The Judy-Miller-Valerie-Plame-Scooter-Libby controversy is as convoluted as it is important. As was explored in this week's "Miller the Martyr?" series, a great deal of hedging of principles has gone on from a surprising variety of people on both sides of the political aisle.
The liberal establishment has been understandably eager to skewer the Bush Administration on an alleged disclosure that looks to be hugely vindictive and irresponsible. But in its justified outrage (and understandable glee), the Left has been too willing to ignore Constitutional principles for political convenience.
The Bush Administration, with its usual cavalier attitude toward the First Amendment, employed the questionable practice of offering "blanket waivers" in an effort to absolve reporters of all promises made to sources within the administration.
And Judy Miller, morally-ambiguous "martyr" of the whole scenario, ultimately agreed to testify - backing off from her own stated principles and setting an alarming journalistic precedent in the process.
While Miller's desire to extricate herself from jail is certainly understandable, the implications of her decision are as far-reaching as the scandal itself. After 85 days in jail, Miller agreed to testify, accepting a so-called "waiver of confidentiality" from her source, Scooter Libby. (She allegedly refused to accept a very similar "waiver" before she went to jail, making her sudden decision to accept the "waiver" look like a product of exhaustion more than anything else.)
As New York Times Magazine political writer Matt Bai points out, the waiver has the capacity to create an impossible situation for potential sources: By making all possible sources sign a waiver releasing themselves from protection if they are the source, investigators can zero in on their target by process of elimination. Anyone who refuses to sign the waiver is implicated as the source. (Of course, this process doesn't work if all the potential sources are outraged by the waiver's First Amendment implications and refuse to sign, but such a scenario seems overly optimistic.)
There are two important things to keep in mind when weighing the potential implications of "waivering." First, there is the possibility that intense pressure will be exerted on the source to absolve the reporter of the commitment he or she made to confidentiality. Watching somebody go to jail to protect you is something most people would be inclined to try to prevent, for a start.
Furthermore, "waivering" would, in all likelihood, have an incredibly chilling effect on future potential confidential sources. The press today may be overly reliant on anonymous sources and too quick to grant anonymity to people who might be persuaded to go on the record. But the fact remains that some of the most important stories in journalism's history have started with anonymous sources, and intimidating future anonymous sources could have negative implications for the work of future journalists - and therefore, the future in general.
Finally, the liberal elite has been disappointingly lukewarm in its support for the freedom of speech issues which have surfaced in this saga. We should not change our commitment to the Constitution depending on who is served by upholding it. In its eagerness to catch the Bush administration in one of its many moral lapses, the liberal establishment's enthusiasm for vigorously defending the First Amendment has weakened.
In the face of an administration which regularly ignores, redefines and undermines the Constitution and the civil liberties enshrined there, liberals should recommit themselves to upholding the Constitution, regardless of the short-term implications.
Both parties need to seriously consider the long-term consequences of cutting Constitutional corners for political convenience. We are all served by a press that refuses to be intimidated.
