 | |||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 Judith Miller is a former reporter for The New York Times and author of four books on the Middle East, biological weapons and the Holocaust. For information on her prosecution for refusing to reveal sources to federal prosecutors, see the news section of this Web site or the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
In this section: • Judy Speaks in Brazil • Iraqi Militants Becoming Citizens • Intelligent Policing Comes to New Jersey • Best of the Web -- I've Got a Secret • The Other Terrorism • WHAT I LEARNED AT 'ANTI-JIHAD U' • FBI VS. THE NYPD: Behind the Latest Flap • Anti-terrorism in paradise: Lacking funds and manpower, Bratton's war on terror is based on the principle of sharing. • From the Shores of Tripoli • Book Review: George Tenet's At the Center of the Storm
 Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War by Judith Miller, William Broad, Stephen Engelberg Simon & Schuster, 2001  God Has Ninety-Nine Names: A Reporter's Journey Through a Militant Middle East by Judith Miller Simon & Schuster, 1996  Created and maintained pro-bono by Joshua Tanzer, web developer and journalist in New York City. • Resume • Web site • Contact |
|
|
|
Steiger, Brokaw visit Miller in prison CPJ, July 28, 2005 Alexandria, Va., July 28, 2005—A delegation from the Committee to Protect Journalists met with jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the Alexandria Detention Center tonight to deliver a message of support and call for an immediate end to her imprisonment. Paul Steiger, CPJ chairman and Wall Street Journal managing editor, headed the delegation, which included Tom Brokaw of NBC News and CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper. The group talked with Miller for a half hour though a clear plastic partition. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 29, 2005 Bill to Shield Journalists Gets Senate Panel Hearing New York Times, July 21, 2005 By LORNE MANLY WASHINGTON, July 20 - The Senate Judiciary Committee gave a generally positive reception on Wednesday to proposed legislation that would protect journalists from having to divulge confidential sources in most cases. But a harshly worded dissent from the Justice Department, which called the bill "bad public policy" that would hamper its ability to enforce the law and fight terrorism, underscored the difficult road the legislation faces in becoming law. The nearly two-and-a-half-hour hearing, held before a standing-room-only crowd, included testimony in favor of a shield law for the news media from nine elected representatives, lawyers and journalists, including Matthew Cooper, the Time magazine reporter who narrowly avoided going to jail after being swept up in a special prosecutor's investigation into the disclosure by administration officials of a C.I.A. operative's identity. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, is in jail for refusing to reveal her confidential sources in the same investigation. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 21, 2005 Justice Dept. Criticizes Media Shield Bill New York Times, July 20, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under fire for presidential adviser Karl Rove's role in the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity, the Bush administration on Wednesday labeled as ''bad public policy'' legislation to protect reporters from being jailed when they refuse to reveal their sources. Deputy Attorney General James Comey canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee just before a hearing on this issue was to commence Wednesday morning. In prepared remarks already submitted to the panel, Comey said the measure would ''create serious impediments'' to the Justice Department's ability ''to effectively enforce the law and fight terrorism.'' Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 20, 2005 Miller Could Face Longer Time In Jail As Probe Deepens E & P, July 18, 2005 By E&P Staff Published: July 16, 2005 10:00 AM ET NEW YORK Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald may seek criminal contempt charges against New York Times reporter Judith Miller, which could significantly lengthen her time in jail, Howard Kurtz and Carol Leonnig report in today's Washington Post. They also reveal that, according to two sources, Miller spoke with Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, during the period in July 2003 just before Robert Novak's fateful column appeared. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 18, 2005 Comic relief The Laugh Factory, 8th Avenue, New York City  Spotted by Ford Burkhart Posted by Joshua Tanzer | July 12, 2005 African editors slam Miller jailing journalism.co.za, July 11, 2005 The imprisonment of Judith Miller of the New York Times for refusing to name a source is a “travesty of justice”, according to the African Editors Forum, reports witsnews. A statement released by Mathatha Tsedu, interim chairperson of the body which represents editors in over 30 countries on the continent, said Taef “salutes the stand taken by Judith Miller in choosing to go to jail rather than betray the confidence of a source. Her courage is a source of inspiration to many editors and journalists in Africa and around the world who live through autocratic rule and suppression of free speech daily.” Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 12, 2005 Taiwan's Chen Blasts U.S. Over Judith Miller Jailing Newsmax.com, July 10, 2005 The jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge the name of a source in an investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name was criticized by Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian yesterday. