Facts left out in Judith Miller case
Jimmy WongPublished: Jul 26, 2005 4:56 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Oon Yeoh rebutted my criticism of his take on the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller by telling me to stop 'putting words in his mouth'. Permit me to respond.
To begin with, it was hard not to put words in his mouth the first time around. And I gladly risk doing it again here.
When the New York Times took the position of civil disobedience, it suggested there is a grey area in the law on source confidentiality. It is in the vein of what I take Jane Doe to mean in her response to Oon that a law could still be a bad one. Laws are not carved in stone. As social construct, they can be revised or junked.
I earlier presented several facts to argue my point about why Miller's case was not as straightforward as Oon made it out to be. The first was Miller did not actually write the story about CIA operative Valerie Plame.
I earlier indicated that Oon did not mention this at all. This particular fact was what got him to take offence with me. But why did he omit it in the first place? Is it not important to the case?
On the other hand, staunch Republican columnist Robert Novak, who wrote the story leaking the CIA operative using two unidentified sources, was not hauled up. Again, Oon omitted this fact.
The final fact I presented to argue that source confidentiality has been a grey area in the US is that the Federal Court judge ruled in favour of Miller in another case in February, thereby allowing reporters the right not to have to disclose confidential sources.
Let me also present another fact here, this time regarding civil disobedience, to further my point. Civil disobedience was practised by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Why? Because they found the laws in their countries seriously flawed or wrong (or, in more neutral words, a 'grey area').
Civil disobedience was a way far better way - than use of violence, as most would agree - to address the situation.
Oon should stop telling others who disagree with him to stop putting words in his mouth. He did not present the facts of the Miller case adequately to begin with. He asked for it.
To begin with, it was hard not to put words in his mouth the first time around. And I gladly risk doing it again here.
When the New York Times took the position of civil disobedience, it suggested there is a grey area in the law on source confidentiality. It is in the vein of what I take Jane Doe to mean in her response to Oon that a law could still be a bad one. Laws are not carved in stone. As social construct, they can be revised or junked.
I earlier presented several facts to argue my point about why Miller's case was not as straightforward as Oon made it out to be. The first was Miller did not actually write the story about CIA operative Valerie Plame.
I earlier indicated that Oon did not mention this at all. This particular fact was what got him to take offence with me. But why did he omit it in the first place? Is it not important to the case?
On the other hand, staunch Republican columnist Robert Novak, who wrote the story leaking the CIA operative using two unidentified sources, was not hauled up. Again, Oon omitted this fact.
The final fact I presented to argue that source confidentiality has been a grey area in the US is that the Federal Court judge ruled in favour of Miller in another case in February, thereby allowing reporters the right not to have to disclose confidential sources.
Let me also present another fact here, this time regarding civil disobedience, to further my point. Civil disobedience was practised by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Why? Because they found the laws in their countries seriously flawed or wrong (or, in more neutral words, a 'grey area').
Civil disobedience was a way far better way - than use of violence, as most would agree - to address the situation.
Oon should stop telling others who disagree with him to stop putting words in his mouth. He did not present the facts of the Miller case adequately to begin with. He asked for it.
View Comments0