The “Alice in Wonderland” atmosphere that surrounds the matter of Valerie Plame got a little weirder this week with the jailing of one reporter and the sudden decision by another to testify to a grand jury.
Plame is the CIA agent whose name was made public in a conservative writer’s column in July 2003, setting off a probe that’s become a full-blown confrontation between the judicial system and media.
Columnist Robert Novak first published Plame’s name, setting off speculation that an official had leaked it in retaliation for a 2003 New York Times column her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote criticizing the Iraq war.
Revealing the identify of a CIA agent is a federal crime, so special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was named to investigate.
Reporters Judith Miller of The Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine got caught up in Fitzgerald’s net. Cooper later published an item mentioning Plame; Miller looked into the matter but never wrote anything.
Fitzgerald wanted to know who talked to them. Both refused to say, standing on the journalistic principle of not disclosing the name of a confidential source without the source’s permission.
The matter went to the Supreme Court, which declined to get involved. Last week, Cooper’s employer, Time Inc., gave his notes to the grand jury. Wednesday, Cooper said he’d also testify because his source had said it was OK. Miller stood firm, defied a court order and was sent to jail.
Amidst all the furor, key questions remain unanswered.
What’s taking so long? The probe has lasted 18 months, but it’s not like Fitzgerald is unraveling Enron’s finances.
What exactly is Fitzgerald trying to do – actually find the leaker (or leakers), prosecute officials who may have lied to him, or hound reporters? He won’t say.
What about Novak, the one who published the leak? He and prosecutors won’t say if he’s been subpoenaed, has talked informally or given any information.
Why is The Times making a stand in a case that involves not serious whistleblowers but, as The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz aptly put it, “political insiders seemingly bent on partisan mischief”?
The courage of Miller and The Times in standing up for their principles is admirable. Their stand is valuable both for defense of journalistic principles and for the need for somebody to stand up to a seemingly runaway prosecutor.
