I think Fitzgerald had the same question.

Novak's an old man.  I'm sure he still remembers what car keys are for, but I doubt he can remember where he left them.

He says by the time he wrote his piece, everybody in Washington knew about Plame.  That's an overstatement, of course, but probably not that far from the truth. 

I'm not a cop, I'm a journalist.  If somebody tells me there's a kiddie porn ring being run down the street, then I have to find out if there is one or not.  And you can't just report that somebody is a child pornographer without getting a rebuttal, admission, or explanation.

What reason would Miller have to protect these charities?  HLF was a palestinian-run org.  I think Benevolence and Global Relief Foundation were saudi.

I worked for Islamic Relief Worldwide and we knew that Benevolence would get in trouble eventually.  As far as HLF was concerned, we knew they would take heat just because they were helping Palestinians.  But I don't see any possible connection between Miller and these organizations... maybe I'm missing something.

On the TPM website, you wrote Miller is in prison. She's not.

From what I've read she, like any other who is held in contempt of court, is in jail. 

 Also, can't there be more than one violator of that law? It would seem like anyone who passes along the ID of a covert officer would be subject to prosecution. It wouldn't just be the original source. It  would be all who spread it prior to it getting published.

The reason Miller is not a good journalist is that she's an idealogue. She has allowed her beliefs to blind her, and she sees her job as being a partisan advocate rather than an objective fact finder. She's STILL using Chalabi as a source, for God's sake, and thinks she was VINDICATED by how things turned out in Iraq. Her statement before the judge today sounded downright delusional. She's part of the cult now, and reality does not have a place in her world view.

Man, think about the opposite of what I'm said, in answer to your smart hypothetical.  To recap, you asked me what I'd do if I were tipped off to a potential kiddie porn bust.

If I hear there's a kiddie porn ring in operation, it's in the public interest for me to reveal it.  So, I've got my story and my mission.  Now, I'm sassuming, based on your hypothetical, that my source isn't necessarily involved in the bust and that the source doesn't know for absolute sure, that it will happen.  I make that assumption because, obviously, if they call me while getting their gear on for the bust, I have to wait for the bust to write about it.  Doing it earlier could get the source killed.  I'm also assuming that because it's closer to the Miller situation.  Somebody tells your something's up and that they think something might happen but, for all I know as a journalist, the raid might be cancelled, the evidence might not be there, whatever...

So, all I know, per your hypothetical, is that a kiddie porn bust might happen and that there might be an active kiddie porn operation that people should know about.  What am I supposed to do?

I say... investigate.  But how do I conduct a fair investigation without giving a hearing to those being disparaged?   There's no way around the fact that I owe the suspected kiddie porn people the chance to tell their side before I write anything.  If you disagree with that, then you're implying it's okay for me to write about the kiddie pornographers, based on a tip, without even getting their side!  What if the tip is wrong?  What if they're innocent?  What about them?

You can't write about people without giving them a voice.  That's just wrong.

You wouldn't be the first person on the Internets  to make the assertion that Miller isn't working for the Times...working for them exclusively, that is.

One sticky point to that assertion is that if, say, she's CIA/liason, that'd mean the CIA's referral of this case leads to someone who works for the Company screwing over America via treason.

If she's just on the WH payroll, a la Armstrong Williams, that'd be my guess. 

RE: kiddy porn ring hypothetical

Why wouldn't your first call be to the cops?  

I'm not sure that it fits into the picture - but Miller is probably making a great career decision by refusing to reveal her source. I wonder how many more scoops she will get because people think she will protect them at all cost.

No doubt, the cops would get a call from me.  And, yeah, probably before my call to the accused, since I'd want to know everything I could before interviewing them, but, still... the accused would still have to be called before I wrote a story.

Now, if the cops credibly said, "action is imminent, you write, you endanger one of the people on the raid," then I'd lose the story in favor of protecting the people involved.  If that isn't the case, then I'd have to investigate, and investigating means getting the accused's side of the story.

