I admit to not having the greatest clue about what’s going on in the Valerie Plame deal, reading only enough from the various blogs to get a general idea of the kerfuffle. While it might be simple to toss out a detail that could change my whole scope of it, yesterday’s developments really threw me off:
N.Y. Times Reporter Jailed Over Source <p/> U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who sent Miller to jail for almost four months unless she recants and testifies [about the Plame case], and prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who demanded her jailing, took pains in court to say they were not trying to deny reporters their sources. <p/> Hogan noted he had let Miller remain free while she appealed up to the Supreme Court. He added that a Supreme Court decision 33 years ago that reporters could not always keep their sources’ names secret had not destroyed press coverage of government scandals, including Watergate. <p/> […] <p/> Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, who identified Plame after Novak, avoided the same jail term given Miller. Also held in contempt by Hogan for refusing to testify before Fitzgerald’s grand jury, Cooper shocked the packed courtroom Wednesday by announcing that his source had contacted him just hours earlier to give him specific, unambiguous permission to tell the grand jury about their conversations. <p/> […] <p/> Miller never wrote a story naming Plame, and there’s been no official explanation why Fitzgerald wants Miller’s testimony. The court rulings upholding his effort have blacked out details of his reasons. New York Times’ attorney Floyd Abrams speculated Wednesday that “most likely somebody testified to the grand jury that he or she had spoken to Judy.”What strikes me as really bizarre in this whole mess is that out of all the months of huffing about various people throughout Bush’s administration — the latest rumor falls upon a favorite target, Karl Rove — the final witnesses come down to reporters — the folks who are the ones who are supposed to deal with this sort of thing, and one has chosen this moment to not talk about it. <p/> Yes, anonymous sources and principle and all that. But even though it’s not clear what Miller has to offer, this whole deal is presently stalwarted, or, at the very least, given hesistation, by a member of a wide, organized, and intensely dispersed community in a country that gives it an essential freedom to report as they please about the government. And she doesn’t, so the whole thing grinds to a halt. <p/> I don’t know if that’s just plain bizarre, stupid, or a little bit scary, but it seems in very ill interests.
RSS 2.0 (recent 10 posts)
