Sad day for freedom in U.S.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

http://www.cnn.com/ Breaking News: AA saD Day for freedom in the U.S.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

http://www.cnn.com/ Breaking News: AA saD Day for freedom in the U.S.

The funny part is it says:

Last edited by CHEMICAL SOLDIER : Today at 03:44 PM.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

The funny part is it says:

Last edited by CHEMICAL SOLDIER : Today at 03:44 PM.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Dola: Imagine if this happened to two certain journalists named: Woodward and Bernstein.

[CentralMassHokie]

I can't believe they sent Lil Kim to jail either. Travesty.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Dola: Imagine if this happened to two certain journalists named: Woodward and Bernstein.

Did they reveal the name of a CIA agent?

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm big about protection of anonymous sources, but I find it hard to get behind Miller in this case because the leak was not done to expose corruption, but rather as a political attack against someone that exposed corruption.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Dola: Imagine if this happened to two certain journalists named: Woodward and Bernstein.

Woodward would have become even more of a self-aggrandizing gasbag?

[miked]

I can't believe this is even an issue. Why do journalists think they get special treatment for committing basically an act of treason? They are just as bad as the person who is their source. They aren't granted any special honors when they accept the $25k/year job. I find it quite humorous that they think freedom of the press means you get to take part in felonies and don't have to testify.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Woodward would have become even more of a self-aggrandizing gasbag?

You don't appreciate his false modesty?

[Peregrine]

Woodward would have become even more of a self-aggrandizing gasbag?

Is that possible? I thought he had pretty much reached the limit.

[Arles]

At the time, some could say the leak was made to expose *potential* corruption in that the man sent over to cover the WMD issue may have gotten his job because of his wife being in the CIA.

Now, after the fact, this was less of an issue. But, who becomes the authority on which leaks "are OK" and which ones are not? Either all journalists should be punished that refuse to testify or none should.

[Greyroofoo]

I'm completely against the press being able to protect those that are involved with criminal activity

[MrBigglesworth]

Arles, c'mon, this was a smear job, it was never an attempt to ferret out corruption.

I just read this from my local Daily News blog, and I think it captures it nicely. Here is an excerpt:

Indeed, as recently as a few days, we didn't want to see Judy Miller of the New York Times (or Time's Matt Cooper, whose case turned out quite differently) sent to jail. But frankly, our reasoning was pretty much along the same lines that the NRA uses to make hideous arguments to allow assault rifles or cop-killer bullets -- the "slippery slope" argument.

So what if the "source" that Miller (and Cooper) have been protecting may have committed a serious crime, naming an undercover CIA agent and possibly even exposing her to fatal consequences, as happened when American spies were "outed" in the 1970s. In the "slippery slope" argument, those facts are irrelevant. If Judy Miller goes to jail today, under this thinking, it makes it more likely for a good and honest journalist who's on the brink of exposing true corruption to be jailed tomorrow.

Today, we realized that the "slippery slope" argument is wrong, and so were we. We're not happy that Judy Miller is going to jail, but we think -- in this case -- that if she won't cooperate with the grand jury, then it's the right thing.

That's because Judy Miller's actions in recent years -- a pattern that includes this case -- have been the very antithesis of what we think journalism is and should be all about. Ultimately, the heart and soul of real journalism is not so much protecting "sources" at any cost. It is, rather, living up to the 19th Century maxim set forth by Peter Finley Dunne, that journalists should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

That is why the ability of reporters to keep the identity of their true sources confidential is protected by shield laws in 31 states and the District of Columbia (although not in federal courts). Without such protections, the government official would not be able to report the wrongdoing of a president (remember "Deep Throat," the ultimate confidential source?), nor would the corporate executive feel free to rat out a crooked CEO. The comfortable and corrupt could not be afflicted.

But the Times' Judy Miller has not been afflicting the comfortable. She has been protecting them, advancing their objectives, and helping them to mislead a now very afflicted American public. In fact, thinking again about Watergate and Deep Throat is a good way to understand why Judy Miller should not be protected today. Because in Watergate, a reporter acting like Miller would not be meeting the FBI's Mark Felt in an underground parking garage. She would be obsessively on the phone with H.R. Haldeman or John Dean, listening to malicious gossip about Carl Bernstein or their plans to make Judge Sirica look bad.

hxxp://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002161.html

[clintl]

Originally Posted by miked

I can't believe this is even an issue. Why do journalists think they get special treatment for committing basically an act of treason?

