Another Zenger Trial

Amendment I from the United States Consitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So in the true spirit of democracy, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declined to hear the case of two reporters regarding confidentiality of sources, opening the way for up to 18 months in prison for Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine.

The NYTimes reports:

The United States Supreme Court declined yesterday to hear the cases of two reporters facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about conversations with their confidential sources.

And their official statement on behalf of their reporter Judith Miller includes:

We are very disappointed in the Supreme Court's determination not to review this very vital and controversial case; we fully support the position of Judith Miller and her decision to honor the commitment she made to her sources......

Judith Miller said, "I am extremely disappointed. Journalists simply cannot do their jobs without being able to commit to sources that they won't be identified. Such protection is critical to the free flow of information in a democracy."

Some of the bloggers disagree (Atrios of Eschaton & Armando of DailyKos), but they all fundamentally believe in the importance of journalistic confidence. Watergate couldn't have been broken by the Washington Post (as detailed in one of my favorite books by my favorite nonfiction author) without anonymous sources.

I'm not commenting on this specific case. But I will say that this sets a really really REALLY bad precedent for the future of the free press. Well, as "free" as the corporate conglomerates can be. A shrewd enough administration (and God knows what Karl Rove can and would do) can take this as a "mandate" from the Supreme Court, kind of like a virtual ruling. Then they can claim the right to prosecute and incarcerate journalists that write exposes on the government using unnamed sources. I don't like it. It's a slippery slope.

Also on Monday, June 27...

Senator Frist, maybe try again in 2012?

Some nonpartisan analysts see deeper shortcomings in the way Frist approaches difficult issues, such as judicial nominees and Bolton. He sometimes compounds his problems, they say, with ill-timed comments and actions that a cannier Senate leader might have avoided. "We still see a bumpy learning curve," said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Spelling "Iraq": V-i-e-t-n-a-m

It will not come as much of a surprise to the Iraqis either. Even the optimists here in Iraq - and there are surprisingly many - do not expect life to improve for many years. The problem is with the American public. They have simply not been prepared for this sort of long-term commitment. Even in the course of just the last few days, the Bush administration and the professional military have been delivering mixed, often flatly contradictory, messages.