In ancient times, a woman named Judith slipped into the tent of an oppressor and took off his head with two great whacks. In more recent times, a woman named Judith entered the tent of an oppressor, and...well. I don't think we can say that she took head.emptywheel suggests that Judith Miller's source for the pre-9/11 warning of an upcoming terror attack is none other than Richard Clarke. The argument is rather persuasive:
Finally, we know that Clarke is close enough to Judy to have visited her in jail, along with two of his pre-9/11 Counter-Terrorism staffersHere's my problem. If Clarke is the guy, why didn't Judy just say so? Clarke "came out" as a Bush critic a long time ago.
Another thought. Zacaraias Moussaoui went to jail, and very nearly went to his maker, because he knew about the plot and did nothing to stop it. Zack and Judy are different because...well, just what is the big difference between the two?
3 comments:
When we're standing in the rubble of what used to be a great nation, I will gladly unlock ZM's cell and let him go on his crazy merry way.
His cell will be needed for more culpable persons.
yeah, joe; i began raising that question in an earlier comment. isn't what she withheld sort of very real national security? i mean, wouldn't a journalist be a citizen first and run to the police/fbi/whatever before they consider the story? something's wrong here.
i don't know the rules (such as they appear to be 'rules') for journalism, but in other professions where there are certain privileges for confidentiality, you are NOT exempted for crimes that are PLANNED to happen. i honestly do not believe that a priest is allowed to remain silent if in confession, someone tells him he's on his way to rob a bank. if he just finished the job and is confessing that, sure; but in a position to PREVENT a crime, i do believe we are ALL under moral and legal obligation to do what we can to prevent it.
that being said, unirealist....i'd have to say that, gosh, the fact that we are having these conversations about such patently obvious matters suggests to me that we are already standing in rubble of a once great nation. everyone's throwing around all these shards of our constitution as if they mean anything without the overarching principles in place. without those overarching principles, the little shards become deadly weapons, i fear.
A priest may not break the seal of the confessional under ANY cirumstances. No exceptions. None. He will of course counsel a criminal not to commit a planned crime, but that is the extent of what he can do. I suppose it is possible that a priest might be able to do something preventative without breaking his vow, although it is hard to see how such circumstances might arise.
Leo Taxil, the French genius who pulled the world's gretest prank at the expense of the Catholic Church, once tested the institution of the confessional by "confessing" to a couple of then-infamous murders he never committed. Not one word of his alleged role in the crimes ever reached the public.
Post a Comment