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 12, 2005 Others May Follow 'LA Times' and Keep Names of Sources Off Computers E & P, July 11, 2005 By Joe Strupp NEW YORK A sampling of newspaper editors nationwide shows most agree with the new Los Angeles Times directive to staffers to avoid identifying anonymous sources in computer files or e-mails -- a clear reaction to last week's jailing of reporter Judith Miller and the recent legal wrangling that led Time Inc. to reveal Matt Cooper's source in the same case. Cooper had argued against that. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 12, 2005 We're Not in Watergate Anymore New York Times, July 10, 2005 By FRANK RICH WHEN John Dean published his book "Worse Than Watergate" in the spring of 2004, it seemed rank hyperbole: an election-year screed and yet another attempt by a Nixon alumnus to downgrade Watergate crimes by unearthing worse "gates" thereafter. But it's hard to be dismissive now that my colleague Judy Miller has been taken away in shackles for refusing to name the source for a story she never wrote. No reporter went to jail during Watergate. No news organization buckled like Time. No one instigated a war on phony premises. This is worse than Watergate. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 11, 2005 'Plain Dealer': We're Holding Big Stories Because of Fear of Jail E & P, July 8, 2005 By Mark Fitzgerald CHICAGO Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton says the Cleveland daily is not reporting two major investigative stories of "profound importance" because they are based on illegally leaked documents -- and the paper fears the consequences faced now by jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Lawyers for the Newhouse Newspapers-owned PD have concluded that the newspaper would almost certainly be found culpable if the leaks were investigated by authorities. "They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor, and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton said in an interview Friday afternoon. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 10, 2005 Reporter Jailed After Refusing to Name Source New York Times, July 7, 2005 By ADAM LIPTAK WASHINGTON, July 6 - Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, was sent to jail on Wednesday after a federal judge declared that she was "defying the law" by refusing to divulge the name of a confidential source. Another reporter who faced jail in the case, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, was spared after announcing a last-minute deal with a confidential source that he said would allow him to testify before a grand jury. Before being taken into custody by three court officers, Ms. Miller said she could not in good conscience violate promises to her sources. "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality," she told Judge Thomas F. Hogan, "then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press." Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 07, 2005 Silence costs reporter freedom Newsday, July 7, 2005 BY TOM BRUNE WASHINGTON BUREAU July 7, 2005 WASHINGTON -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed Wednesday for refusing to reveal her confidential sources to a special prosecutor who insists her cooperation is essential for his probe into who in the Bush administration leaked a covert CIA officer's identity. Matt Cooper of Time avoided jail with a last-minute surprise, telling the court he had changed his mind and would cooperate after the source he protected for two years released him from his promise of confidentiality. "This is a sad day for journalists and for our country," Cooper said. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 07, 2005 Two years into CIA leak probe, no charges Ledger-Enquirer, July 7, 2005 PETE YOST Associated Press WASHINGTON - A prosecutor's hunt for Bush administration leakers of classified information has produced no indictments after almost two years, and legal experts say it's very possible the only person jailed will be a reporter who never wrote a story. In pursuit of the officials who revealed a CIA officer's identity to reporters, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has gone to the highest reaches of the White House, interviewing President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and their closest aides, including deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 07, 2005 Miller Refuses to Name Source, Sentenced to Jail Editor & Publisher, July 6, 2005 WASHINGTON After Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper agreed Wednesday to testify about his sources the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case, Judith Miller of The New York Times continued to refuse to testify, and was sentenced to jail. Miller said she did [not] want to go to jail but had no choice but to protect her sources. "If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press," she said. "There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said. Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom. Original article Posted by Joshua Tanzer | July 06, 2005 Prosecutor in Leak Case Calls for Reporters' Jailing New York Times, July 6, 2005 By ADAM LIPTAK Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times should be jailed for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, the special prosecutor in the case said in court papers filed yesterday. Last week, Time magazine provided Mr. Cooper's notes and other documents to the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals filed by the magazine and the two reporters. In yesterday's filing, Mr. Fitzgerald said he had reviewed the documents and determined that Mr. Cooper's testimony "remains necessary." The reporters filed papers on Friday asking that they be sentenced to home confinement if incarceration is required. In case the presiding judge denied that request, Ms. Miller asked to be sent to a federal prison camp in Danbury, Conn., and Mr. Cooper to one in Cumberland, Md. Mr. Fitzgerald opposed those requests yesterday, saying the local jail in the District of Columbia "or some other nearby federal facility" would be more appropriate. Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court in Washington will hold a hearing today to consider the question. Mr. Fitzgerald, who had been restrained in his public filings, was harshly critical of the position taken by Ms. Miller and of statements supporting her by The Times. His response to Mr. Cooper was barely 4 pages; to Ms. Miller, 21 pages. In October, Judge Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt, sentencing them to up to 18 months in jail. He suspended the sentences while the reporters appealed, and he said last week that the maximum time they faced was 120 days, as the term of the grand jury will expire in October. Civil contempt is meant to be coercive rather than punitive. In yesterday's filing, though, Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that criminal prosecution was also a possibility. "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." The publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., has repeatedly said the newspaper supports Ms. Miller. Mr. Fitzgerald quoted at length from news accounts about Time's decision to demonstrate that journalists and others are not of one mind about the obligation of news organizations and reporters to obey final court orders concerning their confidential sources. He also quoted from opinion columns, essays and a Los Angeles Times editorial suggesting that reporters should not take absolutist positions. Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said, "We intend to respond to the special counsel's views in court tomorrow." Dawn Bridges, a spokeswoman for Time Inc., a division of Time Warner, declined to comment on behalf of the magazine and Mr. Cooper. As the case reached a critical phase, new details emerged about underlying events from two years ago. The syndicated columnist Robert Novak disclosed the identity of the operative, referring to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, in a July 2003 article. A few days earlier, Newsweek reported this week, Mr. Cooper had talked by telephone with Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser. Mr. Cooper and two other reporters published an article three days after Mr. Novak discussing Ms. Plame's identity. The article cited as its sources "some government officials" and did not mention Mr. Rove. Ms. Miller has not written on the subject. Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, confirmed that the conversation with Mr. Cooper took place. Mr. Luskin declined to discuss the subject of the conversation, but said Mr. Rove did not disclose Ms. Plame's identity. White House officials have long said Mr. Rove was not a source for Mr. Novak's column. In his filing yesterday, Mr. Fitzgerald urged Judge Hogan to reject the reporters' requests for home confinement. "Forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion," he wrote. "Certainly one who can handle the desert in wartime," he added, referring to Ms. Miller's coverage of the war in Iraq, "is far better equipped than the average person jailed in a federal facility." David Johnston contributed reporting from Washington for this article. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 06, 2005 Fitzgerald Hits Judith Miller Hard in Tuesday Decision E & P, July 5, 2005 By E&P Staff Published: July 05, 2005 6:20 PM ET NEW YORK Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, in announcing Tuesday that he would not allow reporters Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller to serve their sentences for contempt (which could be announced by a federal judge on Wednesday), went after the latter particularly harshly. Among other things, he wrote, "Certainly one who can handle the desert in wartime, is far better equipped than the average person jailed in a federal facility." Miller, of course, covered (some say, mis-covered) the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. Fitzgerald mocked Miller's claim that being denied cell phone and e-mail privileges would be adequate punishment: "Forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion." Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 06, 2005 Prosecutor Urges Judge to Jail Reporters Who Refused to Testify New York Times, July 5, 2005 By ADAM LIPTAK Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times should be jailed for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, the special prosecutor in the case said in court papers filed today. Last week, Time magazine provided Mr. Cooper's notes and other documents to the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals filed by the magazine and the two reporters. In today's filing, Mr. Fitzgerald said he had reviewed the documents and determined that Mr. Cooper's testimony "remains necessary." The reporters, who have consistently refused to testify about conversations with their sources, filed papers on Friday suggesting that they be sentenced to home confinement if incarceration is required. In the alternative, Ms. Miller asked to be sent to a federal prison camp in Danbury, Conn., and Mr. Cooper to one in Cumberland, Md. Mr. Fitzgerald opposed those requests today, saying that the local jail in the District of Columbia "or some other nearby federal facility" would be more appropriate. Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court in Washington will hold a hearing on Wednesday to consider the question. Mr. Fitzgerald, whose public filings to date have been restrained, was harshly critical of the legal position taken by Ms. Miller and of The New York Times's statements in support of her. His response to Mr. Cooper was barely 4 pages; to Ms. Miller, 21 pages. In October, Judge Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt, sentencing them to up to 18 months in jail. He suspended the sentences while the reporters appealed and last week said that the maximum time the reporters now face is 120 days, as the term of the grand jury will expire in October. Civil contempt is meant to be coercive rather than punitive. In today's filing, though, Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that criminal prosecution is also a possibility. "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." The Times's publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., has repeatedly said that the newspaper supports Ms. Miller. Mr. Fitzgerald quoted at length from news accounts concerning Time's decision to show that journalists and others are not of one mind about news organizations' and reporters' obligations to obey final court orders concerning their confidential sources. He also quoted from opinion columns, essays and a Los Angeles Times editorial suggesting that reporters should not take absolutist positions. Mr. Fitzgerald urged Judge Hogan to reject the reporters' requests for home confinement. "Forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion," he wrote. "Certainly one who can handle the desert in wartime," he added, referring to Ms. Miller's role in covering the war in Iraq, "is far better equipped than the average person jailed in a federal facility." Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 05, 2005 Time Inc. Reporter's Testimony Still Needed, Prosecutor Says New York Times, July 5, 2005 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded the grand jury testimony of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents to the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention -- instead of jail -- for refusing to reveal their sources. Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify. Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote. "Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court. Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify. Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 05, 2005 Private Spy and Public Spouse Live at Center of Leak Case New York Times, July 5, 2005 By SCOTT SHANE WASHINGTON, July 1 - For nearly two years, the investigation into the leak of a covert C.I.A. officer's name has unfolded clamorously in the nation's capital, with partisan brawling on talk shows, prosecutors interviewing President Bush and top White House officials, and the imminent prospect that reporters could go to jail for contempt of court. But the woman at the center of it all, Valerie E. Wilson, has kept her silence, showing the discipline and discretion that colleagues say made her a good spy. As her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, has become a highly visible critic of the administration and promoted his memoirs, Ms. Wilson has ferried their 5-year-old twins to doctors' appointments, looked after their hilltop house in the upscale Palisades neighborhood of Washington and counseled women with postpartum depression. On June 1, after a year's unpaid leave, Ms. Wilson, now known to the country by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, returned to a new job at the Central Intelligence Agency, determined to get her career back on track, her husband said. Neither the agency nor Mr. Wilson would describe her position, except to make what might seem an obvious point: she will no longer be working under cover, as she did successfully for almost 20 years. "Before this whole affair, no one would ever have thought of her as an undercover agent," said David Tillotson, a next-door neighbor for seven years who got to know the Wilsons well over back-fence chats, shared dinners and play dates for their grandchildren with the Wilsons' children, Trevor and Samantha. "She wasn't mysterious," Mr. Tillotson said. "She was sort of a working soccer mom." He recalled his incredulity on July 14, 2003, when his wife, Victoria, spotted in The Washington Post, in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, a line identifying their neighbor by her maiden name and calling her an "agency operative." Ms. Tillotson kept calling out: "This can't be! This can't be!" The Wilsons' neighbor on the other side, Christopher Wolf, was similarly aghast. As he sat on his deck staring at the Novak column, Mr. Wilson came out his back door. "I said: 'This is amazing! I had no idea,' " Mr. Wolf recalled. "He sort of motioned to me to keep my voice down." A Jaguar-driving, cigar-smoking, silver-haired former ambassador, Mr. Wilson, 55, interpreted the leak of his wife's C.I.A. connection as an act of vengeance from White House officials for his public accusations of deceit in building a case for the Iraq war. Days before the leak, he had gone public in a New York Times Op-Ed article and television appearances to charge that the administration had covered up his own debunking of reports that Iraq had bought uranium in Africa. What he calls