Reporter jailed for refusal to name leak source
Times’ Miller disobeyed order to testify on disclosure of CIA agent’s name

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8417075/

Updated: 4:49 p.m. ET July 6, 2005

WASHINGTON - A U.S. judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail Wednesday for refusing to divulge her source in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.

"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.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper said.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, told reporters after Miller's jailing, "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity." He called Miller's decision a choice "to take the personal burden of being in jail" rather than breaking her promise of confidentiality to her source.

Miller could be held until October
Unless Miller decides to talk, she will be held until the grand jury ends its work in October. The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.

Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it "a sad time."

"My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong," Cooper added. "I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today."

Last week, Time magazine said it was delivering Cooper's notes to the special prosecutor investigating who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of undercover Plame.

"Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it," New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told reporters.

"Judy Miller has not been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime," Abrams said. "She has been held in civil contempt of court."

The prosecutor, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, opposed a request that Cooper and Miller to be granted home detention — instead of jail — for remaining tight-lipped about their sources.

Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy the court order.

Clash between media, government
The case is among the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Supreme Court in 1971 refused to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers.

This time, the high court refused to hear the reporters’ appeal.

In a statement released last week, Time said it believes “the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society.”

But it also said that despite its concerns, it would turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.

“The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity,” the statement said.

Novak says he ‘will reveal all’ eventually
Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, has been investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame’s identity days after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly undercut the president’s rationale for invading Iraq.

Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

Novak told CNN he “will reveal all” after the matter is resolved, adding that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Cooper wrote a story subsequently about Plame. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story.

Time turned over Cooper's notes and other documents last week, four days after the Supreme Court refused to consider the case. Cooper's attorneys argued that producing the documents made it unnecessary for him to testify.

Contempt enforcement portrayed as essential
In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

Miller's lawyers argue that there are no circumstances under which she will talk, but Fitzgerald disagreed.

"There is tension between Miller's claim that confinement will never coerce her to testify and her alternative position that this court should consider less restrictive forms of confinement," the prosecutor wrote.

Time magazine is part of the media company Time Warner Inc.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.