Judith Miller Released

Citation? You're saying he called her a year ago and convinced her then that his waiver was sincere and uncoerced?

The idea that Miller chose to go to jail convinced that her source did not wish to remain undisclosed? Yes.

What makes you think that she did not contact him by phone or other private means?

Of course. The written statement was given under duress - everyone in the office who wished to remain in the office had to sign one under threat of being fired. You seem to have difficulty grasping this concept, that a forced waiver is not acceptable.

Again, you don't know that she didn't. You don't know that he would have consented if she had or that he did not refuse if she did.

I haven't heard that Judith Miller was stupid from anyone but you so far.

Because now she has his uncoerced consent.

How many times are you going to ask the same question only to ignore the same answer?

Except the one she gave and that I've given you several times. The real question is why Libby has given his free consent only now. I suspect it is because it was disclosed to Fitzgerald by other people and there was no reason for him to hold Miller to secrecy any longer - but time will tell.

I can't get over your inability to grasp that some people don't use technicalities to get out of what they perceive as their moral and professional obligations.

Your posts and your inability to resist making personal insults say all that needs saying about you.

 

I guess all that means is you don't have an answer to my question. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

A phone call is not a technicality. If she wanted to make sure his written statement was uncoerced, all she had to do was place one in the last 12 months.

Instead she went to jail...for nothing.

Maybe she was trying to make some kind of point, but it was for her own reasons and had nothing to do with Libby.

From my viewpoint, all she did was make herself look dumb as a box of rocks. Everyone with half a brain knows how to use a phone.

 

Persistent bluff and bluster.

Right, the technicality is the forced written waiver. Technically, it is a waiver; morally and realistically, it is not. The phone call was the opposite of a technicality, ie. the real thing.

Once more with feeling: how do you know she did not? How do you know that Libby did not refuse to give one, eh?

Some people do not consider professional integrity and moral obligations "nothing"; others, apparently, are not so fastidious.

Evidence?

Miller said that Libby now has waived confidentiality. Where is your evidence that it was, or would have been, waived - uncoerced - a year ago? If you have none, then that assertion has no value whatsoever.

And the smirky contention that a first string reporter from one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world with access to good legal counsel is simply "too dumb" to make a phone call is, at best, unlikely. Belief in such an unlikely, unevidenced contention seems more akin to twisted political bias than to any genuine insight.

 

Once more with feeling: how do you know she did not? How do you know that Libby did not refuse to give one, eh?

Evidence?

Miller said that Libby now has waived confidentiality. Where is your evidence that it was, or would have been, waived - uncoerced - a year ago? If you have none, then that assertion has no value whatsoever.

</font>[/QUOTE]Presto!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/cia.leak/

After news broke Thursday of Miller's release from prison, Tate said Libby signed a waiver of confidentiality more than a year ago and that Tate followed up with a phone call to Abrams assuring him Libby's waiver was voluntary.

But Tate said Miller's attorney, Bob Bennett, told him over the Labor Day weekend that Miller did not accept that waiver because "it came from lawyers."

Tate said he wondered "why didn't someone call us 80 days ago" -- before Miller entered prison.


That's what I'm wondering.

 

Double Post

 

Finally, something other than your opinion, thank you.

Who is Abrams?

Miller said she wanted a "personal, voluntary" waiver. I can only guess that she considered a conversation between lawyers and at which she was not present, not to be personal.

She said she'd say more after she testified before Fitzgerald.

 

She's an idiot with visions of journalistic martyrhood.

 

MMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmaybe.

Or maybe she's a fine journalist of extraordinary integrity. I don't know of her except for this.

Who is Abrams?

 

Maybe that's why she went to jail.

It has been long known that the confidentiality was waived over a year ago. Furthermore, even if it had not been waived, she knew the consequences of contempt of court, and chose to go through with it. She can blame only herself. The "confidentiality" was not binding on anyone. It is a gentlemen's agreement. It has no force in a court of law, nor should it have.

 

Since Carpro is evidently too lazy and rude to answer your question. I believe he is referring to a news anchor who works, I think, for MSNBC.

BTW, it is good to see someone explain something they actually understand, unlike Carpro or Pastor Larry.

 

Since Carpro is evidently too lazy and rude to answer your question. I believe he is referring to a news anchor who works, I think, for MSNBC.

BTW, it is good to see someone explain something they actually understand, unlike Carpro or Pastor Larry. </font>[/QUOTE]Stick to your knitting, Terry.

You're in way over your head.

 

Thanks for your kind words, Terry. I thought you had sworn this kind of stuff off? Has that changed now?

And what did I explain that I didn't actually understand? I think all I did was make a general comment about commonly known information.

 

Since Carpro is evidently too lazy and rude to answer your question. I believe he is referring to a news anchor who works, I think, for MSNBC.

BTW, it is good to see someone explain something they actually understand, unlike Carpro or Pastor Larry. </font>[/QUOTE]Stick to your knitting, Terry.

You're in way over your head. </font>[/QUOTE]NYT attorney Floyd Abrams.

 

Yes, that is certainly possible. It's also possible that she is an idealist.

It has also long been known that the waivers were not exactly voluntary.

I haven't heard her blame anyone.

"Gentlemen" is an odd term for reporters....unless you're being ironic (can't tell). You are right that it has no force of law. I agree with you that it should not.

As I've mentioned to carpro, some people take moral and professional integrity seriously. Whether Miller is one such, a grandstander or a combo, time may tell.

 

I don't know that she is blaming anyone. She might be an idealist, but I find it hard to see how that applies here. I think much of "idealism" is misplaced, or spent on wrong-headed objectives.

One of the ideals of this country is that it is based on rule of law. It seems to me that when people take that law into their own hands, bad things happen.

"Gentlemen's agreement" is a figure of speech for an agreement that is not written out or legalized. There was nothing ironic intended ... though perhaps including reporters in the group of "gentlemen" might be ironic in itself.

I am not sure that Miller's actions were taking "moral and professional integrity seriously." Perhaps ... perhaps not.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 11:30 pm ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Closed per 3-page warning.