New York Times reporter Judith Miller remains in jail in Alexandria, Virginia for refusing to identify the source of the information she had regarding the identify of CIA agent Valerie Plame, wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. At this point, it seems clear that Miller will not relent in refusing to name names so it appears she’ll be spending time in jail for some time to come.
This article in Reason calls into question whether she should even be in jail at all:
Testimonial privileges require a court to weigh the government’s evidence as to why they need her testimony. Yet Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. They were given no opportunity to defend her against, question, or rebut the secret evidence the courts relied upon exclusively in convicting her. Indeed, a full eight pages of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision discussing and analyzing this secret evidence was redacted from the published opinion.
To say that this is disturbing is an understatement, but it is in many ways just a reflection of what has happened to our legal system in the last 20 years or so, and even more so since 9/11 and such questionable legislation as the PATRIOT Act. The Sixth Amendment grants accused persons the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Miller was granted none of these rights and now sits in jail based on secret testimony that neither she nor her attorneys have access to.
Why is this important ? Here’s why:
Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read. She won’t be the last. Make no mistake: This will happen again and again whenever a case involves “national security,”"the war on terror,” or any combination thereof. This is too big a weapon for the executive branch to ignore, especially since it was fashioned by the most prestigious of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and approved by the Supreme Court. Let’s face it. If they can do it to a reporter for The New York Times, they sure as hell can do it to anyone else.
The Miller case is about more than just whether or not journalists have the right to withhold the identity of confidential sources. Its about whether the Constitution still means what it says.
