Judith Miller--The wrong line in the sand

David Ignatius has the best response from the MSM I have seen on Judith Miller. While he is upset that one of his peers is in jail he thinks this was a Bad Case for a Fight. He has a couple of good reasons why.

• With the Valerie Plame leak investigation, the press has planted its flag on the least favorable ground to fight the larger battle for confidentiality. This is a case in which the sources weren't disclosing wrongdoing by others but were allegedly doing wrong themselves by blowing the cover of a CIA officer.


• We should begin by agreeing that the reporter-source privilege isn't absolute -- any more than attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege. The American Bar Association's code of ethics recognizes, for example, that the confidentiality of conversations between an attorney and client is limited by what's known as the "crime fraud exception." The privilege can be breached if the attorney learns his client is planning to commit a crime or if the attorney is himself participating in a crime or fraud.

As I have said earlier Judith Miller was not protecting a whisleblower but someone who was trying to punish a whisleblower and perhaps trying to cover up their own wrong doing. The New York Times and Judith Miller have damaged the proper use of reporter-source privilege by attempting to misuse it.