How does this "treason" apply to Judith Miller? She didn't even write a story about Plame.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Arles, c'mon, this was a smear job, it was never an attempt to ferret out corruption.

I just read this from my local Daily News blog, and I think it captures it nicely. Here is an excerpt:

hxxp://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002161.html

But my point is that if you are going to make *some* journalists immune from prosecution then you must make *all* immune - regardless of the merits of the case. Otherwise, you have some arbitrary person deciding when a journalist can violate federal law to protect a source and when he or she cannot. IMO, no journalist should be able to skirt federal laws because they just happened to be wearing a press badge when withholding information from an investigation.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth's cited blog

That's because Judy Miller's actions in recent years -- a pattern that includes this case -- have been the very antithesis of what we think journalism is and should be all about. Ultimately, the heart and soul of real journalism is not so much protecting "sources" at any cost. It is, rather, living up to the 19th Century maxim set forth by Peter Finley Dunne, that journalists should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

This is exactly the mentality that makes me so uneasy about today's media. Their main goal is to "crusade against the powerful and help the weak", not to do actual journalism. Journalists should not be "comforting" or "afflicting" any group of social class or economic level. They should be willing to write stories supporting the most "evil" business owner alive or against the nicest homeless person out there IF the facts support that angle. Seeing journalists shift the emphasis from "reporting the news" to "exposing people we don't like" is why so many people no longer trust the media and actually dislike most major media outlets.

[CamEdwards]

I find it amusing that the same people who are against holding people in Gitmo are all for holding a journalist in the Alexandria jail, all because they think she's a stooge for the Bush administration.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

But my point is that if you are going to make *some* journalists immune from prosecution then you must make *all* immune - regardless of the merits of the case. Otherwise, you have some arbitrary person deciding when a journalist can violate federal law to protect a source and when he or she cannot. IMO, no journalist should be able to skirt federal laws because they just happened to be wearing a press badge when withholding information from an investigation.

By "arbitrary person," I assume you mean a judge. Judges make decisions like this all the time. It is their job. I have no particular opinion either way on this issue because it is pretty complex, but don't pretend this is an "all" or "nothing" issue.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I find it amusing that the same people who are against holding people in Gitmo are all for holding a journalist in the Alexandria jail, all because they think she's a stooge for the Bush administration.

ROFL!

Are you f'n serious? They aren't remotely close to being the same thing. Are you going to tell us next that we shouldn't hold murderers in jail if we won't hold people in Gitmo?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I find it amusing that the same people who are against holding people in Gitmo are all for holding a journalist in the Alexandria jail, all because they think she's a stooge for the Bush administration.

Huh? You mean like the ACLU? Who are the "same people?" I think some liberals may support the jailing of the journalist, but it is hardly a partisan divide.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

By "arbitrary person," I assume you mean a judge. Judges make decisions like this all the time. It is their job. I have no particular opinion either way on this issue because it is pretty complex, but don't pretend this is an "all" or "nothing" issue.

No, a judge makes decisions regarding cases based on fact. Asking a judge to determine whether or not a source should be protected before hearing the facts is arbitrary.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

No, a judge makes decisions regarding cases based on fact. Asking a judge to determine whether or not a source should be protected before hearing the facts is arbitrary.

Huh? I presume any scheme that codified when a journalist privilege exists would allow for a hearing. That is how these sort of things work. Or do you think lawyers just get summarily thrown in jail when someone accuses them of improperly adhering to attorney/client privilege? It is easy to design a system for journalists because it has already been done in other contexts (lawyers, doctors, priests, etc.).

I have no particular view on how a system should be designed, but too call it "arbitrary" or "all or nothing" is just nonsense.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

ROFL!

Are you f'n serious? They aren't remotely close to being the same thing. Are you going to tell us next that we shouldn't hold murderers in jail if we won't hold people in Gitmo?

So what's Judith Miller been charged with, Chubby?

[CamEdwards]

dola: I don't have a problem with Miller being in jail, btw. As to who these "same people" are, I think I was specifically thinking of Mr. Bigglesworth when I wrote that line.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

dola: I don't have a problem with Miller being in jail, btw. As to who these "same people" are, I think I was specifically thinking of Mr. Bigglesworth when I wrote that line.

That's fair - just be more specific next time.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

dola: I don't have a problem with Miller being in jail, btw. As to who these "same people" are, I think I was specifically thinking of Mr. Bigglesworth when I wrote that line.

