Beldar - Hypothetically, If I'm representing Scooter Libby, then among my jobs as his counselor is to help him make informed, rational decisions that are in his own personal best interests. I don't let Scooter Libby, for example, make, and then publicly repeat, a broad waiver of his "rights" (really, expectations) as a confidential source unless I'm absolutely certain that Mr. Libby (who's unlikely to be a fool himself, having risen to the position of chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States) has indeed had a full and ample opportunity to consider all the pros and cons, all the upsides and downsides, of that decision. I play devil's advocate with him; I help him explore best- and worst-case scenarios; I help identify all his alternatives, so that he can exercise his informed judgment according to his free will. That's my job as his lawyer.
I also make sure he doesn't make, and then publicly repeat, a broad waiver of his "rights" as a confidential source unless I've also made my own independent determination that he also has the full capacity to make an informed decision and exercise his free will. If I suspect, for example, that he's suffering from temporary insanity, or under the influence of LSD, or mentally retarded, or under hypnosis, or has an improvised explosive device wired to his waist and Karl Rove's holding the detonator — in short, if I have any reason to believe, or even suspect, that my client might be unable to discern and act in his own rational self-interest, then I call a halt to the proceedings and I take appropriate action.
But comes now Judith Miller of the New York-bleeping-Times, who goes prominently on record as saying, in so many words: "Never mind what my source says. I — the journalist, the goddess of the press — have the sole and absolute right to decide whether my source's waiver was or was not 'coerced.'" Because that was and still is Judith Miller's very clear position — not just that there had to be a waiver, and that it had to be voluntary and uncoerced, but that only she could decide whether it was voluntary or coerced.
(Leave aside for the moment that her apparent standard for "coercion" and "voluntariness" is unique, arbitrary, and absolutely contrary to law. The fact that Mr. Libby's waiver may have been motivated, in whole or in part, by a desire to avoid some bad consequence, e.g., being fired, does not invalidate his decision. If that were true, there could never be a valid guilty plea, for instance. If that were true, you could freely breach every contract by claiming, "Oh, well, I was coerced into breaking my promise because I suddenly realized it would be disadvantageous to me to keep it.")
Just on its face, that's an incredibly insulting position to take. That's equivalent to Judith Miller saying: "Scooter Libby is drunk, retarded, or otherwise incapable of making a rational, binding decision on his own, and his lawyer is too damned stupid, unethical, and unprofessional to recognize that and do anything about it. Whatever they say, it doesn't count." In fact, it's hard for me to imagine a more self-righteously patronizing and repugnant position that she could have taken.
And now she blames Libby and his lawyers for not going out of their way to explain to her that she was acting stupidly?
Please. Bring me the world's smallest violin. |