a "smear campaign" against the couple has catalyzed his transformation from nonpartisan diplomat - he worked closely with the first President Bush and his top aides during the first gulf war - to anti-Bush activist. On Wednesday, a federal judge is expected to decide whether two reporters, Judith Miller of The Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine, will go to jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigation into the leak. That the leaker appears willing to permit journalists to be incarcerated rather than taking public responsibility for his actions simply shows the leaker's "cravenness and cowardice," Mr. Wilson said. It is not known what information, if any, Mr. Novak supplied to prosecutors, but he is not facing jail time. Meanwhile, Ms. Wilson, 42, whose husband said she has used her married name both at work and in her personal life since their 1998 marriage, declined to speak for this article. She has guarded her privacy, with rare exceptions. She posed with her husband for a Vanity Fair photographer, wearing sunglasses and with a scarf over her blond hair. She drafted an op-ed article to correct what she felt were distortions of her and her husband's actions, but the C.I.A. would not authorize its publication, saying it would "affect the agency's ability to perform its mission." Former C.I.A. officers differ on the impact of Mr. Novak's identification of Ms. Wilson, who had been working against weapons proliferation in Europe and elsewhere while posing as an analyst for a shell company in Boston, Brewster Jennings & Associates, set up by the agency. Clandestine service officers working under such "nonofficial cover" - rather than the traditional guise of diplomat - are considered to hold the most sensitive and vulnerable jobs in intelligence, lacking the protection of diplomatic immunity if they are unmasked overseas. Disclosing the C.I.A. employment of officers under cover can endanger the officers, their operations and their agents, as well as violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the law that prompted the current leak investigation. "This situation has been very hard on her, professionally and personally," said Melissa Boyle Mahle, a former C.I.A. case officer and a friend of Ms. Wilson. "Not only have you removed from the playing field a very knowledgeable counterproliferation officer at a time when we really need her services. But before this she was on a fast track as a candidate for senior management at the agency. With something like this, her career will never recover." But other former C.I.A. officers say that by 2003 Ms. Wilson's cover was already thin. Any serious inquiry would have revealed that Brewster Jennings was little more than a mailbox. Though she traveled regularly, Ms. Wilson, who speaks French, German and Greek, had been working for some time at agency headquarters in Langley, Va. And her marriage to a senior American diplomat, Mr. Wilson, ended any pretense of having no government ties. "At that point, she looks, walks and quacks like an overt agency employee," said Fred Rustmann, a C.I.A. officer from 1966 to 1990, who supervised Ms. Wilson early in her career and calls her "one of the best, an excellent officer." Yet outside the spy world, word of her real employment came as a shock. To have such a carefully nurtured identity shattered in a single stroke was traumatic, Mr. Wilson said. "Your whole network of personal relationships over 20 years are compromised," he said. Ms. Wilson had to explain to friends and relatives that she had never leveled with them since joining the agency shortly after graduating from Pennsylvania State University with a degree in journalism in 1984. "My sister-in-law turned to my brother," Mr. Wilson recalled, "and said, 'Do you think Joe knew?' " Joe knew. As their relationship grew serious after they met at a 1997 reception at the Turkish ambassador's residence, Valerie Plame revealed her real job to Mr. Wilson, who had a top secret clearance. Three months after they married, he retired from the State Department after a 23-year career that included an ambassadorship to two countries, Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe. Now he consults on business projects in Africa as J. C. Wilson International Ventures. Their marriage was her second and his third; he is also the father of 26-year-old twins from his first marriage. Friends say that after the birth of their twins in 2000, Ms. Wilson suffered postpartum depression, which prompted her to become active in helping other mothers. The Wilsons have had a low-key social life, friends say. Mr. Wilson said they had attended only one "A-list Washington party," given by Ben Bradlee, the retired Washington Post editor. Before July 2003, some neighbors knew them from the playground only as "Trevor and Samantha's mom and dad." Their turn in the limelight changed that temporarily, as liberal celebrities embraced them; they were honored in late 2003 at a dinner at the guesthouse of the television producer Norman Lear, with guest list that included Warren Beatty. The couple's actions in 2002 have become, in the polarized politics of the Iraq war, subject to divergent interpretation. All agree that Mr. Wilson traveled to Niger in February 2002 at the C.I.A.'s request to assess reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium there. There the agreement ends. In the version of his Republican critics, laid out in part by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee last year, Mr. Wilson's trip was a junket orchestrated by his wife. Further, the critics say, Mr. Wilson's findings on the uranium