Pretending I'm Judith Miller; and that it is July, 2003.

I received a subpoena for my testimony from Chief Justice Fitzgerald regarding United States v. Libby today. The court is aware that I was informed of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA Operative before Robert Novak published this information in his column “Mission to Niger” on July 14, 2003. I have various reasons why I will refuse to obey Fitzgerald’s subpoena. These reasons are grounded in my convictions in what I believe to be the necessary ethics and standards for journalistic pursuit.

I don’t believe I have absolute freedom as a journalist to pursue information; neither do I believe I have absolute freedom to decide whether or not such information should be published. I realize, as Philip Meyer contends in his essay “Privacy, News Sources, and the Refusal to Testify” that my freedom to swing my fist ends where another’s nose begins; metaphorically, this means that my freedom to gather and report information begins and ends in service to the local, national, and global community. Freedom stops where I am no longer serving this end. The purpose of my stubborn decision to keep the confidentiality of my sources, protected to me under the First Amendment, is not for the sake of my pride as a journalist; nor am I intending to serve the means of my profession in disregard for the end of my profession. Rather, by refusing to testify before a Grand Jury and admit my source of information, I am serving the means and the end of my profession.

I understand that oftentimes the press’s pursuit and report of information, as well as their protection of the confidentiality of their sources can destroy the goal of preserving freedom in a society. Most journalists are not such ignorant absolutists – even the First Amendment Center admits that there exist some cases where disclosure of sources is permitted and necessary. My testimony, however, is not pertinent in this case – by pertinent I mean that it is not necessary to solve this case, nor will anyone suffer as a result of my refusal. Rather, the trustworthiness of my profession, as well as my personal reputation for trustworthiness will suffer by my disclosure. I am not destroying order, or hurting anyone’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness by my refusal. If I testify how will the loyalties that I have worked so hard to build for myself and for my publication suffer?

The blaring facts of this case justify my position: I did not write the article that disclosed Plame’s position in the CIA. That I knew the information is a result of my investigative skills. It is my intellectual property; consequently, it is necessary to carefully consider the facts of the case. I cannot see where the government is justified in sending me a subpoena. I am not interfering with the rights or freedoms of another. Rather, my aim is to keep my source confidential in order to continue to preserve the individual’s pursuit of such ideals through good journalism.