I'd really like to know what you think she's done to deserve jail, Steve.
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 3, 2005 12:29 PMEnabling and being a willing accomplice in a series of lies that have led to the deaths of nearly 2000 Americans is a good place to start Toby.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 3, 2005 12:33 PMI won't speak for Steve, but what she's done to deserve jail is to commit contempt of court. People do it all the time.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 12:34 PMI disagree with Steve. Her shilling for the administration is not a reason for her to be in jail. The fact that she was such a shill with a black book full of "sources" is probably related to the real reason she's in jail.
She defied a court order to testify before a grand jury. One can't pick and choose which aspects of the law one will abide by and which ones one will not and not expect to suffer the consequences Toby.
Posted by muckcat at August 3, 2005 12:39 PMfitzgerald and the judges who rejected her appeal think she belongs in jail. theirs are the only opinions that matter at this time.
Posted by benjoya at August 3, 2005 12:39 PMI disagree with Steve. Her shilling for the administration is not a reason for her to be in jail.
I don't think Steve meant the shilling. I think he means her complicity in the cover-up. Someday, perhaps, she will go to jail for that, too. But right now, she's in for contempt.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 12:42 PMYeah, okay, so it was a trick question.
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 3, 2005 12:53 PMJust gotta keep Toby honest.
Posted by muckcat at August 3, 2005 12:55 PMI have nothing against Judy, but have to wonder if she had any regrets about her loyalty when during her initial stripsearch at the prison, the guard told her to squat and cough.
Posted by Hank at August 3, 2005 01:08 PMIf it were an opponent of the administration sitting in jail, all the right wingers, and Tony Petzold, would have no trouble understanding why contempt of court leads to jail. In fact, they would insist upon it.
I recall once in court I made what I thought was a very good argument for why my client had not complied with the court's order in a discovery matter. The judge said, "You make a compelling argument, counsel, but that isn't really a legal reason, is it?" Then he ruled against my client.
Judith Miller gave her reasons for refusing to testify before a grand jury. She was represented by some of the best attorneys in the country. The courts considered her arguments and determined, based on our country's laws that her reasons are not legal excuses.
Her legal standing right now is no different than a person who refuses to stop at a red light.
If there is a moral argument for her refusal to comply with the court's order, she has not made it. She has simply declared that because she works for a newspaper she is cloaked in a 'higher' law that justifies or compels her refusal to comply.
While there may be 'higher' laws that justify or compel civil disobedience (see, e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail), Miller has not made the argument.
Posted by James E. Powell at August 3, 2005 01:22 PMPlease save this post because it is one of the few times I agree with the lefties around here. She could rot in jail for all I care. I don't consider journalists some protected species and I fail to see where they feel they can hide behind sources. FYI I had the same position when Clintons business partner was in jail obstruction of justice.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at August 3, 2005 01:32 PMIf there is a moral argument for her refusal to comply with the court's order, she has not made it.
Well, part of her argument has been that she promised she would not reveal the identity, and all utilitarian arguments for journalist privilege aside, she is bound to keep that promise.
This notion of the supremacy of personal promises is, of course, demonstrably worthless. A mafia don who pledges never to rat out his family has as much claim to this argument as does Miller.
American law simply doesn't recognize the principle that one's promises to others can supersede one's responsibility to the courts.
The utilitarian arguments fail because here, silence frustrates the pro-whistleblower intent of the privilege, and national security demands trump the other social interests. The purely moral arguments fail, because you can't promise to do something illegal and expect the courts to respect your decision. Small wonder, then, that when she tried to prop up each argument with the other, the whole thing fell apart.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 01:36 PMMy question--Why did they initially vote to give her the award? I'm glad sanity prevailed, but what poor judgment & hypocrisy to have voted to bestow it upon her at all.
I'm sure that the NYT will fund an award for her somewhere. The Grid Iron or the White Hise Correspondents or some such group will be happy to honor her. Bush might even throw in a Medal of Freedom.
Posted by Hoosiercat at August 3, 2005 01:37 PMI think justice would be served if Chalabi gave her an STD that slowly and painfully rotted her flesh from the inside. But that's just me.
But hey, she could get out of jail any time, she just refuses to do so. She'll be amply rewarded, I'm sure.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2005 01:37 PMPowell:
If there is a moral argument for her refusal to comply with the court's order, she has not made it.
But she did, in her way. She said the waiver of confidentiality that the President asked his people to sign was coerced and, therefore, legally suspect. That's a legal argument masquerading as a moral argument.
