July 7, 2005


Reporter Jailed After Refusing to Name Source (ADAM LIPTAK, 7/07/05, NY Times)

After listening to Ms. Miller, the judge ordered her sent to "a suitable jail within the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia" until she decided to talk or until the term of the grand jury expired in October.

"I have a person in front of me," Judge Hogan said, "who is defying the law."

Ms. Miller appeared shaken and scared as she left the courtroom. In a telephone interview later in the evening, she said she had been taken to the Alexandria Detention Center in Virginia.

Ms. Miller, who conducted interviews but never wrote an article about the C.I.A. operative, joins a line of journalists who have accepted jail time rather than betray their sources' confidences. That tradition, according to Judge Hogan, does not deserve respect.

"That's the child saying: 'I'm still going to take that chocolate chip cookie and eat it. I don't care,' " the judge said. [...]

Mr. Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.

In his statement in court, Mr. Cooper did not name Mr. Rove as the source about whom he would now testify, but the person who was briefed on the case said that he was referring to Mr. Rove and that Mr. Cooper's decision came after behind-the-scenes maneuvering by his lawyers and others in the case.

Those discussions centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source.

So he's not Ms Miller's source?

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 7, 2005 6:33 AM

There is no way anyone in the DC press would go to jail to protect Karl Rove. I don't care what principle is involved. He's not the source.

Posted by: Brandon at July 7, 2005 11:48 AM


Posted by: ghostcat at July 7, 2005 1:36 PM

The judge should read Myron Farber's "Somebody Is Lying," then submit his resignation.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 7, 2005 2:17 PM


Obviously if you consider yourself above God's law you'll consider yourself above man's.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 2:21 PM

Why should the Judge resign? For not kowtowing to "journalists" like they are some sort of secular priesthood. Miller is asserting a privilege that doesn't exist, never has. If she is willing to go to jail, fine, that's her choice. No need for applause from the court.

Posted by: Bob at July 7, 2005 3:09 PM

I say we need to do this more often. Break the connection between the permanent government that undermines elected leaders by leaking and the press which aggrandizes itself and preens because it abets the permanent government.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 7, 2005 4:30 PM

I've already said, Bob, that journalists don't have any privilege in this case.

Go read Farber and learn how the law fails.

In the case Farber reported, God's and man's, Orrin. You're the one who keeps objecting to bumping off helpless old people. So did Farber.

The judge who sentenced him did not.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 7, 2005 5:36 PM


You don't get to decide that just because you don't like the laws you aren't subject to them, even if you're morally right.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 6:03 PM

You do contain multitudes. Fifth comment down. That said, why should Farber's heroics provide cover for Miller's political gamesmanship?

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 6:29 PM


Nice shooting!

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 7, 2005 11:19 PM

Of course you don't obey unjust laws, but you don't go complaining about it when you're sent to prison.

In other words: disobey but you are still subject.

Posted by: Randall Voth at July 8, 2005 2:38 AM

Farber wrote his story. The doctor was indicted in large part on the story. Why shouldn't Farber turn over his notes and testify? I certainly don't think the judge in Farber's case supported the killing of old people. Maybe he thought the 6th Amendment is important.

I still don't see how the Farber case should make Judge Hogan resign.

Posted by: Bob at July 8, 2005 10:17 AM

The doctor went to Argentina and Farber went to jail, Bob.

Are you so sure the judge wasn't complicit in more killing?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 8, 2005 3:52 PM

The doctor went to Argentina and Farber went to jail, Bob.

Are you so sure the judge wasn't complicit in more killing?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 8, 2005 3:54 PM