This is in response to ("Stickin' to it" SN 7/11). Although I must agree with the author's promotion of protecting the integrity of a journalist's right to keep sources confidential in order to elicit valuable disclosure of information, the Judith Miller case must be distinguished.

The major issue missed by the public and media in this fiasco is that the "anonymous source" at issue disclosed classified information, which can be a serious criminal offense. There is no justification for illegally and publicly compromising the identity of a clandestine operative of the U.S. intelligence community; that's why it is a felony to do so.

Nobody in the U.S. government has the actual or moral authority to disclose this type of information, particularly to the media. The "protected" source of this information could not have had an expectation to rely on their confidential agreement with a reporter while knowing that the disclosure of the information was in and of itself a serious crime.

The court in this case did not order Miller to disclose her source to attack the content or veracity of the source's information but rather to determine whether or not a crime was committed.

A source cannot hide behind the right of a free press in order to prevent a criminal investigation in which the disclosure to the press is at the heart of the issue. Bottom line, the source's obligations under their national security clearance trumps any obligation a reporter might feel they have to the source's anonymity.

John Bails
2000 graduate, vice consul U.S. Embassy in Jamaica