfect way to illustrate that famous “resolve”.

  • pam

    Why would the statement be unbelievable? The investigation went forward and the only thing holding up the identity is the press. GWB isn’t calling to pardon anyone. It is Vinnys opinion.

  • Barefoot Paul

    If the White House was really cooperative there should be no need to take extreme measures to get information from journalists. My skepticism is based on past performance. This administration only seems to want to punish whistle blowers. Those who’ve put themselves above the law and even some who’ve exhibited varrying degrees of incompentence are rewarded as long as they remain loyal. Why should I expect this case to be any different?

  • pam

    Oh I see. So it is Bushs fault that a reporter is alledging that a member of the administration released classified information, a federal offense, and the reporter, knowing this, printed it, also a crime. GWB calls for an investigstion, which he gets. And now, somehow, this is all GWBs fault that the reporter printed the story, won’t release the sources name, and is now sitting in jail? Wow.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Pam, you might try diversifying your news sources to help you get your facts straight.
    FYI, since you clearly haven’t been following this story through any reliable source, there’s been strong speculation that Karl Rove is at least one of the leaks. Does this give you a clue why I would suspect the White House may be giving this matter less than due diligence?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Oh good. We base assumptions of criminal wrong doing now on “strong speculation.”

    You’re pathetic.

  • http://www.lobowalk.com Daniel

    “Strong speculation”? That’s why Judith Miller is being pressured to give up the source of the breaker of federal law; so as to end the “speculation” and get to the facts.

    Freedom of the press does not allow the breaking of the law. That’d be like saying someone’s 2nd Amendment rights have been violated after they were arrested for holding up a store with a gun and charged with armed robbery.

    That being said the reality of the matter is that a news story based on “un-named sources” is nothing more than rumor.

  • http://www.linoge.net/weblog/ Linoge

    Sirrios, there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Of course, someone as obviously uneducated as you probably is unaware of this. Especially since you are probably incapable of going near a firearm or firearm store without losing bladder control, and have therefor done your best to not research the issue, for fear of seeing a picture of a firearm, and having the same reaction. *shrugs* Such is life. Invest in Depends.

    Indeed, there should be, and are, limits to the right to free speech, and the right to free press, and all of those various and sundry rights. And, indeed, Miller should be able to keep confidential whatever sources she may or may not desire. However, I am uncertain as to whether or not she should be able to keep those sources confidential from a judicial inquiry… According to most law I am familiar with (and I am not that remarkably up on the various finer points), only ministers, spouses, and doctors enjoy immunity from having to reveal data, and doctors only in some circumstances. Unless those limitations have changed, abiding by current law and tradition, I do not see journalists falling under any of those categories.

    However, should journalists have that ability? I still think not. Just as Barefoot Paul demonstrates the insinuousness (word?) of “strong speculation”, what happens if a journalist, naming “confidential sources”, presents a moving and strong article that some high-up pooh-bah in the government whacked twenty people? According to Barefoot Paul, and those who think like him, that pooh-bah should be immediately arrested, investigated, and tried. But then what of the sources? What if they never existed in the first place? Are we going to allow journalists to potentially destroy other people’s lives and livelihoods just for the kicks and giggles of it?

    *shrug* I am divided. It would be nice to believe that the journalists would abide by a strict code of ethics, and present information and stories that they knew to be substantially true, regardless of the confidentiality (or lack thereof) of their sources. However, as we all know, and as history recently has proven, journalistic integrity and morality has gone straight out the window and into orbit.

  • http://www.linoge.net/weblog/ Linoge

    Teh irany ov mai oun speling end gramaticall erors iz unmisteakable.

  • pam

    Barefoot-What would you suggest I read? The Enquirer? Or should I listen to the Insider?
    Thank-you Vinny & Daniel.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Pam – I doubt if even the Enquirer would get their facts as screwed up as you had them. I’m sure you can find penty of alternate sources – with or without silly sarcasm.
    Daniel – When a news story itself violates the law, it’s not just a “rumor”.
    All – Try actually taking to the “strong suggestion” link instead of ranting about the wording I chose. MSNBC isn’t exactly a liberal bastion – unless you’re looking at it from the extreme fringes of the right. I never suggested that any reporter should get immunity – that was Vinny remember? I only offered my opinion that the White House could be more cooperative. You’re entitled to a different opinion but I’d love to see some justification – even if it’s just “strong speculation” like I offered.

  • http://www.lobowalk.com Daniel

    Barefoot, amidst all of your babbling the fact still remains; “un-named sources” is nothing more than rumor and hearsay. Also, when the hell did I say YOU suggested anything about immunity about anyone? I didn’t.

