Kristof Argues Self-Defense, when the Crime is Murder

Today, Nicholas Kristof columnizes that the judiciary is in a broad assult against American press freedoms. A judge is fining a Rhode Island reporter $1K/day, and is threatening to throw him in prison, if he does not reveal where he got a video tape of a city official accepting an evelope of cash -- allegedly, a bribe.

That sounds like protected reportage. A crime was committed and caught on tape. Evidence of it was transmitted to the press by a confidential source, the press distributed that evidence. The confidential source should be protected by anonymity against revenge by the criminal (the city official) and from prosecution, because revealing corruption is a compelling social interest. Case closed.

He then goes on to NYTimes reporter Judith Miller -- who was told by a high Administration official that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. The confidentiality of this "source", Kristof asserts, should be equally protected as that who revealed corruption.

Hold on, here Nick: The crime in question is not that Valerie Plame is a CIA operative. Last I checked (this morning, about 8:35am EST), being a CIA operative is entirely legal. So, the conversation that Nick wants to claim "anonymous source" protection for doesn't serve a compellling social interest -- revealing and giving evidence of a crime. The crime in question is the conversation itself: between the high Administration official and Judith Miller. This doesn't make the high Administration official a source (transmitting evidence of a crime -- since, again being a CIA operative isn't a crime) -- since the "source" wasn't transmitting any evidence of a crime at all. The official was simply using Judith Miller to illegally reveal government secrets.

Ah, you say: but doesn't everyone who reveals secret information (like the Pentagon Papers, or that Plame is a spook) do so illegally? No. Like killing someone can be either murder or self-defense, revealing secret information can either further a compellling social interest (like self-protection of the republic) or work against social interest (like murdering a member of the public).

Some whistle blowers reveal information which furthers a compelling social interest -- and the law knows the difference. That the Pentagon was involved in a duplicitous fraud in selling the Vietnam war to the public --- telling lies about the status of the war -- is a crime, and revealing that crime furthers a compelling social interest. Self-defense.

There is no compelling social interest in revealing that Valerie Plame was a spy. It's purpose most likely was revenge by the high administration official on her husband. And there's no way that revelation could ever act even incidentally as serving an interest. It's just revenge. Murder.

In this case, the crime committed was the source's conversation with Judith Miller, and not that Plame is a spook. Judith is a co-conspirator in this crime if she does not reveal who the administration official is.

So this worries Judith that her revealing *any* source will make *all* sources dry up -- which is certainly against our society's interest. Judith: tell your sources, before they tell you, that they should motivited by the self defense of the Republic -- which judges will agree is a broad social interest -- and not the murder of the reputation of a defenseless individual like Valerie Plame, for their own selfish retribution.