I wish to correct something that Jimmy Wong wrote in his letter Miller's case one about reporters falling prey.

In his letter, Wong suggests that I argued that Judith Miller had violated the law by publishing an article leaking the name of the CIA agent ('Surely Oon must have known that Miller actually did not write the story leaking the name of the CIA operative Valerie Plame').

I did not argue in my letter that Miller violated the law by writing an article about Plame. What I pointed out was that she violated the law by refusing to testify when subpoenaed by the court.

To defy a subpoenae is a violation of the law. That is a matter of fact not an opinion. And yes, Wong, from a legal standpoint, it is cut and dried.

No one, including Miller herself or the New York Times disputes that she has defied the law. In fact, both Miller and the NYT acknowledge (the former in court and the latter in an editorial) that she is in fact breaking the law, but they maintain she is doing so as a matter of civil disobedience.

I respect Wong's right to make whatever value judgments he wishes about the case. Those are his opinions and he's surely entitled to them. But he is either very careless or very mischievous when he mis-states what I actually said in order to make his case of my 'naivete' about the issue.

If you want to debate the issue, Wong, bring it on. We can do it point by point. But don't put words in my mouth. It's unethical. And it's pretty naive of you to think you can win that way.