She has simply declared that because she works for a newspaper she is cloaked in a 'higher' law that justifies or compels her refusal to comply.
That's the presumption implicit in her rationale for refusing to comply, but I've never heard her actually say that. But I'll stand corrected if it's so.
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 3, 2005 01:55 PMJudy Kneepads!! I LOVE IT!!!
Thanks for making me laugh my ass off.
No trouble understanding why contempt of court leads to jail. In fact, they would insist upon it.
TP prolly laughed when Susan McDougal went in, short skirt, leg irons, and burly sherrifs.
I laughed the same way at Judy.
Posted by Flamethrower at August 3, 2005 02:02 PMShe said the waiver of confidentiality that the President asked his people to sign was coerced and, therefore, legally suspect. That's a legal argument masquerading as a moral argument.
But that argument is beside the point: Even if her sources hadn't signed waivers, she still would have had to testify.
The waivers are about her need to keep her private promises, and as I pointed out above, nobody has an absolute right, moral or legal, to insist that their private promises excuse them from their public responsibilities.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 02:02 PMShe said the waiver of confidentiality that the President asked his people to sign was coerced and, therefore, legally suspect.
This I disagree with. Each one of them could have refused to sign it and left their positions with the administration. If they had to be coerced into signing it that means that they signed it even though they didn't want to. Why would they not want to? Why would they not want to cooperate with the investigation. If they signed it not wanting to sign it isn't that suspect in itself?
The coerced excuse is a smokescreen.
Posted by muckcat at August 3, 2005 02:09 PMFlame:
TP prolly laughed when Susan McDougal went in, short skirt, leg irons, and burly sherrifs.
No. I "prolly" just thought, "I'd hit it."
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 3, 2005 02:33 PMJudy sure swanned enough as a faux-media-martyr for the cameras. Now that they're gone, she's latched onto whatever media outlet is still within her grasp to complain about her accommodations.
My personal favorite hurtin'-hagiography is this one (E&P 07/27/05 / Standring), that presents Judy's suffering as greater than that of the real criminals she must endure meeting, who don't come from a comfortable background, therefore their humiliation isn't, you know, noteworthy.
Posted by Peanut at August 3, 2005 02:34 PMNo. I "prolly" just thought, "I'd hit it."
Susan MacDougal?
You need to get out more Toby.
Posted by muckcat at August 3, 2005 02:37 PMShe said the waiver of confidentiality that the President asked his people to sign was coerced and, therefore, legally suspect.
Muckcat:
This I disagree with.
Why?
Each one of them could have refused to sign it and left their positions with the administration.
That's right. But no one did.
If they had to be coerced into signing it that means that they signed it even though they didn't want to.
I think you're onto something here, alhtough you may just be on something.
Why would they not want to?
If any had refused to sign the waiver, it would have been because they had something to hide.
Why would they not want to cooperate with the investigation.
But they all did cooperate with the investigation. No need to hypothesize, you know. Rove has now testified before the grand jury three times.
If they signed it not wanting to sign it isn't that suspect in itself?
This is the "reality-based community"? Harrummpphh.
The coerced excuse is a smokescreen.
Yes. Thanks for [disagreeing].
Couldn't happen to nicer warflogging neocon hack. She can rot there.
Posted by ran at August 3, 2005 02:52 PMNo. I "prolly" just thought, "I'd hit it."
Ewwwwwww!
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 02:53 PMWhat did she do to deserve jail? Since when did Republicans ever care about anyone actually deserving jail? Does everyone in Gitmo deserve to be there? Do all the black men in this country deserve to be there?
Fuck you and your double standard Toby.
Posted by Barnacle at August 3, 2005 02:56 PMWhy?
Because they all chose to sign it instead of giving up their jobs. They could have said no.
That's right. But no one did.
So how is it coerced?
I think you're onto something here, alhtough you may just be on something.
Ha Ha.
If any had refused to sign the waiver, it would have been because they had something to hide.
Exactly. So why the claim of coercion.
But they all did cooperate with the investigation. No need to hypothesize, you know. Rove has now testified before the grand jury three times.
See above.
This is the "reality-based community"? Harrummpphh.
Yes it is. The world where people go to jail for disobeying a court order.
Yes. Thanks for [disagreeing].
Your welcome Toby. It's one of those perks we in the reality based world enjoy. We get to disagree with things. Something that seems anathema in George Bush's White House.
Testifying before the grand jury does not necessarily mean that one cooperated with the grand jury. All indications are right now that Karl Rove lied to the grand jury. That is not cooperating-it is called obstruction of justice.
