Judge jails lass for protecting sources

NEW YORK Times reporter Judith Miller has found herself in jail tonight for refusing to reveal her sources, and she may rot there until she relents, showing that the quality of mercy is not strained by Judge Tom Hogan, a man whose power to jail people really ought to be restrained.

Hogan said Judith Miller might change her mind after spending time in the clink until October, and that's why he consigned her to the clink. But we sincerely hope she stands her ground, and that Amnesty International takes up her cause as a prisoner of conscience.

In contradistiction, and contrariwise, the man from Time magazine, Matthew Cooper, who also faced time if he refused to reveal his sources, capitulated to the authorities and told Mr Hogan he would testify.

His excuse was his source had recused himself from the obligations enforced by the judges. But then Time had already showed its lily livered nature by turning over everything it had to the authorities.

The New York Times is standing by its lass. Good for it. It reported she said: "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press." The right to this is fundamental to the US system, and based on conscience, she added, before bailiffs led her away to some clink or other.

New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger said that times occurred when the greater good of democracy demanded an act of conscience. Hogan agreed that the original sentence was meant to coerce the hacks into revealing their sources. But the special prosecutor in the case, according to the New York Times, must have read about Robespierre and the reign of terror in France. Because he is suggesting the two hacks might face criminal prosecution. Star Chamber, or what? µ

L'INQ
New York Times