Judith Miller Released

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Bro. Curtis, Sep 29, 2005.

  1. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    4
    By JOHN SOLOMON
    Associated Press Writer


    WASHINGTON


    After nearly three months in jail, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released Thursday after agreeing to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA officer, two people familiar with the case said.

    Miller left the federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., after reaching an agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Legal sources said she would appear before a grand jury investigation the case Friday morning. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.

    The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving Plame.

    Miller has been held at the federal detention facility since July 6. A federal judge ordered her jailed when she refused to testify before the grand jury investigating the alleged leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity by White House officials.

    The July 2003 disclosure of Plame's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak triggered a probe that has caused political damage to the Bush White House and could still result in criminal charges against government officials.


    LINK
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder if Fitzgerald has discovered the culprit. What a difference between him and Starr.
     
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    4
    This will be interesting to watch. She now has to testify.
     
  4. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm glad that she has been released. I don't think she should have been incarnated in the first place!
     
  5. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe this should be titled "Judith Miller Caves". Sad day for freedom of the press and the First Amendment.
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    4
    "I don't think she should have been incarnated in the first place!"

    I don't either. But I think you mean incarcerated.
     
  7. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    To follow up on hillclimber 's statement.
    ...and a real journalist(TM) is always willing to go to jail to protect his sources. :D
     
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not true - the news (NBC) this morning said that she received, at long last, her source's waiver of confidentiality.
     
  13. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!! [​IMG] Unless it was coerced. But now I start to sound like prophecynut!! [​IMG] haha
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    She has known about the waiver for over a year.


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

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    He never signed another one.

    But, suddenly, now it's OK to testify? :confused:
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    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?
     
  19. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was up to him to waive. Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    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. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...