I read the Times piece on Miller, and I'm waiting for the double-secret backdoor (thanks, Alex) to open Judy's personal saga--which is being kept behind the Select wall--so I just have a couple of quick questions: if Judy doesn't remember who gave her Victoria Flame's name, what are the grounds for refusing to testify? How can you claim to be protecting a source if you don't remember the source? Doesn't this amount to saying reporters should never be required to testify because they promise confidentiality to someone, somewhere, sometime, even if it's not to the subject of an investigation? Hell, Mob guys do that.
On occasion I give my word not to reveal something or other. Should that exempt me from testifying? Aren't there First Amendment implications if I do so? Chilling effects on the social benefits of the free exchange of information, or something?
Okay, that was several questions, but I guess the real one is this: how'd the Times ever find itself in the position of having to defend Judy Miller as a "journalist"?