On July 6 I chose to go to jail to defend my right as a journalist to protect a confidential source, the same right that enables lawyers to grant confidentiality to their clients, clergy to their parishioners, and physicians and psychotherapists to their patients.
Judith Miller's FarewellReporters must testify once the government "demonstrate[s] a compelling and overriding interest in the information." (Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Marshall). In the past, the only compelling interest that has held up is an interest in national security. In the Miller case, that is exactly what is at issue, therefore she would not be protected even if this federal law existed.To the Editor:
On July 6 I chose to go to jail to defend my right as a journalist to protect a confidential source, the same right that enables lawyers to grant confidentiality to their clients, clergy to their parishioners, and physicians and psychotherapists to their patients. Though 49 states have extended this privilege to journalists as well, for without such protection a free press cannot exist, there is no comparable federal law. I chose to go to jail not only to honor my pledge of confidentiality, but also to dramatize the need for such a federal law.
Judy, by "colleagues" do you mean Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and the rest of the WHIG?? But seriously, who is she talking about? She is obviously an intelligent woman, how is it that she still cannot see the difference between protecting a whistle blower and protecting a source like Scooter Libby who used the NYT to facilitate the White House's selling of this war which has led to unprecedented dept and the death of 2000+ US soldiers and 100,000+ Iraqis...After 85 days, more than twice as long as any other American journalist has ever spent in jail for this cause, I agreed to testify before the special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's grand jury about my conversations with my source, I. Lewis Libby Jr. I did so only after my two conditions were met: first, that Mr. Libby voluntarily relieve me in writing and by phone of my promise to protect our conversations; and second, that the special prosecutor limit his questions only to those germane to the Valerie Plame Wilson case. Contrary to inaccurate reports, these two agreements could not have been reached before I went to jail. Without them, I would still be in jail, perhaps, my lawyers warned, charged with obstruction of justice, a felony. Though some colleagues disagreed with my decision to testify, for me to have stayed in jail after achieving my conditions would have seemed self-aggrandizing martyrdom or worse, a deliberate effort to obstruct the prosecutor's inquiry into serious crimes.
I seem to remember a certain "journalist" grandstanding in front of a sea of reporters after having been released from prison. Who could that have been??Partly because of such objections from some colleagues, I have decided, after 28 years and with mixed feelings, to leave The Times...But mainly I have chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants to be.
Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war. Several articles I wrote or co-wrote were based on this faulty intelligence, and in May 2004, The Times concluded in an editors' note that its coverage should have reflected greater editorial and reportorial skepticism.Oh I see, its the NYT fault for not allowing you to fix your mistakes. How many times did you make those mistakes? Five?? Oh wait I forgot, "when your sources are wrong you are wrong" God forbid you make sure the sources are right.In a commencement speech I delivered at Barnard College in 2003, a year before that note was published, I asked whether the administration's prewar W.M.D. intelligence was merely wrong, or was it exaggerated or even falsified. I believed then, and still do, that the answer to bad information is more reporting. I regret that I was not permitted to pursue answers to the questions I raised at Barnard. Their lack of answers continues to erode confidence in both the press and the government.
The right of reply and the obligation to correct inaccuracies are also the mark of a free and responsible press. I am gratified that Bill Keller, The Times’ executive editor, has finally clarified remarks made by him that were unsupported by fact and personally distressing. Some of his comments suggested insubordination on my part. I have always written the articles assigned to me, adhered to the paper's sourcing and ethical guidelines, and cooperated with editorial decisions, even those with which I disagreed.Backstory: As part of their negotiations, Bill Keller had to apologize for writing about “Judy’s entanglement with Libby” not because Miller denied that it was her relationship w/ Scooter that led to this whole mess but because Miller did not like the suggestion that she and Scooter were having an affair.
As Shakespeare so aptly wrote "Me thinks The lady doth protest too much" (Hamlet (III, ii, 239)).
But improper relationships aren’t just sexual ones. No one...cares if Judy and Scooter had a sexual entanglement. We are far more concerned about their political entanglement.Back to Miller...
I salute The Times's editorial page for advocating a federal shield law before, (doesn't apply to you Judy) during and after my jailing and for supporting as recently as two weeks ago my willingness to go to jail to uphold a vital principle. Most of all, I want to thank those colleagues who stood by me after I was criticized on these pages.While I have your attention... I want to point out that forcing Miller to testify does not mean I think reporters should routinely be forced to reveal sources. I think it is interesting that Frist and Hastert tried to use this story as evidence of a dangerous trend of classified information leaking to the press. No they want to crack down on the whistle blower--who may be a Republican--who leaked the story about secret jails.My response to such criticism will be posted in full on my Web site: JudithMiller.org.
I will continue speaking in support of a federal shield law. In my future writing, I intend to call attention to ... the growing government secrecy in the name of national security (that you helped facilitate) - subjects that have long defined my work.
Judith Miller
New York
Nov. 9, 2005
Luckily, I am not alone and even "some GOPers were criticizing Frist and Hastert for calling for an investigation. Sen. Lindsey Graham said, “Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."
With Miller the real story was the fact that the WHIG was treating Miller and the NYT as a stenographer in the lead up to the war.
Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis does a great job articulating this distinction...
When the info is classified in order to cover up an illegality, leaking it can be an honorable way to end the illegal behavior (depending on the ramifications).Miller will never get it, good riddance..When the info is classified for good reason, leaking it to intimidate and smear people is treasonous.
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop.
Permalink | 40 comments