He says by the time he wrote his piece, everybody in Washington knew about Plame. That's an overstatement, of course, but probably not that far from the truth.

I've heard this claim before, but I'm not sure I buy it. Was the fact that Plame was an undercover CIA operative really generally known in Washington? If so, where's the evidence?

Walks like a duck...

I can't comment on her process.  I would have tried to get every bit of information possible before calling the accused, in order to have a better interview.  But, every situation is unique.  I doubt she was trying to "tip anyone off," though.  She probably reported the story, using the process she thought best, and, in that process, ruined Fitzgerald's plan.  My point is that her job is to get the story, not to aid prosecutors or law enforcement.  Journalists have different objectives than they do.

Isn't there a connection between several of these Islamic Charities and either Rove and/or Norquist??
Sami Al Arian or some such?

Well, as I said before, a journalist is not a law enforcement professional.  Our job is to tell true stories and to get all sides.  When you get a tip about somebody committing, or about to commit, a crime, you don't KNOW that they're guilty, or that the tip is true.  The accused has a side as well.  How can you write a true story without getting the side of the accused?  A journalists job is to tell a true story, not to aid in a conviction (though, in many cases, our work does indeed, do just that).

You seem to be overly generous or naive - or perhaps some combination.

First, you seem to know little about Miller's history. Getting a longer term perspective might be helpful. This is one possible link: http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/index4.h
tml

Second, I was stunned about your response to the hypothetical situation of the child pornography ring. Did you really mean to say that if you knew there was to be an arrest you would get there first and start asking questions? And allow possible criminals to escape? That's obstruction of justice. Is that what they're teaching in journalism schools these days?

Sadly, as with much of the commentary on this controversy, most of this thread misses the point.  What I take to be the salient issues of this dispute are:

• Protecting anonymous sources is a fundamental ethical imperative for a journalist.
  
  
• A critical corollary of that imperative is only promising anonymity to legitimate sources. "Legitimate" has to be judged by the journalist, but we have a right to critique that decision when we have reasonable grounds to decide.
  
  
• In particular, giving promises of anonymity to high officials who are simply using the press to float crap in the stream of public discourse is a fundamental violation of journalistic ethics and good practice.  There are gray areas, but Judith Miller and much of the press have gone way beyond those boundaries in the last few years. Legal protections are a different matter, but it is reasonable to assert that these folks are lousy and irresponsible professional journalists.
  
  
• For society, it is important to establish suitable protection for reporters to allow them to protect their sources without going to jail.  This protection is not a fundamental First Ammendment right like freedom of speech and the freedom to publish without prior restraint.  It is a corollary right that requires legislative definition, balancing other considerations that are also of fundamental social importance.
• A reporter who has promised anonymity to a source should be willing to go to jail to uphold the journalistic principle.
  
  
• The rest of us, even if the reporter has broken the law, should support the journalist if he or she has upheld journalistic principles and standards.  In many cases if the journalist has shown a dedication to the principle of bringing the truth to the public, we (and the courts) should assume -- not knowing all the circumstances -- that he or she is acting on principle and in the public interest.  In other cases, when the journalist has demonstrated a propensity to pander to power, regardless of the public interest, we have a right to assume that he or she does not deserve support and is not upholding any worthwhile principle.

I would contend that Judith Miller does not deserve any indulgence in this respect.  She is a lousy reporter, and she has a history of using anonymous sources, not to enlighten the public, but to allow the adminstration to disseminate lies, protecting anonymous sources not from bureaucratic retribution, but rather from legitimate questioning.

Worst of all, Miller and her supporters have degraded and cheapened an important journalistic principle.

Shame on them all! 

They have perverted the intent of the original protection granted to journalists and their sources.
A privilege abused, as any parent should tell you, should be a privilege revoked.

I'm a proud liberal. I've had to to think about this a bit, because there are important principles competing here. But when I boil it down, Miller is obstructing justice. Period.