question were equivocal. But as a partisan Democrat, they say, he exploited his minor involvement to attack the president, asserting that Mr. Bush misled the American people by citing the questionable uranium claim in his 2003 State of the Union address. Mr. Wilson has laid out his own account in interviews and in his memoir, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's C.I.A. Identity." The 514-page book, which features on the back cover photographs of Mr. Wilson with the first President Bush, President Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein, has sold 60,000 copies in hardcover, according to the publisher, Carroll & Graf. The just-published paperback includes an 11,000-word essay by Russ Hoyle, an investigative reporter recruited by Carroll & Graf to examine factual disputes raised by the case. Mr. Wilson said that though his wife wrote a memorandum describing his expertise at the request of a C.I.A. superior, she did not propose him for the Niger trip. He scoffs at the notion that a trip to one of the poorest countries on earth, for which he was paid only his expenses, was some kind of prize. He has acknowledged he may have misspoken about a few details, like the date he became aware of forged documents purporting to show a uranium sale. But conservatives' attacks on his credibility, he said, are merely an effort to distract Americans from a far graver fact: that the United States went to war on the basis of flimsy, distorted evidence. "I'm deeply saddened that the debate before the war did not adequately take into consideration issues that a number of us had raised," Mr. Wilson said. While his wife has shunned publicity, he has become an always-available news media voice, lending the weight of international experience and insider status to criticism of Mr. Bush's conduct of the war. Despite conservatives' efforts to portray him as a left-wing extremist, he insisted he remained a centrist at heart. But after his tangle with the current administration, he admits "it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican, even for dog catcher." Mr. Wilson ended a long interview in a downtown hotel when he realized he was late to pick up the twins. As the first gulf war loomed, and Mr. Wilson was the last American official to meet with Saddam Hussein, his older twins, Joe and Sabrina, were 12 years old, and worried that their father might not make it out of Baghdad to join them in the United States, he said. During this war with Iraq, the gravest danger to him has been political vilification. He and his wife, Mr. Wilson said, have tried to insulate their children from the hubbub that followed the leak of her name. It has not always been easy. Once, when Trevor was 3, he recognized his father on yet another show. "He banged on the TV," Mr. Wilson recalled, "and said, 'Dad, get out of the box!' " Lynette Clemetson contributed reporting for this article. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 05, 2005 Go Directly to Jail New York Times, July 3, 2005 By ADAM LIPTAK So, what is it like to serve time in jail, when the only thing standing between you and freedom is a thing called "principles"? M. A. Farber, 67, recalled that the Bergen County jail, in Hackensack, N.J., was "a 68-year-old lockup that had been declared 'unfit for human habitation.' " Mr. Farber, then a reporter for The New York Times, spent 40 days there in 1978 for refusing to disclose his confidential sources. He remembered a sign by a guard's desk. "If you can keep a cool head in these times," it said, "perhaps you don't understand the situation." Last week, the situation of Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, got very hot. She faces jail time for her refusal to testify about her sources before a Washington grand jury. The United States Supreme Court turned down her last appeal, and a federal judge indicated that he would sentence her this week. No Times reporter has served time to protect sources since Mr. Farber, who refused to turn over his notes to a doctor charged with killing patients by injecting them with curare. The doctor, Dr. Mario Jascalevich, was acquitted. Mr. Farber was the only person to serve time in the case. In the new case, too, there is a reasonable prospect that only Ms. Miller will ever be jailed. A special prosecutor is trying to determine who leaked the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame. Time magazine, which had also been threatened with fines, announced it would comply with the judge's order to turn over the notes of its reporter, Matthew Cooper. In Mr. Farber's case, The Times paid fines totaling $286,000. Mr. Farber, known as Myron, recalled some of the other inmates vividly. "One had literally torn his mother apart," he said. "On the other hand, there was a town manager from a New Jersey town who had just been engaged in some kind of graft." The Farber case prompted many states to enact shield laws to protect journalists, and New Jersey now has one of the strongest in the nation. In January 1982, Gov. Brendan T. Byrne pardoned Mr. Farber and The Times. Mr. Farber, who is now retired, offered some advice to Ms. Miller. "She has to keep a cool head," he said. "It isn't going to last forever, and it's an important position to take. You have to do what you believe is right, what your conscience tells you to do, what is in the traditions of the profession and hope that the federal authorities, like the states, will recognize that we deserve some protection." Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 04, 2005 Reporters Facing Jail Time Submit Preferences New York Times, July 2, 2005 By ADAM LIPTAK Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times, who have been held in contempt for refusing to testify about their confidential sources, filed court papers yesterday asking to be sentenced to home confinement or to particular federal prisons if they must be jailed. Time Inc. also filed a brief statement saying it had complied with a grand jury subpoena by supplying documents to the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald is looking into the possibly unlawful disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame. The documents held by Time disclose the identities of Mr. Cooper's confidential sources and the substance of what they told him, Mr. Cooper has said. Their release gives the reporters some fresh arguments in their efforts to avoid jail. In October, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court in Washington held the reporters and the magazine in civil contempt. He ordered the reporters jailed and the magazine fined but suspended the sanctions while they pursued appeals. On Monday, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case. On Wednesday, Judge Hogan indicated that he would send the reporters to jail for up to 120 days and impose large fines on Time Inc. as soon as next Wednesday. Time Inc., a division of Time Warner, announced on Thursday that it would comply with the subpoena for the documents. Mr. Cooper, who opposed the disclosure of the documents and continues to refuse to comply with a subpoena calling for his testimony, argued that "the nature and volume of the materials released" should render his testimony "duplicative and unnecessary." One of Mr. Cooper's lawyers, Richard A. Sauber, said, "We are very hopeful that Mr. Fitzgerald will drop his demand for Matt's testimony after reviewing the documents provided to him by Time magazine." Ms. Miller's lawyers have voiced similar hopes in recent days. Mr. Cooper asked not to be sent to the default facility for people held in civil contempt in Washington, the District of Columbia jail. "Confinement in the D.C. jail," Mr. Cooper's lawyers wrote, "would subject Mr. Cooper, a non-violent, non-criminal journalist, to a dangerous maximum security lockup already overcrowded with a mix of convicted offenders and other detainees awaiting criminal trials." Mr. Cooper asked to be sent to the federal prison camp in Cumberland, Md., if home confinement is not an option. Mr. Cooper attached nine letters from family members and friends. They emphasized that he acted from principle and that jail time for Mr. Cooper would be very hard on his 6-year-old son, Ben. In her papers, Ms. Miller argued that it was pointless to imprison her because she will never talk. She provided Judge Hogan with letters from soldiers with whom she was embedded during the war in Iraq attesting to that. Ms. Miller asked for "very restrictive home detention" if confinement is required, including an electronic bracelet and excluding Internet access and cellular phones. In the alternative, she asked to be sent to the federal prison camp for women in Danbury, Conn. Mr. Fitzgerald will respond to the papers on Tuesday, and Judge Hogan has scheduled a hearing to consider the issues on Wednesday. Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 04, 2005 Time Inc. to Yield Files on Sources, Relenting to U.S. New York Times, July 1, 2005 By ADAM LIPTAK With one of its reporters facing an imminent jail sentence, Time magazine said yesterday that it would provide documents concerning the reporter's confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame. The magazine's decision to give in to the demands of federal prosecutors followed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to reject appeals by the magazine and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, as well as a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller. The reporters could be sent to jail as early as Wednesday, but a Time executive said he hoped Time's action would spare Mr. Cooper. In an interview, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he had made the decision after much reflection. "I found myself really coming to the conclusion," Mr. Pearlstine said, "that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." [Page A14.] The case represents the starkest confrontation between the press and the government since 1971, when the Supreme Court refused to stop The Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers. And legal experts said yesterday that they knew of no other instance in modern journalistic history in which a major news organization announced that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a government subpoena. The press has traditionally argued that it needs to be able to protect confidential sources to ensure that the public is fully informed. Some courts have recently rejected that position outright. Other have said that the interest in the flow of information to the public in given cases was outweighed by the needs of the judicial system for evidence. On Wednesday, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court in Washington said he would order the reporters jailed for up to 120 days if they did not agree to testify before the grand jury in the meantime. He also said he would impose substantial fines on the magazine. The magazine made its decision over the objections of its reporter. "For almost two years," Mr. Cooper said yesterday, "I've protected my confidential sources even under the threat of jail. So while I understand Time's decision to turn over papers that identify my sources, I'm obviously disappointed by what they chose." The documents to be turned