For over a year US citizens watched as Judith Miller was called to testify in the investigation into leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame’s identity. We watched Miller refuse to give testimony against the divulgence of a confidential source, go to jail for it, and finally agree to make an appearance before the grand jury. This whole fiasco, however, could have been avoided if Ms. Miller did indeed receive a waiver from her source, I. Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, allowing her to testify. During the 1960s, activists and youth across the country protested the Vietnam War. They stood for a cause, fought for it, and in some cases died doing so. People generally look back and recognize the legitimacy of their claim against the injustices of the war. Had these activists instead lived in a peaceful decade and begun a war to create reason for protest, history would surely judge them harshly. Inventing a cause as a personal attempt to achieve fame is vastly different from standing up to fight an injustice that plagues society at large and for which there are personal anecdotes of wrongdoings and civil courage. When Ms. Miller was subpoenaed in August 2004, Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, claimed to have given Ms. Miller his client’s permission to testify. Mr. Tate recently wrote in an email that he “never once suggested that she should not testify…it was just the opposite. [he] told [Ms. Miller’s attorney] Mr. Abrams that the waiver was voluntary.” Ms. Miller and Mr. Abrams didn’t contact Mr. Libby or Mr. Tate for a year. She seems to have wanted direct reassurance from Mr. Libby himself that he supported her testifying. But, puzzlingly, she did not respond to Mr. Tate’s waiver. The New York Times reported on October 16 that “Ms. Miller said in interview that she was waiting for Mr. Libby to call her, but he never did.” Ms. Miller claims she “interpreted the silence as, ‘Don’t testify.’ “ A year, however, is a long time to wait without any attempt to contact the necessary people to determine if the waiver was actually from Mr. Libby and if she could really testify. A month ago I might have defended Ms. Miller for standing for reporter-source confidentiality. As the facts come forth though there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Ms. Miller intentionally ignored the waiver and went to jail over a non-issue in an attempt to attract media attention. There is no respect in masquerading self-interest as protecting privacy and honoring integrity. Being subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury is no small thing, especially in a case with reaches into the president’s cabinet, and affect the entire nation. After receiving permission to testify Miller did not, under the claim of protecting a source. She has thus prolonged the case and stolen publicity that should be focused on Plame, Karl Rove, and Mr. Libby. Despite this, Ms. Miller is to be given the First Amendment award from the Society of Professional Journalists on October 18. The whole case is an investigation of the government’s involvement in wrongfully and illegally leaking Valerie Plame’s name in response to her husband’s public criticism of the war in Iraq. In addition to freedoms of speech and of the press, the first amendment also speaks of people’s right to petition for the government to redress their grievances. Ms. Miller has evidently obstructed the investigation of Valerie Plame’s and her husband’s accusations against the Bush administration. Ms. Miller deserves no award. Egotism should be portrayed and recognized for what it is.
