Supreme Court declines hearing appeal from 2 journalists.

[sunnystarr]

Judith Miller and Mattthew Cooper were denied and they could be headed to jail.

CNN announcement.

[ewagner]

1. Great news!!!

:woohoo:

:applause:

:bounce:

[sunnystarr]

5. I don't view it as good news ...

This means that the administration has almost complete control over leaks. Who is going to leak when a source is no longer protected by law? When we have an administration that is diametrically opposed to transparency in government, we especially need to hear from those inside to learn what is really going on.

While I don't have much regard for Judith Miller's role in misleading Americans in run up to the official start of our invasion of Iraq, it's mixing apples and oranges to wish her any ill.

If anyone should go to jail it's Bob Novak.

[ewagner]

7. I think the

question is narrower than that....

If you're not involved in the violation of the law, leaking is still okay and protected.

[H2O Man]

10. I disagree.

It doesn't mean the administration has control over leaks. Just the opposite.

[sendero]

20. Come on...

... the leaking of Plame's identity was a federal crime, not the action of a whistleblower.

Let's try not to confuse the two, there is a huge difference.

Journalists only have to name sources when they are subpeonaed in a criminal investigation. Sure, I suppose that could be abused - but somehow I don't equate protecting this administration's deliberate dirty trick with an act of journalistic integrity.

[Grateful for Hope]

2. good news

Would be even better news if Robert Novak was headed there with them.

[skooooo]

3. What did Miller and Cooper do?

And WHY isn't Novak in the same boat?

[sunnystarr]

6. The only thing I can think of is that Novak revealed his source ...

Miller and Cooper wouldn't reveal their source, and one of them never printed a word about the Plame story but investigators knew someone leaked to them.

[Grateful for Hope]

13. As far as I know

None of three revealed their sources, including Novak.

[H2O Man]

16. "As far as I know"

How far might that be? Do you have anything to base your speculation on Novak on?

[Grateful for Hope]

22. Actually, I think you might want to do a search

on "Plame" and "Novak". You will find all the answers you need.

[Me.]

8. It's The Obstruction Of Justice Part Of This Case

where it's thought that Miller & Cooper fit in. And that is where Fitzgerald may be able to hammer Novak. It also needs to be said, over and over, that this case is not about transparency in government nor is it about protecting whistle blowers. There is no transparency in gov. right now and the the people Miller and all have been protecting are the criminals in this case not the whistleblowers. Further, let's not forget that Miller is also being investigated in the money laundering case. Another "not a whistle blower" case.

The journalists have been in collusion with this admin all along and the time has come to pay the piper. Further, precedence has it that journalists have always been required to testify in front of grand juries, and they have no legal leg to stand on here.

[rox63]

4. unless they start talking

Hmm, methinks the prospect of jail time might get them to change their minds.

[quaoar]

9. Those of you who think this is good news

Are missing the larger issue.

If journalists can be intimidated into revealing their sources, no one in the administration is going to want to trust journalists enough to become a confidential source. And journalists will be less likely to try to cultivate those sources.

The news will rely more heavily on press releases and spoken talking points.

[H2O Man]

11. It is the same law

as has always been in place. It doesn't change a thing.

[kentuck]

12. I think you are correct...

As much as we would love to see some justice for these media whores, there is a bigger picture involved. If the press can be threatened with jailtime, this could put a deepfreeze on an already intimidated press.

[H2O Man]

17. The law did not change,

and the law allows for someone who is protecting a true "whistle blower" to protect that source. The "big picture" hasn't changed a bit; people need to understand what the law is.

[pgh_dem]

14. The only arguable chilling effect this ruling, or their jail time, ...

will have is the effect on whoring for whatever admin is in power.

This has nothing to do with a free press, and everything to do with leaking to smear political opponents, through well-placed media assets.

We need leaks like that like holes in our heads.

[Sparkly]

18. BUT, I think that's fine if the source is committing a crime in talking.

If the source is committing a crime, such as outing a CIA agent, then they SHOULD feel some liability in disclosing such information. Am I wrong?

[sendero]

21. It has to be..

.. in the CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!

This is not about "protecting your sources", this is about any person's right to refuse to answer to a grand jury.

Sure, if some embarassing leak can be turned into a criminal case, then there is a problem.

Perhaps what a "journalist" should do is accept information anonymously and then find legitimate ways to verify it. Then nobody can touch them.

[Donna Zen]

15. The Big Blurry

The "source" in most cases involving journalistic freedom is about a crime that has already been committed. The lawyers for Miller and Cooper have relied upon this well established precedent. The problem is that this does not apply here.

The leak is the crime.

The writing of the story is the crime.

No crime was committed prior to Novak's writing or the leaker leaking.

This does not in anyway effect the status of those who blow whistles on on already committed crime.

[Sparkly]

19. I posted above before I read what you wrote, Donna.

I agree with you. If the crime is in revealing the info, I don't see why the source should have protection.