There are few things more blatantly treasonous than revealing the identities of spies. Any party to such acts, and any witnesses to these acts should testify. It trumps all other concerns.

I hope jail suits Judith Miller. I further hope that criminal contempt charges are imminent and that she will see years in prison. She is not protecting the public good or journalistic ethics. She's endangering the rest of us by enabling a traitor to escape justice.

Judith Miller is being held up as a 'journalistic hero'.  That is SO very far from the truth that I feel no compunction whatsoever about 'demonizing' her with the facts.

Judith Miller wrote false stories about 'aluminum tubes for Iraq nuclear program', 'weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq', and 'trailers proven to be mobile weapons labs'.  The most charitable thing which can be said about any of these is that she accepted government propaganda unquestioningly and didn't go looking for the readily available evidence to the contrary.  You say that she made some mistakes and we shouldn't act like these bad stories are ALL Judy Miller is about... maybe, but has SHE acknowledged that these were mistakes?  NO!  She has been an arrogant popinjay about it with her, "I was fucking right!" nonsense after she printed the 'mobile labs' lies.  The Times gave a mea culpa for their horrifically bad reporting... Judy Miller did not.  Further... after the administration used her to spread propaganda to lead this nation into war on false pretenses what did she do?  She PROTECTED them.  She is PROMOTING propaganda, corruption, and criminal behaviour in government by effectively saying 'you can lie to me and use me to commit treason and I will not turn you in'.

How very 'noble' and 'principled' she is.

On the Islamic charities thing... you go on about how you can't print a story without checking facts and therefor MUST tip off the criminals.  Here's a thought for you... DON'T write the story.  It isn't all about you.  There are these little things called the 'bonds of civilization' and 'simple human decency'.  WAIT and get your facts AFTER the criminals have been arrested.  THEN write the story.  Don't help terrorists (or pedophiles) so that you can get a 'scoop'.  Maybe they aren't guilty?  FINE... you can write about that AFTER they are arrested.  You find out that they are about to be arrested and you tip them off... that's a crime.  Pure and simple.  In the counter hypothetical you posed - if you hear about it BEFORE the police you should talk to the police, do some QUIET investigating on your own, and only print a story if you are convinced there is a real possibility they are guilty and the cops AREN'T going to do anything about it.

The First Amendment and freedom of the press are meant to ensure that the media are protected from the government so that they can spread the truth and expose corruption.

Judith Miller is trying to use these principles to spread propaganda and shield corruption.

She is performing the very antithesis of the journalistic function... acting as the government's lapdog rather than its watchdog.  She belongs in jail far longer than the three months she has gotten... so far. 

Some of the rhetoric against "irresponsible" journalism is wildly misplaced here. There are particulars to this case which none of us fully understands yet. We should err on the side of journalists and the freedom of the press until the speculation phase is over. Seeing as how TPMCafe is a journalistic endeavor of sorts, it seems especially inappropriate to be denigrating the profession.

More "scoops" like a "senior White House official" stating that President Bush likes vanilla ice cream while he is mulling over how to fight the terrorists?  Or perhaps "scoops" like an anonymous White House official revealing that President Bush is adamant about uniting the country and is disappointed that some Democrats are being so partisan about the impending invasion of Syria?

Her motives were not so much to protect these charities.  She had a relationship with Mr Chalabi.  Nothing is free in these relationships.  She gave him this and he gave her all the scoops on Sadam.  Guess who came out ahead.
dc

Maybe she didn't tip the charities off. Maybe, wearing her reporter hat for a change, she called them after she got a hot tip and asked for a comment and/or a confirmation. At which point, the charities hung up and started shredding shit.

Or maybe she's deeply corrupt.

I agree that Miller has the credentials and the chops of a real pro.  That said, she has no one to blame right now except herself.

We on the left need to distinguish two things.  We should not be viewing Miller's actions now through the prism of the fact that we did not like her reporting on WMD.  That was a different issue and, moreover, since it has been pretty much shown that she got none of it right, let her look like an idiot and let it lie. 

