Judith Miller Goes to Jail

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 6 - A federal judge today ordered Judith Miller of The New York Times to be jailed immediately after she again refused to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative.

Another reporter who had been facing jail time on the same matter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed today to testify to a grand jury about his confidential source on the same matter, thus avoiding jail. Mr. Cooper said he had decided to do so only because his source specifically released him from promises of confidentiality just before today's hearing.

The judge, Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court in Washington, rejected a request by Ms. Miller and her lawyers that she be allowed to serve her detention at home or in Connecticut or elsewhere, and ordered that she be put in custody and taken to a jail in the District of Columbia area until October, or until she changed her mind about testifying.

Ms. Miller herself told the court that she would not reveal her source no matter how long they jailed her.

"If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press," she read from a statement as she stood before Judge Hogan. "The right of civil disobedience is based on personal conscience, it is fundamental to our system and it is honored throughout our history," she said before court officers led her away, looking shaken.

The executive editor of The Times, Bill Keller, said outside the courthouse that Ms. Miller's decision to go to jail rather than disclose her source was a "brave and principled choice."

"Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it," he said. "This is a chilling conclusion to an utterly confounding case."

...The judge's decision to jail Mr. Cooper comes despite Time magazine's decision last week to provide the special prosecutor with Mr. Cooper's notes and other documents after the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. In a filing on Tuesday,[special prosecutor, Patrick A.] Fitzgerald said that he had reviewed the documents and determined that Mr. Cooper's testimony "remains necessary."

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no one in America is," Mr. Fitzgerald told the judge on Tuesday.

Mr. Fitzgerald also said in the court papers that the source for both Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify that person, nor say whether the source for each reporter was the same person.

Mr. Cooper told the judge today while he had been told his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality, he would only act with a specific waiver from his source, which he said he got today.

Mr. Fitzgerald, who until then had been restrained in his public filings, was also harshly critical of the position taken by Ms. Miller and of statements supporting her by The Times.

"The court should advise Miller that if she persists in defying the court's order that she will be committing a crime," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote. "Miller and The New York Times appear to have confused Miller's ability to commit contempt with a legal right to do so."

He added: "Much of what appears to motivate Miller to commit contempt is the misguided reinforcement from others (specifically including her publisher) that placing herself above the law can be condoned." Mr. Sulzberger, the publisher of The Times, has repeatedly said the newspaper supports Ms. Miller.

Does this make sense?

Fitzgerald said that the source for both Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality. So, based on the source taking the burden of confidentiality off, Cooper has agreed to cooperate and Miller won't. The source said it was OK for Miller to talk.

What's her problem? She can't be seen as some sort of martyr if the need for her to go to jail doesn't exist. Her source has given her the green light to reveal what she knows. The source has freed Miller; but she's choosing jail.

Miller wants to make a point. There's no other reason for her to refuse to cooperate since her source has given her the go ahead.

What's the difference between Cooper and Miller?

Cooper was prepared to go to jail on this; but he didn't feel he needed to remain silent after he was no longer bound by his source to uphold confidentiality.

Miller is in the same boat. If her source has informed her that it's OK to talk, why doesn't she behave like Cooper?

I don't get it. She doesn't have to go to jail.

It's funny. Liberals are putting Miller on a hero's pedestal, but when Bob Novak didn't want to reveal his source, they wanted his head.

Those funny libs.