I booked a room at Rickey's Hyatt in Palo Alto for Nov 3 through 8.

It's a garden hotel, very nice, kind of old and funky.

Just like BloggerCon.

Hey, just like me!

I think Ed Cone and Adam Curry will stay there too.

Maybe this will be the official party hotel for BloggerCon III.

I'm sure we'll drink some Morning Coffee Notes, Daily Source Codes and Trade some Secrets there.

Update: Talked with Dave Luebbert who stayed there last weekend. He says the hotel is great, and their Wifi works great too.

# Posted by Dave Winer on 10/15/04; 8:28:15 PM - --

Earlier this week I was emailing with Martin Nisenholtz, an executive at the NY Times, about various technical subjects involving RSS and podcasting, when he suggested we talk on the phone.

He asked if I was up on the Valerie Plame case. I said I was.

I found out that I wasn't.

Background

First the background, involving five people:

1. Joseph Wilson, career diplomat.

2. His wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative.

3. Robert Novak, syndicated columnist.

4 & 5. Two anonymous senior administration officials.

Here's how the five people are connected.

1. Wilson wrote an article harshly critical of the Bush Administration's foreign policy on the New York Times op-ed page.

2. Novak wrote a column, citing the two officials, publicly exposing Plame, and presumably putting her life at risk, and the people she worked with in an undercover capacity.

An assumption and an observation

The senior administration officials, through Novak, are sending a signal to others who might criticize the Bush Administration from within that they play hard and for keeps, by risking a goverment operative's life and the lives of her sources.

It's ironic that Novak presumably is standing up for his own right to express his opinions, but in doing so sacrifices the rights of people like Wilson to do the same.

The new twist

Enter The New York Times and their reporter, Judith Miller.

In an editorial published in the October 10 Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and Russell Lewis said:

On Aug. 12, Ms. Miller received a subpoena in which she was required to provide information about conversations she might have had with a government official in which the identity and C.I.A. connection of Mr. Wilson's wife might have been mentioned.

The informants, #4 and #5 above, probably broke the law, and they should be prosecuted and if found guilty punished, says the court. We agree. It's possible that Mr Novak and Ms Miller agree, but they're not willing to say who it was. We don't know for a fact that Miller knows, but based on circumstances, and the editorial that ran in Sunday's Times, it seems like the tea leaves are arranged in such a way that we're supposed to draw that conclusion.

Now, if she does know who informed on Plame, should she reveal their names? And if not, what's her excuse? The courts have a right to subpoena records that are material to a criminal case and it's illegal to refuse the request. If a Times reporter, because she is doing her job, as Sulzberger argues, can say no to the court, why can't you or I? The Constitution (wisely, imho) doesn't create a branch of government for journalism, but reporters often act as if it did. In the age of citizen journalism and blogging, can the austere and distinguished Times ask for and receive special protection under the law?

And what about material evidence for the November 2 election? If it's true that Bush Administration is using dirty tricks to silence critics, playing with people's lives for crying out loud (something that as far as we know even Nixon didn't do), doesn't the electorate deserve to know? In other words, doesn't the Times have a responsibility to inform their readers? Isn't that their first responsibility?

A lot of issues are raised here, and meanwhile the clock is ticking. Is anything gained by Miller going to jail, ask Nisenholtz and Sulzberger. Answering dispassionately and as objectively as I can, I'm not sure that nothing is gained. It could be that by her doing so we will be reminded of the tough decisions truth-tellers have to make, not just reporters, but career diplomats and CIA operatives and judges. And reminded that our current government created this problem, and could solve it, without involving the courts. They could come clean and reveal the sources, remove the issue, and get back on the solid ground of integrity and the truth. Or, at least with the issue fully exposed in time for the election, the voters can decide if integrity is an important attribute of the Executive branch.

# Posted by Dave Winer on 10/15/04; 7:41:10 AM - --