Let’s agree on a few things up front.
- Judith Miller is not a journalist, she’s a “player”. Her history of drumming up support for the Iraq War is well-documented, and went well beyond the lines of journalism. She regularly distorted/invented facts to fit her agenda, and failed to show objectivity.
- Free Press is good.
- Exactly what defines a journalist is less clear every day.
- The behavior of Robert Novak is mysterious and bizzare. But tangential.
OK, with that out of the way, let’s chat about the issue at hand:
Question: Are there limits on source protection for journalists? Answer: Of course. Duh.
Question: Did Judith Miller cross that line? Answer: Of course. Duh.
A crime was committed. An important crime. A CIA agent’s life was endangered. Note that it was the CIA that started the ball rolling, they obviously feel it’s important enough to justify legal action. Although the details are unknown, and Novak’s role is unknown (see above), it’s clear the government met the legal hurdles — that is, they tried by all other means to see what happened. The only way for them to “solve the crime” was to go to the journalists. Which they did. So what exactly is the problem? She and any others, journalists or not, should be compelled to reveal what they know. End of story.
In fact, thinking again about Watergate and Deep Throat is a good way to understand why Judy Miller should not be protected today. Because in Watergate, a reporter acting like Miller would not be meeting the FBI’s Mark Felt in an underground parking garage. She would be obsessively on the phone with H.R. Haldeman or John Dean, listening to malicious gossip about Carl Bernstein or their plans to make Judge Sirica look bad.
Many have brought up the slippery-slope argument. If Miller is forced to testify, the theory goes, who’s to say who’s next? If sources don’t have a legal guarantee of anonymity, they will be unwilling to provide information, to the detriment of all. This sounds good, but makes no sense. We are only speaking of sources that have committed crimes, crimes serious enough to meet the legal standard. Let’s turn the slippery slope argument the other way. If Miller is not forced to testify, anyone is free to commit any crime, as long as they are only known to do so by a recalcitrant journalist. Suppose Colin Powell went mad and killed a family of four, and later confessed to Miller. Shouldn’t Miller be compelled to testify? If she refused, wouldn’t it proper to hold her in contempt, both legally and morally?