As for THIS issue: yes yes we all agree that protecting a confidential source is a good thing and something that should be respected and protected. 

Before we go on, what really is the reason for such a policy?  Usually to protect whistle blowers and those that can't be quoted for fear of losing their job, liberty, etc.  In other words, often the only way a reporter can break the story is to use a confidential source who has information that is critical and can't be revealed any other way. 

This is NOT the case with the Plame story.  First, this is an administration source who is revealing top secret confidential information regarding the identity of a spy.  This is not a whistle blower.  This is not information critical to any story.  The information in this instance was leaked for the sole purpose of harming Joseph Wilson.  That's it, that's all.  No other reason.  Thus, none of the usual rules for why a confidential source should be protected apply.  

Most important, however is this: Miller is a pro.  Can we just assume for a minute that she is, or damn well ought to be, aware of the fact that revealing the name of a top secret confidential covert operative is a federal crime.  Ok, she probably couldn't name the statute (but then again neither can I and I am a lawyer) but I am fairly certain that he information should have set off all sorts of "isn't this illegal" bells.  

If we assume she knew it was illegal for her source to leak said information - there is only one conclusion: she should know full well, at the time, that she has just made herself a possible witness, that the activity is illegal, and thus: why in god's name is she promising confidentiality?  

This information was leaked for a political purpose to harm a perceived opponent.  It placed lives of Americans and American assets in danger.  And it was illegal.  Under what twisted reading of ethics does her source deserve a binding confidentiality agreement?   

As a former reporter, I believe there's a difference between reporting/investigating and becoming part of the story, something I'm beginning to suspect Miller revels in.  Anyway, in the scenario regarding the charities, Miller shouldn't even have gotten the information regarding an upcoming raid, let alone called the charities to discuss it prior to the raid itself.  That being said, I'm willing to believe there are more facts to be revealed in the Miller saga.  It's hard to believe the facts as they are at this point justify her histrionics. 

Not.

Maybe it's because I'm not a journalist nor even pretend to be one in the blogosphere, but I just can't make it come out that way. What's clear to me is this:

The whistleblower here was not Miller, and it was not Rove or whoever it was who leaked Plame's identity. The whistleblower was Joe Wilson.

The leaking of Plame's identity was an attempt to intimidate and/or discredit a whistleblower. If Miller played a role abetting the leakers, she was not helping to reveal the truth, she was assisting an effort to CONCEAL it.

Wison was the truth teller here. The yellowcake story WAS bullshit, and the Bush admin didn't want any authoritative, knowledgeable person revealing that fact. IMO, you can't be a martyr to freedom of the press if your actions were part of an effort to REPRESS the facts, not reveal them.

Miller can have her medal, but I'm afraid the citation reads "For extraordinary bravery in service of helping the powerful silence the truth, conceal inconvenient facts and punish their enemies."

Ms. Miller's statement in court yesterday that "I also know that the freest and fairest societies are . . . those with a free press . . . publishing information the government does not want to reveal," as a justification for why she should not reveal her source on Plame was one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard.

The undisputed facts are, whatever their criminal implications, that numerous Government officials, including Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, were urging journalists to attack Joseph Wilson's credibility as a critic of their WMD b.s. by arguing that he got the assignment through nepotism.  I don't know whether Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby knew Plame was covert or not.  What they did know was that she worked at the CIA, and they tried to use this fact over and over with reporters to discredit Wilson.  Rove, after first lying and denying that he had any role, later declared Ms. Plame "fair game"

Ms. Miller is simply confused.  It's not that the Government didn't want to reveal the information.  In fact, they wanted the information out; they just weren't willing to take responsiblity for it.  If, as Mr. Rove later said, Ms. Plame was "fair game" why didn't he go on Meet the Press and say so?

