Jimmy Wong seems to confuse a letter to the editor with a column. If he wishes to read my column on the Judith Miller situation, which was published in the Sun , he can do so here .

When I wrote my letter to the editor, I was highlighting a specific point regarding the Miller case and not doing an overview of the whole situation. My point, as I had mentioned before, is that Miller had indeed violated the law - not by publishing an article (which she did not do) but by defying a subpoena.

Wong argues that a law can be a bad law. And that laws can be reviewed and changed over time. No arguments there. But what is the US law right now (at the federal level, not state level) with regards to confidentiality of sources?

True, 49 states have shield laws that protect journalists against having to reveal their sources. But this is not the case at the federal level. Perhaps there should be one. But there isn't. Not yet, anyway. And that is why Miller is in jail (her case was a federal one).

It's interesting that Wong seems to think the alleged crime relating to the leaking of Valerie Plame's name stems from whether a journalist published Plame's name or not. From the start, that has never been an issue. If a crime had been committed, it was committed by the leaker of the information, not the journalist.

Why Robert Novak is not in jail is a mystery to everyone since he is keeping his silence on the matter. It's widely assumed he testified to the grand jury if indeed he was subpoenaed. Until now, though, nobody knows for sure since both he and special prosecutor Patrick J Fitzgerald are mum on the matter.

What is certain is that the fact that he published her name is not a crime. I'd like to point out to Wong (since he obviously is not aware of this) that Fitzgerald is not investigating whether any journalist had committed a crime by revealing Plame's name. What Fitzgerald is investigating is whether a Bush administration official had committed a crime by violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

Now permit me to demonstrate why the logic of Wong's argument is flawed. If the alleged crime is the leaking of Plame's name to a journalist (which is what Fitzgerald's investigation is all about), there is only one witness to that alleged crime, and that is the journalist concerned.

If the special prosecutor is not allowed to question that journalist on who did the leaking (a potentially criminal act) how can the alleged crime possibly be investigated?

Let me end by giving Wong some advice:

  1. Know the facts: Understand what the alleged crime actually is.

  • Understand the difference between fact and opinion. That there is currently no federal shield law for journalists in the US is a fact. That there should be one is an opinion. You can argue your opinions until the cows come home, but facts can't be denied.

  • Unethical practices don't help your case. I don't know how you think admitting to lying enhances your credibility ('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.').

    • I don't plan to respond to future rebuttals by a self-confessed fabricator who boasts of putting words in my mouth to prove a point. I relish a good fight but Wong has made it too easy for me to expose what an amateur he is.

    The next time he writes a letter to the editor, he'd do well to remember the advice I have so kindly shared with him. Get your facts right, don't confuse opinions with facts and never fabricate things (but if you feel compelled to do so, don't be so silly as to boast about it).