Advertisement

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 AM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234

New York Times’ Issues Sentencing Guidelines

Monday, August 15, 2005  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt
Advertisement

The New York Times argues for the release of Judith Miller today, stating that her 41 day iron-man performance should be enough to persuade the court that she won’t talk and thus making her continued imprisonment futile.

Susan McDougal spent two years in jail for her refusal to answer Ken Starr’s questions before a grand jury, and ad hoc declarations of “timed served” make no sense outside of an articulated rule. The Times should share with its readers exactly who is above the law in the world of journalism –do bloggers count, for example– and if there are any Americans so privileged as to refuse to answer questions put to them by a prosecutor in the course of a criminal investigation. I’d also like to see the Times lay out the specifics of how long each category of miscreant would have to serve before we knew there was no point in perpetuating the imprisonment.

I think any of the Fraters would crack in a week given the lack of beer in such facilities. Ditto Bainbridge because of the wine. Lileks wouldn’t budge, but he’d drive his jailers to plead with the court. MichelleMalkin would stay long enough to get a Dylan song written about her. I am not sure if Glenn would notice he was in jail. The Powerline lawyers wouldn’t have lost the case in the first place.

Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Sierra Pacific Mortgage
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top