  • pam

    Daniel- you will have to excuse BFP. He is obviously not the brightest bulb in the light fixture. He doesn’t even understand the case, let alone how to discuss it.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Barefoot, amidst all of your babbling the fact still remains; “un-named sources” is nothing more than rumor and hearsay.

    I’m sure Valerie Plame will be happy to hear that her career was ruined and life endangered by “rumor and hearsay”.

    Also, when the hell did I say YOU suggested anything about immunity about anyone? I didn’t.

    What is with you right wing wackos thinking everything you read (even when it’s specifically addressed to “All”) is a personal message just for you? Does the over-inflated ego come with the ideology or do you purchase it separately?

  • http://www.lobowalk.com Daniel

    Barefoot, was I not included in “All”?

    Dude, you look like a bigger idiot the more you open your gaping pie hole.

  • David Steele

    I’m a member of the nearly looney left and a virulent Bush hater, and I hope Judy Miller rots in jail. She’s a right-wing hack, more of an adjunct to the Bush Administration than a journalist, and, on top of that, her legal argument stinks. No conversattion, be it with a reporter, a lawyer, or a priest, is priviledged if that conversation itself is part of a criminal conspiracy. Yes, there are circumstances were judges should overlook that (the Pentagon Papers mess comes to mind), but this isn’t one of them. Moreoever, she didn’t write anything! She’s not protecting the source of an article, because there was no article. She’s protecting someone in the Bush Administration who wanted to smear Wilson. I suspect that the spin on this issue is about to change dramatically, as the left figures out exactly what Miller did.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    She’s protecting someone in the Bush Administration who wanted to smear Wilson. I suspect that the spin on this issue is about to change dramatically, as the left figures out exactly what Miller did.

    If they can’t pin this on Rove, it’ll go away. Mark my words.

  • pam

    There are limits to Freedom of The Press, just as there are limits to Freedom of Speech.

  • Sirrios

    Just as there should be limits to the right to bear arms Pam?

    Or does that not count?

  • pam

    Sirrios- There are gun laws in this country. Not everyone has a right to a gun in this country. Just as a reporter can not hide behind freedom of the press when the source they are “protecting” is guilty of a crime. I fail to see what your point is.

  • Sirrios

    I kind of figured you would Pam. So what is the point of continuing?

  • pam

    exactly.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Have you already forgotten how Bush promised to leave no stone unturned to find out who was responsible for the crime of outing Valerie Plame and putting her life and all her contacts at risk? Then as now his statement was about as believable as OJ’s claim of devotion to finding his ex-wife’s “real” killer.

    Pardon Miller? What a perfect way to illustrate that famous “resolve”.

  • pam

    Why would the statement be unbelievable? The investigation went forward and the only thing holding up the identity is the press. GWB isn’t calling to pardon anyone. It is Vinnys opinion.

  • Barefoot Paul

    If the White House was really cooperative there should be no need to take extreme measures to get information from journalists. My skepticism is based on past performance. This administration only seems to want to punish whistle blowers. Those who’ve put themselves above the law and even some who’ve exhibited varrying degrees of incompentence are rewarded as long as they remain loyal. Why should I expect this case to be any different?

  • pam

    Oh I see. So it is Bushs fault that a reporter is alledging that a member of the administration released classified information, a federal offense, and the reporter, knowing this, printed it, also a crime. GWB calls for an investigstion, which he gets. And now, somehow, this is all GWBs fault that the reporter printed the story, won’t release the sources name, and is now sitting in jail? Wow.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Pam, you might try diversifying your news sources to help you get your facts straight.
    FYI, since you clearly haven’t been following this story through any reliable source, there’s been strong speculation that Karl Rove is at least one of the leaks. Does this give you a clue why I would suspect the White House may be giving this matter less than due diligence?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Oh good. We base assumptions of criminal wrong doing now on “strong speculation.”

    You’re pathetic.

  • http://www.lobowalk.com/ Daniel

    “Strong speculation”? That’s why Judith Miller is being pressured to give up the source of the breaker of federal law; so as to end the “speculation” and get to the facts.

    Freedom of the press does not allow the breaking of the law. That’d be like saying someone’s 2nd Amendment rights have been violated after they were arrested for holding up a store with a gun and charged with armed robbery.

    That being said the reality of the matter is that a news story based on “un-named sources” is nothing more than rumor.

