Also, the Washington Monthly says,
There is a total absence of criminal intent on his part. He should not be put in jail.
He isn't going to jail for committing a crime. He's going to jail because he disobeyed a court order...it's a contempt of court order, not a crime. His criminal intent is irrelevant.
It seems like the Washington Monthly is saying "Don't send Matthew to jail because he's a good guy and our friend, while we don't like Judith Miller so do what you want with her."
If you are going to say there should be a reporter's privilege to withhold information from a criminal grand jury, then it should apply equally to Miller and Cooper.
Once again, the comment in the Robert Novak column that sparked this whole thing (NYTimes, Cirumspect Columnist, 12/31/04):
''Wilson never worked for the C.I.A., but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger.''
One other note not often mentioned any more: Tim Russert gave up his source in the investigation.
And what ever happened to Robert Novak? Isn't he still the best source of the information? It seems he got a pass.
- Did Novak get a subpoena? Did he take the 5th? Was he immunized and did he sing? Or, has special prosecutor Fitzgerald been dragging his feet in seeking an immunity order for Novak while he exhausts all other avenues? Who does Fitzgerald have in his cross-hairs besides Libby, who has waived all confidentiality privileges?
- If Novak took the 5th, for what crime did he take it? Most people agree his publicizing Plame's identity was not a crime. The law prohibits disclosure by those with authorized access to classified information and the like, not to journalists, unless they habitually make such disclosures. Was there a cover-up attempted - did Novak initially agree to one?
I suspect the pressure will be on Cooper's source to allow Cooper to reveal the name of the senior White House official to the Government so Cooper can avoid jail. If the guy (or woman) is so high up he or she won't allow it, who do you think it might be? I have my suspicions.
Update: The Washington Post has a few succinct points on the reporters' cases:
First: a description of the issue involved
[Does]a prosecutor's search for the truth in a criminal investigation outweighs a reporter's need to protect anonymous sources.
Second: Each side's position:
[Miller and Cooper] argued that they could not do their jobs if they broke their promise of anonymity to sources who provided a look inside an increasingly secretive government. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald argued that he could not investigate crimes if reporters had a special right to hide information that other citizens did not.
Third: Cooper's current position (via Time and the Post)
Time magazine released a statement saying that Hogan should reconsider jail time because Fitzgerald's investigation has "changed substantially." It appears that the prosecutor has concluded that the crime he was originally investigating did not occur, Time contended, because government officials did not realize they were revealing the name of an undercover agent. To commit a crime, an official must knowingly disclose an undercover agent's identity.
Now, Time said, Fitzgerald appears to be investigating whether an official lied during his investigation. "Such an investigation of obstruction of justice or perjury may not rise to the level that justifies disclosure of information from or about a reporter's confidential sources under federal common law," Time's statement said.
Update: Kudos to Kevin Drum for having the guts to disagree with the Washington Monthly, when his blog is hosted by them.
No, I don't agree with Charlie (or, apparently, the entire rest of the Monthly staff). I've never met either Matt Cooper or Judith Miller, but I don't think their personal likability should be an issue one way or the other in this case.
Despite that, I agree 100% with Garance Franke-Ruta and Armando that liberal blog readers ought to change their tune on this issue posthaste. You either support the right of reporters to shield their sources or you don't, and your opinion shouldn't vary based on whether (a) you dislike the reporters in question or (b) you'd like the information they're hiding to become public because you think it would be embarrassing to George Bush.