POLITICS: Judge Orders Jail for N.Y. Times Reporter

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name. Miller made a commitment to her source promising she would not release his/her name and she's standing by it. Matthew Cooper the Time Magazine reporter on the other hand did an about face and agreed to testify before the Grand Jury after his source gave him permission to testify. Just how long Miller will stay in Jail is unknown, however some sources say it be until October.



I have to give Miller some credit for protecting her source, yet I still feel it is downright wrong for a judge to send her to jail. Essentially what he is doing is blackmailing the reporter which is illegal; therefore he should go to jail along with her.

Does anyone know what law or laws apply here that give the judge the authority to send her to jail?

[edit on 7/6/2005 by shots]

[edit on 7-7-2005 by John bull 1]

"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."

She is being held in contempt of court, due to the fact she is holding evidence which they claim put the National Security of America at risk. Legally they can hold her while the case runs.

The judge can jail her for civil contempt of court as long as the Grand Jury whose subpoena she's refusing to appear for sits, which is at least until October but could be extended.

Again, this is settled U.S. law, reporters have no special protection under the First Amendment from testifying against their sources in a court of law. Congress is working on a reporter shield law, but it's not certain it will pass.

I think if reporters were truely protected from having to reveal their sources, there would be some more hefty stories breaking, especialy since it would make sources much more at ease to speak on record to a reporter.

I fear the exact opposite would be true. Reporters would continue to make up sensationalistic, partisan crap and then continue to claim it all comes from "anonymous sources"-and never be held accountable again.

The Media has already done this with the laws in place. give them more "protection" and watch the bar drop even lower. Government has at least an attempt at checks and balances built in. Media has not even that. They already revel in their power to manipulate the minds of the public and force policy changes for their own agendas. We already know and fear the power of industry manipulating government-why do we believe corporate advertising Media would be any different?

If they want to act like Government, make them as accountable as government.

Originally posted by thematrix
I think if reporters were truely protected from having to reveal their sources, there would be some more hefty stories breaking, especialy since it would make sources much more at ease to speak on record to a reporter.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Phugedaboudet]

Sorry, can't say I feel bad. At all.

You do know that many of the men and women who serve in the intelligence offices in this country are people with families too, right? Some of the work they do is very dangerous, and there are laws to protect idiots from "outing" them for their own sake, and the sake of their loved ones.

What better way to get back at a CIA agent who perhaps got you in trouble than to go after her kids hm?

Considering the fact that only an insider would have the knowledge of who the agent was, it is clear that some lowlife in the Bush admin (probably in revenge against her husband) purposely leaked her name out to these reporters. For some reason news outlets thought it right to publicize the identity of a secret agent as well, but regardless... a law was broken in the outing of this person.

Holding back concrete evidence in this case, citing some sort of "I'm a reporter so I'm above your petty justice system" is an argument that the Supreme Court has snubbed its nose at.

Good.

I hope whoever in the administration outed her to the two reporters gets what they deserve as well as whoever ordered it.

Wanna play politics? Play it without risking lives.

How entertaining that a Bush operation lands two people in court pleading for freedom of the press. Ultra irony.

She knew what the price was going in. If she didn't then she should be relegated to covering tea parties and other social soirés. I recognize her for her guts, but give her no sympathy.

This is really nothing new. It's been a two-edged sword for a very long time. It's kind of like, you pays yer money and takes yer chances.

.
There is no imminent crime her testimony would prevent and what ever national security has been compromised is already done by Novak.

So jail is excessive in my opinion.

She made a promise and she is keeping it, even under duress, Wow, what a refreshing side of humanity to see.
If you need someone to depend on this lady is one.

Novak appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor, and other journalists who reported on the Plame story have talked to prosecutors with the permission of their sources.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Novak was complicit in whatever crime was commited, And other reporters have reported their sources, Why are they selecting to pick on Miller? Especially with a jail sentence? Could it be because she works for the New York Times that often offends the sensibilities of the reactionary right?

Kudos for someone with the personal integrity to keep a promise once it was made.
And Boo to the judge for this excess treatment, when her testimony would simply be superfluous the the grand jury anyway.
.

This is simply ... Amazing to me.

What Constitutional Ammendment, more importantly The Bill of Rights
will our government take away next week?


Why do they continue to take away our rights? ... I don't understand that.


Here Read This...and tell me which rights were violated today.


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.


When was the last time you read your Rights as a Citizen of the United States? Its alarming how the government has torn away your rights. And most people don't know.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
usinfo.state.gov...

The woman is in contempt of the court, fair enough the judge may do what he sees fit. Jailtime is a little excessive in my opinion, but what she and her anonymous source has done was very wrong and they should be reprimanded for it.

It looks like it's Rove, but I am not totally convinced yet. As much as I dislike the man, I can't see him being able to have that sort of information unless someone else in the administration revealed it to him first.

Rove is innocent before proven guilty in my opinion and he should be treated as such.

But how deep does the rabbit hole go if it was Rove?