  • http://www.linoge.net/weblog/ Linoge

    Sirrios, there are limitations on the right to bear arms. Of course, someone as obviously uneducated as you probably is unaware of this. Especially since you are probably incapable of going near a firearm or firearm store without losing bladder control, and have therefor done your best to not research the issue, for fear of seeing a picture of a firearm, and having the same reaction. *shrugs* Such is life. Invest in Depends.

    Indeed, there should be, and are, limits to the right to free speech, and the right to free press, and all of those various and sundry rights. And, indeed, Miller should be able to keep confidential whatever sources she may or may not desire. However, I am uncertain as to whether or not she should be able to keep those sources confidential from a judicial inquiry… According to most law I am familiar with (and I am not that remarkably up on the various finer points), only ministers, spouses, and doctors enjoy immunity from having to reveal data, and doctors only in some circumstances. Unless those limitations have changed, abiding by current law and tradition, I do not see journalists falling under any of those categories.

    However, should journalists have that ability? I still think not. Just as Barefoot Paul demonstrates the insinuousness (word?) of “strong speculation”, what happens if a journalist, naming “confidential sources”, presents a moving and strong article that some high-up pooh-bah in the government whacked twenty people? According to Barefoot Paul, and those who think like him, that pooh-bah should be immediately arrested, investigated, and tried. But then what of the sources? What if they never existed in the first place? Are we going to allow journalists to potentially destroy other people’s lives and livelihoods just for the kicks and giggles of it?

    *shrug* I am divided. It would be nice to believe that the journalists would abide by a strict code of ethics, and present information and stories that they knew to be substantially true, regardless of the confidentiality (or lack thereof) of their sources. However, as we all know, and as history recently has proven, journalistic integrity and morality has gone straight out the window and into orbit.

  • http://www.linoge.net/weblog/ Linoge

    Teh irany ov mai oun speling end gramaticall erors iz unmisteakable.

  • pam

    Barefoot-What would you suggest I read? The Enquirer? Or should I listen to the Insider?
    Thank-you Vinny & Daniel.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Pam – I doubt if even the Enquirer would get their facts as screwed up as you had them. I’m sure you can find penty of alternate sources – with or without silly sarcasm.
    Daniel – When a news story itself violates the law, it’s not just a “rumor”.
    All – Try actually taking to the “strong suggestion” link instead of ranting about the wording I chose. MSNBC isn’t exactly a liberal bastion – unless you’re looking at it from the extreme fringes of the right. I never suggested that any reporter should get immunity – that was Vinny remember? I only offered my opinion that the White House could be more cooperative. You’re entitled to a different opinion but I’d love to see some justification – even if it’s just “strong speculation” like I offered.

  • http://www.lobowalk.com/ Daniel

    Barefoot, amidst all of your babbling the fact still remains; “un-named sources” is nothing more than rumor and hearsay. Also, when the hell did I say YOU suggested anything about immunity about anyone? I didn’t.

  • pam

    Daniel- you will have to excuse BFP. He is obviously not the brightest bulb in the light fixture. He doesn’t even understand the case, let alone how to discuss it.

  • Barefoot Paul

    Barefoot, amidst all of your babbling the fact still remains; “un-named sources” is nothing more than rumor and hearsay.

    I’m sure Valerie Plame will be happy to hear that her career was ruined and life endangered by “rumor and hearsay”.

    Also, when the hell did I say YOU suggested anything about immunity about anyone? I didn’t.

    What is with you right wing wackos thinking everything you read (even when it’s specifically addressed to “All”) is a personal message just for you? Does the over-inflated ego come with the ideology or do you purchase it separately?

  • http://www.lobowalk.com/ Daniel

    Barefoot, was I not included in “All”?

    Dude, you look like a bigger idiot the more you open your gaping pie hole.

  • David Steele

    I’m a member of the nearly looney left and a virulent Bush hater, and I hope Judy Miller rots in jail. She’s a right-wing hack, more of an adjunct to the Bush Administration than a journalist, and, on top of that, her legal argument stinks. No conversattion, be it with a reporter, a lawyer, or a priest, is priviledged if that conversation itself is part of a criminal conspiracy. Yes, there are circumstances were judges should overlook that (the Pentagon Papers mess comes to mind), but this isn’t one of them. Moreoever, she didn’t write anything! She’s not protecting the source of an article, because there was no article. She’s protecting someone in the Bush Administration who wanted to smear Wilson. I suspect that the spin on this issue is about to change dramatically, as the left figures out exactly what Miller did.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    She’s protecting someone in the Bush Administration who wanted to smear Wilson. I suspect that the spin on this issue is about to change dramatically, as the left figures out exactly what Miller did.

    If they can’t pin this on Rove, it’ll go away. Mark my words.