Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (124543)	7/11/2005 11:08:57 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

"Plus she wanted to get her rep back from the debacle of her Iraq reporting." Could you possibliy provide links to these stories of hers that you refer to aa a debacle? I read the Times and dont remember her specifically being any worse or better than any of the others.

To: LindyBill who wrote (124543)	7/11/2005 11:14:48 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793955

Might even be a Pulitzer in it. Every privilege I am aware of exists for a reason, to protect secrets and confidences. Lawyer-client, physician-patient, confessor-penitent, husband-wife, etc. For example, the attorney-client privilege specifically prohibits revealing secrets and confidences if the revelation might harm the client, including mere embarrassment. In the briefs I linked, the prosecutor stated that Judy Miller has no right to protect someone who has committed a felony. He further stated that the source has given his name to the Grand Jury and a waiver to Miller. Well, maybe there's an abstract principle to protect, not a secret or confidence, but if so, it's a tempest in a teapot.