CIA leak/press on trial

October 7, 2004 2:07 PM

Times Reporter Is Held in Contempt in Leak Inquiry

I'm no fan of Judith Miller, but can someone please explain to me why she is on trial (and Robert Novak isn't?)
posted by lilboo (34 comments total)

Is it because she "thought" about writing an article? Seems like that's the latest rational for keeping Amurica safe.
posted by bk at 2:16 PM on October 7, 2004

i can't explain it either and neither her or Novak should be on trial. freedom of the press.

from the article...
"Ms. Miller never published an article about Ms. Plame, but the judge has said she "contemplated writing one.""

you've got to be kidding me. don't get me wrong, fuck Judith Miller and everything she did to ruin the credibility of the Times as well as being a tool of the administration, but this is just flat out wrong.
posted by graventy at 2:18 PM on October 7, 2004

She's not charged with writing an article or thinking about writing an article or divulging Plame's identity. She's charged with contempt of court for not giving up her source. And of that she's probably guilty.

Whether or not that should be the law is a completely different discussion. But don't try to frame this as "thought crime" or other such nonsense.
posted by jpoulos at 2:24 PM on October 7, 2004

Aren't they (all of them, including Novak) supposed to be brought to court, and then refuse to divulge their sources, or not? Clearly the law was broken, and the country and its citizens were harmed. A court is exactly where this should be.

We're all liable to being brought to court for whatever reason, if laws have been broken, and they're not exempt from that just because they are journalists.
posted by amberglow at 2:29 PM on October 7, 2004

how did they know she got the leak if she never wrote anything?
posted by destro at 2:34 PM on October 7, 2004

From the article, it doesn't look like Novak was supoenaed:
posted by lilboo at 2:35 PM on October 7, 2004

"In addition to Ms. Miller, the others who have received subpoenas are Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Tim Russert of NBC. Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post testified without being subpoenaed. All four testified about their contacts with Mr. Libby based on what they said was his signed consent, allowing reporters to talk to prosecutors about his conversations with them. In addition, Mr. Pincus discussed the conversation with a second administration source, whom he did not name."
posted by lilboo at 2:36 PM on October 7, 2004

freedom of the press.

The law is actually not entirely clear on this. In general, prosecutors tend to respect source confidentiality, and to avoid situations in which reporters might have to give up their sources. However, when prosecutors and journalists do come into conflict, the closest thing that applies is the Supreme Court's Branzburg v. Hayes decision (1972). Here, the court basically said that reporters could be compelled by subpoena to reveal sources. However, this was a very limited decision, and it has been refined significantly by lower courts to allow for some degree of journalistic confidentiality. As things stand, reporters are generally allowed to keep their sources confidential unless forcing the reporter to reveal a source is the only way to discover a piece of information of compelling interest to the case.

The interesting point of this particular case is that if Miller, for example, were approached by a member of the administration with information on Plame's identity, she at that moment became a witness to a crime. This isn't as simple as a secret source revealing information about a crime to a reporter: the actual act of revealing the information was the crime itself.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:42 PM on October 7, 2004

how did they know she got the leak if she never wrote anything?

I'm seconding this question - on what basis was she subpoenaed, if she never actually published anything? (and I'm not expressing an opinion here, I really want to know exactly what they did/cited to connect her into this thing.
posted by lilboo at 2:51 PM on October 7, 2004

Isn't this a really weird way of going about it though? Kinda like taking the DNA samples from the murder suspect's third cousin?
posted by lilboo at 4:03 PM on October 7, 2004

Nah, she's one of the 6(?) people that was given the information on Plame. It's not in doubt. She knows who called her.
posted by amberglow at 4:11 PM on October 7, 2004

I think she's a world-class shit for pretending she's maintaining integrity protecting her access to the Bush Administration by not indicating who in the White House committed treason, but I support her right to remain silent maybe that's the instant karma you get when you peddle lies to the american public.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:13 PM on October 7, 2004

Seriously: why hasn't the grand jury (sounds almost as camp as a grand dame or a grand duchy) subpoeaned the guy who knows - Novak?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:46 PM on October 7, 2004

"'I think it's really frightening when journalists can be put in jail for doing their job effectively,' Miller told reporters outside the courthouse."

Nice to see that Miller cares about what happens to effective journalists. Perhaps she once met one.
posted by Zonker at 4:47 PM on October 7, 2004

i've been confused about this too-- it seems like novak is the logical choice for a subpoena. why is no one harrassing him?
posted by jcruelty at 5:05 PM on October 7, 2004

It's impossible to speculate on how Justice is working this situation. Maybe they're putting the screws to Miller so Novak knows they're serious. Or maybe they think she'll crack easier than Novak. Or maybe they're delaying until the election. Or maybe Miller's really a space alien and this is just a cover so they can get her to their underground lab in the Nevada desert.

