Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Judy Miller Did Not Write A Story About Plame!
Never was there a chorus of imbeciles to which Andromeda was not asked to contribute its smooth baritone, so let Andromeda say what was said this morning by Bob Dole, as it has been said by so many who weep copious tears for the fate of Judy Miller: she did not write a story about Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. That's right. As inconceivable as this may seem to people whose intelligence rivals that of buttered toast, Patrick Fitzgerald is seeking information from Miller concerning her discussions with Administration officials about Plame -- even though she never wrote a story about it.
Why in the world would Fitzgerald want the information about those conversations which show what Rove or Libby or Bolton knew, and when they knew it, concerning Plame's identity as a covert operative, when Miller never wrote a story in the subject? Clearly, there is no possible explanation for this. Which only makes the court's decision to jail her for refusing to talk even more offensive and inexcusable. Once Miller invoked the First Amendment and refused to provide the information which will show whether Administration officials were lying to the grand jury or to investigators, the only question that remained was: did she write a story? If she did not, then her invoking the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press becomes inviolable and all further questioning of her should cease, lest the Constitution burst into flames, bringing down the entire Republic. On the other hand, of course, if she had written a story, then the First Amendment would, umm, be irrelevant, I guess.
Anyway, what we're talking about here is whether the reporter's privilege should be drafted as sufficiently broad to protect government officials intent on leaking national secrets in order to damage to their political opponents, or the privilege will be so restricted as to be practically useless, that is, limited to protecting sources who reveal information to promote the public interest. Andromeda supports a very broad privilege in which the first question that is asked is, "Did the reporter end up writing a story on the subject?" and the second question is "Did the story advance the political interests of the party in control of the government apparatus?" Whenever the answer to the first question is no, or the answer to the second question is "yes," the privilege will be absolute. In those situations where the reporter wrote a story based on leaked information and it only revealed information wrongly being withheld by government officials, the privilege will not apply.
Why in the world would Fitzgerald want the information about those conversations which show what Rove or Libby or Bolton knew, and when they knew it, concerning Plame's identity as a covert operative, when Miller never wrote a story in the subject? Clearly, there is no possible explanation for this. Which only makes the court's decision to jail her for refusing to talk even more offensive and inexcusable. Once Miller invoked the First Amendment and refused to provide the information which will show whether Administration officials were lying to the grand jury or to investigators, the only question that remained was: did she write a story? If she did not, then her invoking the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press becomes inviolable and all further questioning of her should cease, lest the Constitution burst into flames, bringing down the entire Republic. On the other hand, of course, if she had written a story, then the First Amendment would, umm, be irrelevant, I guess.
Anyway, what we're talking about here is whether the reporter's privilege should be drafted as sufficiently broad to protect government officials intent on leaking national secrets in order to damage to their political opponents, or the privilege will be so restricted as to be practically useless, that is, limited to protecting sources who reveal information to promote the public interest. Andromeda supports a very broad privilege in which the first question that is asked is, "Did the reporter end up writing a story on the subject?" and the second question is "Did the story advance the political interests of the party in control of the government apparatus?" Whenever the answer to the first question is no, or the answer to the second question is "yes," the privilege will be absolute. In those situations where the reporter wrote a story based on leaked information and it only revealed information wrongly being withheld by government officials, the privilege will not apply.
