So Judith Miller was actually ordered to jail, eh? I have to say, I have no clear cut feelings about this. I have seen some pretty lame arguments, however, both pro and con. Among Miller’s defenders, the lamest argument has to be the “but she didn’t even write a story” line. Whether she “only” gathered background information in preparation of a story, as is the case, or actually published a story is irrelevant. William Safire, Bill Keller, and crew all have to know that. The information she (supposedly) has is the same in either case.
On the other hand, there’s a whole lot of irrelevant antipathy towards Miller out there regarding her shitty Iraq coverage for the Times. Tim Grieve over at Salon nails it:
“For those of you -- and you know who you are -- who see the prospect of having Miller jailed for refusing to testify in the Plame case as some kind of rough justice for the way she reported the run-up to the Iraq war, [Special Prosecutor] Fitzpatrick's vituperative tone may seem just about right.”
Using Miller’s reporting record as a sort of divine rationale for her current situation is pathetic. I wish more of her critics could separate the two issues.
On the whole, I think I’m siding slightly more with the prosecution here. I understand the principle of source confidentialty, but this is not Watergate. Miller isn’t protecting the identity of someone who’s blown the whistle on some act of official wrongdoing, she’s protecting the wrongdoer himself. There’s gotta be a difference here.
And of course, where the fuck is the weasel Bob Novak in all of this? You’re a brave man Novak. Miller could avoid jail if this guy would step up to plate. He's the cause of this shitstorm after all.
And please, stop calling her “Judy.” It makes her sound like a little girl and it’s patronizing.
yeah I agree, Novak is a dirtbag.
Posted by: Greg on July 7, 2005 03:33 PM