In all honesty, that is the worst comparison ever. It is a JUDGE that is ordering Miller to go to jail. She also has the entire access to the American legal and justice system. If she is being unfairly treated she can sue or have her laywers work on releasing her. That is 'due process', which is EXACTLY the reason I am against holding prisoners at Gitmo, because they are denied any kind of due process and just thrown in jail. So the reason that I am against Gitmo is completely absent from Miller's case, which makes it, again, the worst comparison ever.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is exactly the mentality that makes me so uneasy about today's media. Their main goal is to "crusade against the powerful and help the weak", not to do actual journalism. Journalists should not be "comforting" or "afflicting" any group of social class or economic level. They should be willing to write stories supporting the most "evil" business owner alive or against the nicest homeless person out there IF the facts support that angle. Seeing journalists shift the emphasis from "reporting the news" to "exposing people we don't like" is why so many people no longer trust the media and actually dislike most major media outlets.

Yes, we know that all you want is GOP puff pieces, but that is not the media's job. The powerful always have access to distributing information that they want to distribute (i.e., there are WMD's in Iraq).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

But my point is that if you are going to make *some* journalists immune from prosecution then you must make *all* immune - regardless of the merits of the case. Otherwise, you have some arbitrary person deciding when a journalist can violate federal law to protect a source and when he or she cannot. IMO, no journalist should be able to skirt federal laws because they just happened to be wearing a press badge when withholding information from an investigation.

If we make *some* guns immune from anti-gun laws, then we must make *all* guns immune from anti-gun laws. Otherwise, you have some arbitrary person deciding when a person can violate federal law by having a certain type of gun.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So what's Judith Miller been charged with, Chubby?

I would assume contempt of court

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I would assume contempt of court

Nope. She's being held in contempt of court, but she's not charged with contempt of court.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Nope. She's being held in contempt of court, but she's not charged with contempt of court.

there's still the small matter of her actually seeing a judge...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

In all honesty, that is the worst comparison ever. It is a JUDGE that is ordering Miller to go to jail. She also has the entire access to the American legal and justice system. If she is being unfairly treated she can sue or have her laywers work on releasing her. That is 'due process', which is EXACTLY the reason I am against holding prisoners at Gitmo, because they are denied any kind of due process and just thrown in jail. So the reason that I am against Gitmo is completely absent from Miller's case, which makes it, again, the worst comparison ever.

What exactly can her attorney do to release her? I'm sure SHE'D like to know. There is no due process in this case because she hasn't been charged with anything... which is exactly why you're opposed to keeping these people in Gitmo, isn't it?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

there's still the small matter of her actually seeing a judge...

She saw a judge yesterday, just before he ordered her behind bars.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

She saw a judge yesterday, just before he ordered her behind bars.

which is more than the peeps at gitmo can say isn't it?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

What exactly can her attorney do to release her? I'm sure SHE'D like to know. There is no due process in this case because she hasn't been charged with anything... which is exactly why you're opposed to keeping these people in Gitmo, isn't it?

All her attorney has to do is file a writ of habeas corpus if he believes she is being imprisoned unfairly. That is part of due process for being held in contempt of court, and holding her in contempt of court has a ton of precedent. The reason no writ of habeas corpus has been filed is that it is obvious that she is guilty of not testifying. She has said herself that she won't testify and that she accepts her fate. There are absolutely no, zero, nada, due process issues here.

[CamEdwards]

but the prisoners at Gitmo also have the right to file a writ of habeas corpus.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...03-334.ZO.html

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

but the prisoners at Gitmo also have the right to file a writ of habeas corpus.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...03-334.ZO.html

Which again goes back to my point about having access to the system. The only people who have successfully filed have been people who have lawyers fighting for them on the outside, like Abbassi and the other British people. I think Human Rights Watch or someone are filing writs on behalf of a dozen or so others, but the majority are held there at the whim of the Bush administration. Our intrepid NYT reporter, on the other hand, ADMITS to being guilty and also has easy access to lawyers. That does not compare to people who maintain their innocence, have no access to laywers, and who have no idea what their rights are.

[CamEdwards]

Until your arguments can be stated without "I thinks" popping up all over the place, I'll consider this thread closed. The Supreme Court has ruled that those held in Gitmo have access to the court systems. Look at the Hamdi case. Even when the government tried to stonewall Hamdi, his father was able to file a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf. The same could be done for the other detainees. The precedent has been set.

If Human Rights Watch is filing writs on behalf of a dozen detainees, you might ask them why they're not doing the same for ALL the detainees. It's not as if some have a different classification than others.