By E&P Staff

Published: August 03, 2005 11:08 AM ET

NEW YORK The board of The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) has voted unanimously to reverse an earlier decision to give its annual Conscience in Media award to jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, E&P has learned.

The group’s First Amendment committee had narrowly voted to give Miller the prize for her dedication to protecting sources, but the full board has now voted to overturn that decision, based on its opinion that her entire career, and even her current actions in the Plame/CIA leak case, cast doubt on her credentials for this award.

The group’s president, Jack El-Hai, posted an explanation on an internal list-serve yesterday, noting the opposition from the rank and file, and also mentioning two other reasons for the unanimous vote:

* “A feeling that Miller’s career, taken as a whole, did not make her the best candidate for the award”

* “Divided opinions on the board over whether her recent actions merit the award.”

The American Society of Journalists and Authors is a 50-year-old group of some 1,100 non-fiction independent writers. The earlier vote by its First Amendment committee had already prompted at least one member of that panel to quit her position.

Anita Bartholomew, a freelance journalist who has contributed to Reader’s Digest, wrote in a resignation letter, “The First Amendment is designed to prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a government official or officials who attempted to use the press to retaliate against a whistleblower, and scare off other would-be whistleblowers, has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistleblowers. When your source IS the government, and the government is attempting to use you to target a whistleblower, the notion of shielding a source must be reconsidered. To apply standard practices regarding sources to hiding wrongdoing at the highest levels of government perverts the intent of the First Amendment.”

El-Hai told E&P at that time, “It is unusual to have this kind of disagreement about an award, but independent writers are a prickly bunch.”
——————————————————————————–
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

In the U.S. Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years for violating the Sedition Act of 1918; although President Warren Harding commuted his sentence after three years served. Two cases of political suppression to me. If I sound like a Pollyanna for defending the First Amendment, so be it.

However there is another story that is not being talked about. Now that the other reporter rolled over and told the court… Who ordered the Valarie Plame leak, and what is the white house doing to follow up on the why?

The truth is we all know “why” but where is our special investigator? Where is the liberal version of Ken Starr hounding this Administration? Certainly there is more real stuff to find now.

But just because Fitzgerald is a Bush appointment doesn’t necessarily mean he’s mixed up in something. I remember the slimy Starr, but I also remember Archibald Cox.

One can only hope. (-:

My main thing about protecting the First Amendment, is that conservatives may look at legal precedents differently than we might. Remember, Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney on this case is a republican and was appointed special prosecutor by John Ashcroft. Would somebody like Antonin Scalia(if he becomes C.J.), John Ashcroft, or Ken Starr care about protecting freedom of the press? Or would they use this as a clever way to circumvent the ’spirit of the law’. Katharine Gun, the British translator at the U.N. was charged under the Official Secrets Act. The case was dropped but she had gained international attention and embarrasing questions would have come to light. But what I am arguing is that under different circumstances, she may have gone to jail. The law doesn’t always work for the “good guys” like it should in the movies; it’s like a river sometimes(it goes where it wants to go). If the U.S. Supreme Court had really been conservative and into protecting states rights during the 2000 recount, it would have let the Florida Supreme Court’s decision stand and Gore might have been elected.

Bob Novak is the person who broke the story. Is the reason he’s not being sweated is because NBC has more juice than the NYT & Time?

Issue 1: Protection of coinfidentiality.
Issue 2: CIA operations and security.

I could honestly give a damn less if every CIA operation in the world were compromised (I don’t support US power over the world, the CIA isn’t all that good, anyway, and most intel now comes through ELINT from the NSA). But the issue has teeth, because there were likely two felonies - the outing itself, and perjury before a federal grand jury.

On issue 1, however, I would again point out thast these “rights” - contrary to all the claims to divine intervention - are actually careful (anthrogenic) legal constructions carried out in the evolution of liberal law, and interpreted for their legitimate application based on what these protections are designed to do. In the case of confidentiality, most legal scholars agree that this principle exists to protect the people from abuses by the state… and the Watergate/Ellsberg cases fit this criterion. In the case of Plame, there is very good circumstantial evidence (which is all a grand jury needs) that this confidentiality was being used not to protect anyone from abuse of power by the state, but as an actual exercise of abusive state power… the exact opposite of confidientiality’s own presumed rationale.

If this is the rationale cited in the decision rendered by the court against Miller — that theri stuation does not fit the criterion precisely because the crime in question was an abuse of state power and the manipulation of the media by the state, then this does not, IMO, constitute the legal scratch that will turn into the pantopticon gangrene.

Cheny or Libby (or both) were engaged in a felonious conspiracy as officials of the state, not as whistleblowers. If anyone has seen the actual transcripts of this case, it might be helpful to know what the basis was for the decision before we all start locking oursleves in the First Amendment Panic Room.

To my knowledge, Miller and Cooper are not guilty of writing and printing the story(as under an Official Secrets Act) they could be, but of comtempt of court because they, along with Novak, are the only known witnesses(and only leads) to solving this case. Fitzgerald must prove in court that someone knowingly revealed the covert identity of a U.S. intelligence operative who was still working in the field in an active capacity and used these reporters as a means of wrecking her career. Not to say putting the lives of people she was working with in danger and maybe destroying years of careful planning and slow progress.