Posted by Ga6thDem at August 3, 2005 03:19 PMNo. I "prolly" just thought, "I'd hit it."
Susan MacDougal?
Are you calling into question the Big Dog's and my taste in women?
You need to get out more Toby.
Okay, I'll give you that.
If any had refused to sign the waiver, it would have been because they had something to hide.
Muckcat:
Exactly. So why the claim of coercion.
Gott im Himmel! That's what Miller's claiming ---not me!
I think she's in jail right now because she wants a martyrburger with cheese (as my old man used to say).
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 3, 2005 03:30 PMwow, judy miller's scumminess has brought us all together, moonbats and wingnuts. kumba-freakin-ya.
OTOH, miller was jailed by that psycho traitor marxist fitzgerald, so al's planning judy's jailbreak even as we speak.
hold on, al - miller works for the terrorist-loving NY Times, maybe she deserves to be in jail.
OTOH, she did say there were WMDs, so that should be a mitigating factor when you pass your terrible judgment.
and FWIW, i'd hit it, too. (mcdougal not miller-eeewwww!) and i get out plenty. fiesty, married, politically connected southern chick in skirt and handcuffs? come on!
Posted by benjoya at August 3, 2005 04:07 PMplease have mercy and compassion. Judy is doing real hardtimes in a real jail.
Posted by john at August 3, 2005 04:19 PMtell it to the marines, john
Posted by benjoya at August 3, 2005 04:24 PMShit, Judy will be given the medal of freedom and be promoted from W's cock to Dick's as soon as she gets out.
Posted by Vinnie at August 3, 2005 04:31 PMVinnie, are you channelling the Rude Pundit, or are you just in as sour a mood as I am today?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2005 04:42 PMNo kidding. Today, the comments have been both surprisingly conciliatory between the ideologies, and shockingly dirty.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 06:34 PMThank you for putting Judi in jail, where she belongs, Fitzgerald.
Posted by Rob at August 3, 2005 06:45 PMAre you calling into question the Big Dog's and my taste in women?
Yes! On both counts.
Posted by muckcat at August 3, 2005 06:57 PMGott im Himmel!
Nina Hagen?
Posted by muckcat at August 3, 2005 07:01 PMNear as I can tell, The Big Dawg's preference in women was for women who put out quickly.
Back when I was in the dating market, that was one criterion, sure; but TBD seemed to view it as controlling law. And, of course, he wasn't technically in the dating market at the time.
On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have killed hundreds of U.S. troops in a debacle based on lies. So I guess, on balance, I could have coped with a Gore presidency.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 07:20 PMFat ankles!
I luv a woman with chubby ankles!
Uuuuuuuummmmmmm!
Posted by Big Dog at August 3, 2005 07:55 PMmister president, put that thing away.
Posted by benjoya at August 3, 2005 08:36 PMbenjoya:
and FWIW, i'd hit it, too. (mcdougal not miller-eeewwww!) and i get out plenty. fiesty, married, politically connected southern chick in skirt and handcuffs? come on!
Hell yeah with the handcuffs! That's what I'm talkin' about.
(Okay, the womenfolk here can unclench now. I'm being uncouth and sexist because it's funny.)
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 3, 2005 09:32 PMI hope Fitzgerald renews the Grand jury in October just so she can rot in jail a few more months. She has the blood of 2,000 dead US soldiers on her hands. She's despicable.
Posted by aj at August 3, 2005 10:24 PMJudith Miller is hiding the name of Dick Cheney, she's afraid for her family, we must help her realize that Dick, is a Dumbass and her family would understand.
Posted by Professional Progressive at August 3, 2005 10:57 PMI hope Fitzgerald renews the Grand jury in October just so she can rot in jail a few more months.
I take Fitzgerald at his word when he says he plans to file criminal contempt charges if she doesn't crack.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 4, 2005 05:59 AMI had the same position when Clintons business partner was in jail obstruction of justice.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at August 3, 2005 01:32 PM
I'm getting into this somewhat late, but I'd like to point out one thing different about Susan McDougal and Judy Miller:
That Vast Right-Wing Media Conspiracy that was calling for McDougal's head back during the Whitewater investigation is today calling for Fitzgerald's. Susan the Sinner has been replaced by St. Judy of NYT even though the legal basics of both situations, i.e. the witness refusing to testify, are identical.
Just another example of wrong-wing hypocrisy.
Posted by pessimist at August 4, 2005 09:44 AM