Judith Miller Released

I wonder if Fitzgerald has discovered the culprit. What a difference between him and Starr.

 

I'm glad that she has been released. I don't think she should have been incarnated in the first place!

 

Maybe this should be titled "Judith Miller Caves". Sad day for freedom of the press and the First Amendment.

 

Where in the First ammendment does it say that newsies have a right to hinder justice by withholding informants names? It doesn't. I do think her incarceration was correct and think Novak should have joined her.

 

It has always been my understanding that you risked jail if you were unwilling to name an informant, and I think I was taught that in school.

 

To follow up on hillclimber 's statement.
...and a real journalist(TM) is always willing to go to jail to protect his sources.

 

Without confidentiality of journalists' sources, many stories would not have seen the light of day, and justice not done. Let the cops do their own investigation. Mioque is right, any journalist worth their salt will take jail over revealing sources.

 

If that is the case MP then the law must be that the sources are not protected, thus the jailing. That makes sense. But for justice to be accomplished, the courts must have access to the informants names and information. So it is as it must be.

 

That's not true - the news (NBC) this morning said that she received, at long last, her source's waiver of confidentiality.

 

That's not true - the news (NBC) this morning said that she received, at long last, her source's waiver of confidentiality. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, that certainly puts a new coat of paint on things!! Unless it was coerced. But now I start to sound like prophecynut!! haha

 

She has known about the waiver for over a year.


Why did she go to jail rather than identify her source months ago?

 

Are you sure it's the same waiver and not a new, uncoerced one?

If the only reason a person signs a waiver is because his boss orders him to, then it might be considered not binding.

 

He never signed another one.

But, suddenly, now it's OK to testify?

 

Ok, my mistake - she was assured by her source over the phone rather than a paper waiver. A voluntary verbal waiver vs coerced paper waiver - is that a difficult concept?

 

Ok, my mistake - she was assured by her source over the phone rather than a paper waiver. A voluntary verbal waiver vs coerced paper waiver - is that a difficult concept? </font>[/QUOTE]Did she not know his phone number 3 months ago? Is that a difficult concept?

 

It was up to him to waive. Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

 

He did.

A year ago.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

If she was concerned about coersion, she could have called him anytime. But, now, all of a sudden a phone conversation is OK when a written statement isn't?

Fine. If she's stupid enough to go to jail when all she had to do was pick up the phone and verify his written statement anytime in the last twelve months, then she needs more help that anyone realized.

My question is, why now? I know you don't have the answer, Daisy. You can't seem to get past the sarcastic comment stage with a real honest to God reasonably thought out answer.

No wonder you're a liberal. I hope you're past your mantra stage next time you reply.