SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy who wrote (242101)7/19/2005 9:45:04 AM
From: Alighieri  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575624
 
The information in question is not news for public dissemination. In fact, it's the opposite. It's a secret that the public is not supposed to know.

I agree with this, although the consequence of revealing the source would/could have a chilling effect on future whistle blowing.

I wonder if Ms. Miller's secret source informed her that upon receiving the "confidential information" that she was quite possibility participating in the violation of federal law?

I don't think she was breaking the law for just hearing the name, unless she passed it on. She is in prison for refusing to testify before the grand jury and reveal the name(s) of her source. I have a feeling that the prosecutor is trying to build a case against more than one person, and Miller's testimony may be critical in nailing them (Novak for example?)

Al



To: Elroy who wrote (242101)7/19/2005 9:45:37 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1575624
 
I don't expect to change your mind... just pointing out the justification. Ms. Miller obviously feels strongly about the principle, as she is in jail indefinitely.

On the other hand, you would think that you would also rail against the administration for not outing their own. The reporter and NYT are at least standing up for a principle (misguided or not); what is the White House standing for? The principle of protecting your own?

John