Ms. Miller's warped view of her role here sums up everything that is, and has been, wrong with the Washington press Corps when it comes to Bush.  They're not journalists, they're enablers of Administration propagandists who don't have take responsibility for their b.s. because they've got a reporter to hide behind.  Let her rot in jail for all I care.  Maybe at some point she'll realize that the spineless ideologues she's been carrying water for have just been using her all this time.  Then again, based on her incredibly warped view of her role, and obvious persecution complex, maybe not. 

No, a journalist has no right to tip off a party who is about to be arrested, and his/her/its property searched. Neither would a doctor, clergyperson nor lawyer. I believe that conduct could be labeled obstruction of justice, or interference with a pending investigation.

The journalist, in our society, is not the party who gets to determine how the other side of a criminal investigation gets aired. That's why we safeguard the right to a jury trial, and to defense counsel. The defendant, and his/her/its attorney get discovery and the right to assert any and all applicable defenses, including facts that would not otherwise see the light of day.

The journalist then gets to report on the proceedings in court. 

 I am as blue, liberal and progressive as they get vis-a-vis civil rights in our country, and was compelled to law school to advocate for employee rights and unionization of workforces. Yes, I am a committed liberal, progressive (but not a communist or socialist). But, I would never think that I had a right to interfere with a pending sting operation, arrest or investigation, solely because I am a lawyer. Neither should a journalist, clergyperson or doctor.

Remember what Martha Stewart was arrested for? Not stock tampering. She had been convicted of obstruction of justice for making lisleading statements to investigators. If Miller contacted subjects of a sting, arrest or investigation before a raid, knowing that a raid was shortly to occur -- even if she called solely to confirm that they were under investigation -- she was interfering (to be kind) with a governmental investigation, and could be subject to prosecution for such interference.

Just the thoughts of a lawyer who does not practice criminal law. 

I'll add a comment about Tucker Carlson last night, he's pushing the misleading fact that Fitzgerald is an Independent Prosecutor (both the conservative and liberalish guests failed to correct him on this). 

As I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong, Fitzgerald is a Special Prosecutor.  In this position the Justice Department does have some oversight on his work, unlike an Independent Prosecutor.  In fact I've read that the White House is pushing for just this.

I'll bet that Republicans will be trying to motivate the public to oppose another uncontrollable Independent Prosecutor in the future, just as journalists are pushing for similar laws in congress to protect the press....

Josh wrote:
"Fitzgerald had been investigating three Islamic charities accused of supporting terrorism -- the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, and the Benevolence International Foundation.

I was struck by something that Bill Keller, editor of The NY Times, said last night during a discussion on the Lehrer Newshour.  Concluding a comment of praise and explanation for Miller's decision to go to jail rather than testify, he said that any other course would cause anonymous sources to dry up and there would be no more stories from whistleblowers exposing government wrongdoing, adding "of course, this story was not a whistleblower story, but..."  And my thought was "but what?"  Isn't that a huge and decisive fact?  Why doesn't that make all the difference in the world here?  It did to the judge, who specifically mentioned it in sending her to jail in an effort to get her to change her mind.  I gather that the response to that is "well, you can't get into that kind of line-drawing.  That's a slippery slope."  But line-drawing is at the heart of what reporters do all the time -- assessing the value of various facts, sifting through information to sort out what is important and why.  Indeed, in this very story Miller herself weighs and quickly discards the fact that her source has expressly waived the confidentiality in writing, saying "oh, you can't rely on that.  That may have been coerced."  Her assumption may be fair enough, I suppose.  But why does she have no problem with line-drawing and inferring and weighing the importance of factors there, but an ironclad refusal to do any weighing or inferring about the motives and actions of that same person (her source) in making the comment in the first place?  The consequence is that what she is protecting here is not exposure of government wrongdoing, but rather she is protecting government wrongdoing!   To refuse to make any judgments or draw any distinctions between those two types of activities just makes no sense to me whatsoever. 

