No less a conservative than William Safire has taken to print to decry the Supreme Court's alarming abdication of responsibility in the case of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. The United States is sending journalists to prison, which puts us in the company of the likes of China, Russia and Iran. Apparently, that's a club we can't resist joining.
Perhaps the most alarming part is the comparative lack of outrage from the American press. The White House Press Corps can't seem to fall over itself fast enough to provide fawning wall-to-wall coverage of Bush's latest attempts to justify a policy (if one may stretch the word a bit to apply it here) gone straight to hell. The absence of critical engagement with this administration has been a hallmark of press coverage since the first days of the administration. Sure, it's unrealistic to hope for, but imagine if the entire press corps had turned its back en masse on Bush's dog and pony puffery yesterday in solidarity with their benighted colleagues.
What can you do? Well, for starters, check out PEN USA's Freedom to Write pages, where you can subscribe to alerts and find lots of first amendment links. You can also drop a line to that contemptible scumbag Robert Novak, who started this whole thing, and as Safire himself suggests, press him to "finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back." You can write to the Justice Department to express your outrage at the Independent Prosecutor's abuse of power. And you can also drop a line to one or more members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since senators live for chances to grandstand.
American journalists are going to prison. Not in 1950s Russia. Not in 1930s Germany. In 21st century America. Do something about it.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Maybe the lack of outrage has something to do with the fact that Judith Miller is almost universally loathed in her profession. Or that she wrote a lot of absolute nonsense about Saddam's WMD. Or it's because those who might otherwise get worked up about it really want to know who blew Valerie Plame's cover.
In principle, you're right, of course. Schadenfreude shouldn't trump free speech. And who wants to turn that c*nt into a First Amendment martyr?
Posted by: Len Vertig | June 29, 2005 at 02:40 PM
I'd begun to go in and remove your expletive (elided though it might be) when I realized that to do so in a post touting the First Amendment would be somewhat inconsistent. But I don't really care for that sort of language.
Still, I'm glad you see the wider point, however reluctantly - the first amendment is not a popularity contest, selectively applied to nice people. If it's not universal it doesn't work.
Personally, I think the leaks should be publicly exposed - as part of a legitimate bit of investigative journalism about how the Bush administration goes after its enemies using attack dogs like Novak. But that's should come from the press, not the goverment.
Posted by: TEV | June 29, 2005 at 02:56 PM
Okay, you've nudged my conscience. Sitting around saying 'ain't it awful?' while our freedoms vanish and good people pay the price for trying to defend them isn't enough. We have to act. All of us.
Posted by: Patry Francis | June 30, 2005 at 07:48 PM
Mark,
The First Amendment is designed to protect free speech, I thought. I didn't know it was intended to protect witnesses to crimes from having to testify about them.
f
Posted by: Fred Schoeneman | June 30, 2005 at 08:46 PM
Len: Why is Judith Miller "almost universally loathed in her profession"? Besides the WMD/Chalabi stuff, what else did she do to earn that universal loathing?
Posted by: M.G. | July 29, 2005 at 11:47 AM