Obviously, everyone knows Novak is the real target.
posted by jpoulos at 5:14 PM on October 7, 2004

Novak rolled when threatened with a subpoena. And Novak is in tight with certain government agencies.
posted by y0bhgu0d at 5:28 PM on October 7, 2004

I think she's a world-class shit for pretending she's maintaining integrity by not indicating who in the White House committed treason, but I support her right to remain silent

I could see sheer self interest playing a role here. Journalists who don't protect their confidential sources will likely never have confidential sources to work with again, that simple.
posted by namespan at 5:30 PM on October 7, 2004

Grand juries are secret. If Novak was subpoenaed and didn't fight, it would not be public.
posted by smackfu at 5:31 PM on October 7, 2004

"Novak is the real target"?

jpoulos, I will bet the farm that Novak will never have to answer for not only getting the leak, but publishing the name of an active-service CIA agent.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:32 PM on October 7, 2004

Smackfu, the names of active-duty CIA agents are secret, too. If Novak had been subpoenaed, someone would have leaked it and someone would have reported it.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:33 PM on October 7, 2004

Maybe Novak is under investigation for treason himself (probably not, but one can hope), so they don't want to bring him in where they might need to offer immunity if they can make a case without him.
posted by willnot at 5:38 PM on October 7, 2004

We don't know that Novak hasn't been subpoenaed. Grand Jury proceedings are secret, and Novak isn't saying whether or not he's received a subpoena. It would certainly make sense that they would save him for last. Other people have theorized that putting other journalists in a bind is a way to put some indirect pressure on Novak: he becomes responsible for his colleagues' troubles. I don't know if I buy into that, but it's a theory.

I bet he's been subpoenaed, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:43 PM on October 7, 2004

I don't think Novak would piss on Miller if she were on fire. He is NOT a collegial guy.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:36 PM on October 7, 2004

It amazes how many of you don't understand that a journalist should be able to protect their sources. I could give a shit if Miller is a "good" or "bad" journalist - she deserves to keep her sources a secret. Without confidentiality of sources you wouldn't have Watergate, Contragate - shit, you wouldn't even know what happens in the backrooms of your city government. If Miller gives up the ghost you can mark my words that the work of journalists nationwide will become even harder.

But hey, who needs a free a media right? If it weren't for reporters protecting their sources and the media acting as a watchdog against half the hinky backroom bullshit that goes on we'd all be goose stepping in the streets. Some of you really need an extended stay in some shithole third world country with state-run media. You'd be begging for the "world-class shit" of Miller and Novak.
posted by photoslob at 7:18 PM on October 7, 2004

I think if we had seen any evidence other than the media acting as stenographers for the administration these past few years we might be more up in arms about this, but you lay down with dogs, you get fleas. The media dutifully repeated all of the lies of the administration, and did not investigate or even factcheck at the time. In the Plame case, speaking out about the government official peddling this shit would have helped the country, but Miller and the others decided it was more important to protect their sources--sources that were breaking the law and endangering people. I'd like to see her defend herself--Novak too--all of them. That must be one golden source.
posted by amberglow at 7:39 PM on October 7, 2004

The reporter, Judith Miller, published no articles about the agent, Valerie Plame. Even so, the judge, Thomas F. Hogan, of United States District Court in Washington, ordered her jailed for as long as 18 months, noting that she had contemplated writing such an article and had conducted interviews for it.


I just hope I never go to jail for "contemplating" commiting a crime. When I read that, it sent a shiver down my spine.
posted by lilboo at 8:35 PM on October 7, 2004

No, I've been a journalist, and I know about protecting sources.

However, Miller and Novak are both completely unprincipled shits except when it suits them.

It's true that journalists aren't supposed to reveal sources. It's also true that journalists aren't supposed to make shit up and misquote people--so did Miller miss that day of journalism school, and just turn up for the class on protecting sources?

And it's true that journalists aren't supposed to publish the names of active-duty CIA agents for no reason except to get revenge on the agent's spouse. Somehow, Novak must still have been studying his notes from "Source Confidentiality 101" when they were giving that lecture.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:49 PM on October 7, 2004

It's the principle, not the context of the particular report. Even a shoddy journalist, an administration shill like Novak, deserves to protect sources. This is a first step toward tyrrany, which always picks on the weakest first. First they came for Judy Miller, and some applauded. When they come for Seymour Hersh, perhaps you won't be so sanguine.
posted by Slagman at 9:13 PM on October 7, 2004

But even shoddy journalists still get hauled into court, to defend their principles, or not. They're not exempt from the law.
posted by amberglow at 9:17 PM on October 7, 2004

Slagman, I agree that everyone deserves to protect sources. My point is this--where were Novak and Miller's journalistic principles before now?

I'm a little suspicious that they suddenly discover their ethics when it's convenient for them to do so.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:37 PM on October 7, 2004

I heard they tried to supoena novak, but he apperantly turned into a dark cloud and drifted away.

After that, they decided to concentrate on other subjects.
posted by delmoi at 11:47 PM on October 7, 2004

Prosecutors have relied on secret filings in the case to explain to the judge why Ms. Miller's testimony is required. They have not disclosed the filings to Ms. Miller and her lawyers.

In other words, "It's okay for the government to use secret filings to force you to divulge your own secrets. Never mind the reason you're being forced to talk. No need to know why they need to know."

I get it now, just obey, fool. Because they said so.

(Next article quote from later version.)

One of her lawyers, Floyd Abrams, asked Judge Hogan to release at least a summary of those filings to allow Ms. Miller to rebut them. "We haven't the faintest idea what their submission said," Mr. Abrams told Judge Hogan. The judge rejected the request, saying that grand jury rules require secrecy.

And when you take your concerns to the judge, the judge will confirm that, yes indeed, they are of no concern whatsoever. The government can open a grand jury proceeding in which you are coerced into testifying, the reasons for which remain unknown to you or anyone but the government.

I'm sure this is all legally sound, too, so don't complain. 'National security' is whatever is most convenient for state power.
posted by attackthetaxi at 3:11 AM on October 8, 2004

Nice to see that Miller cares about what happens to effective journalists. Perhaps she once met one.
posted by Zonker at 4:47 PM PST on October 7

I love Zonker! You make me laugh, and in a good way!
posted by nofundy at 6:27 AM on October 8, 2004