Who were these "folks" at the White House who told Miller about Fitzgerald's incipient bust before it happened?

Wasn't that supposed to be a secret?

 
Exactly.

I would think that once the media is informed, secrets are no longer secret ie public knowledge. OTOH, if a journalist exploits a tip that is indescreet are they compounding the bad judgement or are they excused?

Or why prevents a source from putting a condition on the tip? eg "don't act on this for x hours" 

There is an excellent analysis of the case at Attytood.com. It is well worth the read. You can find it here, http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002161.html

Enjoy. 

Miller was not just spectacularly wrong about Iraq. She was wrong in an unprofessional and self serving way. She has a lot of blood on her hands. Her posturing at court as a martyr for freedom of the press while she protects possible traitors in the White House is beneith contempt.  She is a villian.

Would someone be so kind to explain the breadth of the claimed "protection" provided by the "privilege claimed by Miller? I am under the impression, and understand I may be way off base, that it only protects the identity/name of the source (and possibly and bit of information provided by the source that due to its nature in and of itself would clearly identify the source) and not really much else. All other information, including content of discussions, information obtained, the reporters methods and involvement is not covered. But it is also my understanding that Miller is refusing to testify about anything at all (which makes me think she is hiding a 5th amendment claim behind the 1st amendment). Does the privilege claimed go beyond the identiy of the source? Thanks.

I think Ammonite's post is on the mark. 

And something else that has occurred to me in this debate that I have not seen mentioned anywhere is the supposed purpose of the reporter's privilege.  Isn't the whole point of protecting journalists supposed to be to protect the public's right to know? 

As a member of the public, here's what I would like to know:  Who is it in the White House that revealed Valerie Plame's name, and why?  Those are the issues of public importance at the heart of this story.  And yet the press has scrupulously avoided telling us this information.  To his credit (if he follows through) Bob Novak has promised to reveal this information once the Miller/Cooper brouhaha, and I guess the Fitzgerald investigation, is over.  But what about the rest of them?  (I'm not holding my breath.)

That's exactly what she said.  But please spell it "f**king"; my browser filter doesn't let me see bad words.

If Miller had agreed to testify, could Fitzgerald question her on anything relating to White House leaks and leakers, including the earlier ones having to do with the charities? Maybe her reluctance to testify has nothing to do with the Plame leak and everything to do with the charities leak. If she knowingly (there's that word again) tipped off the charities before a raid, isn't that breaking some kind of law?

A lawyer who is told by his or her client that s/he is going to commit a crime is NOT supposed to keep this information privileged, but to tell law enforcement.  The lawyer-client privilege extends only to confidences about crimes already committed.  In other words, the value of preventing a future crime is held to be higher than the right of one accused of crime to have unfettered right to legal counsel.  Psychiatrists whose patients make threats against specific persons have a duty to warn them, notwithstanding the doctor-patient privilege. 

I know of no legal privilege that is as absolute as you claim.  The other privileges (and I believe this would be true as to clergy-penitent as well) are overriden by the duty to prevent future crime.  Your job is not just to tell "true stories" (and if it is, where does that put Judith Miller?); you have duties as a human being as well.  The comment above that the press-source privilege is not directly based on the forst amendment but should be the product of legislative (or judicial) balancing has it right.
 

It may have to do with the close connections between the White House and a number of extremist Islamist organizations:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=11209&amp ;p=1

Two rather silly questions? Who was the other reporter mentioned besides Miller that may have given warning to the charities?
and...Was Judy Miller having an affair with Chalabi? (read this, but only once)

Yeah,  whatever happened to that "Jeanne Dixon" of international affairs?   You don't seem to hear a whole lot out of her since the object of her obsession is behind bars, yet awful things still seem to be happening.  Perhaps she is focused now on how Saddam "Svengali" Hussein has caused that poor girl in Aruba to disappear without a trace?   After Judith Miller gets out of jail maybe we can put Dr. Laurie in her place.

Here's my shot at the why question.