over to the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, include Mr. Cooper's notes of interviews and "the ordinary work product that is typical of the interaction that takes place between reporters and editors," Mr. Pearlstine said. He said Time had not decided how the transfer would happen but said the documents would not be made public by Time. The move may have consequences for Mr. Cooper. "My hope," Mr. Pearlstine said, "is that the special counsel concludes that he does not need Matt's testimony and does not need his incarceration." It is less clear whether the magazine's decision will affect Ms. Miller, but one of her lawyers, Robert S. Bennett, said it might help her. "I hope that Time's disclosure will eliminate the need for Judy's testimony and that this crisis can be ended," Mr. Bennett said. Ms. Miller declined to comment yesterday, as did a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times, was critical of Time. "We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and the Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources. Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines. "Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time." Mr. Pearlstine said that "responsible news organizations can have different opinions." But he added, "If I were The New York Times in 1978 I would have turned over the information." Mr. Farber refused to supply his notes to a doctor on trial in New Jersey on charges that he killed patients by injecting them with curare. The doctor, Mario Jascalevich, was acquitted. Mr. Farber, now retired, recalled the efforts he and the paper had made to protect his notes, which reflected conversations with confidential sources. "The Times, at my request, I think it was, relinquished control of the notes to me," he said. "I took responsibility for protecting them, and I did protect them. I divvied them up and hid them all over the region in a variety of places." A judge in the case, Theodore W. Trautwein, called The Times's position a charade and held it in both civil and criminal contempt. The Times paid fines of $286,000. In the aftermath, New Jersey tightened its shield law, which is one of the strongest in the nation. In January 1982, Mr. Farber and The Times were pardoned for the criminal contempt charges by Gov. Brendan T. Byrne, and $101,000 in fines was returned. Time's decision yesterday to turn over documents in the face of fines troubled some legal experts. "It makes it appear that they did it for the money," said Jane Kirtley, who teaches media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. "If judges can get these news organizations by the balance sheet, they're going to yield. For Time Warner not to rally round the crown jewel of their empire to support a journalist is appalling." Mr. Pearlstine said financial considerations played no role. Zachary W. Carter, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn, said that media companies and their reporters had different obligations. "I don't believe that a company has the right to put the assets of its shareholders at risk in an act of civil disobedience," Mr. Carter said. "On the other hand, the reporters are only faced with the consequences to them personally. They have the absolute right to put their liberty and fortunes at risk." James C. Goodale, a former general counsel for the Times Company and an authority on legal protections for reporters, said news organizations had an obligation to protect reporters' notes as a corporate asset. "A public company must protect its assets even if that means going into contempt," Mr. Goodale said. "It has an obligation under the First Amendment to protect those assets, and it's in the interest of shareholders to protect those assets." The Times also received a grand jury subpoena for various kinds of documents in the Plame investigation, according to a company spokeswoman, Catherine J. Mathis. "We did not possess such documents," Ms. Mathis said. Judge Hogan has scheduled another hearing for Wednesday to consider the reporters' fate. Until Time's decision complicated matters, it appeared that the reporters, both of whom have refused to testify, would be told at that hearing when and where to report to jail. The case has its roots in an article published two years ago by the syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who wrote that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Ms. Plame was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Cooper's article about Ms. Plame appeared after the Novak column. Ms. Miller conducted interviews on the matter but did not publish an article. Mr. Cooper has testified once before in the investigation, limiting his answers to conversations he had with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC have also testified. All of the reporters said they had acted with their sources' permission. The current subpoenas to Mr. Cooper and Time concern information he received from other officials. Mr. Novak appears not to be facing jail time, but it is not known whether he supplied information to Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Novak have consistently declined to discuss the matter. Mr. Pearlstine, the Time Inc. executive, said his decision would have at least some impact on reporters' relationships with their sources. It will be hard to measure that impact, he said, because the press is also recovering from journalistic scandals at The Times, CBS and Newsweek. "It's hard to know at this point," he said, "how broad a chilling effect it will have." Original article Posted by Aaron Selverston | July 04, 2005 | |||||||
|
|||||||||||
