One of the top stories these days (aside from storms and terrorism) is the plight of some U.S. journalists who might be going to jail to protect their sources. The Supreme Court refused to intervene, which reaffirms the notion that there is no magic shield that journalists can hide behind when they are asked to testify in court.

The sequence of events that led to this is as follows:
(1) George Bush says in the State of the Union a few years ago that Iraq attempted to buy nuclear materials from Niger, as one of the reasons to go to war
(2) Joseph Wilson writes a column that says he had previously traveled to Niger to investigate the claim, and he reported back to the U.S. government that the claim was probably false (forged documents and things). The President was repeating a claim to the American public that he knew to be false.
(3) Someone in the White House phoned several reporters to try to discredit Mr. Wilson - he only got the job because his wife, a CIA agent, recommended him for it. It's illegal to reveal the identity of an undercover agent.

Now, in 2005, a federal special prosecutor is forcing those reporters to testify in front of a grand jury to find out who the leak is. Some have refused and face a few months in jail. This has raised the question as to how much confidentialty a reporter can guarantee a source.

The Denver Post ran a column today that said, "Like most journalists, I operate by this principle: As whistle-blowers stop tweeting, corruption and incompetence in business and government fester."

I totally agree. We need a way to protect people who bring to light government corruption, lies and cover-ups. But who is the whistle-blower in this case? Joseph Wilson. Who is Judith Miller protecting in this case? White house officials who were trying to get retribution against Joseph Wilson.

Journalists should not be falling all over themselves to congratulate Judith Miller. She is not protecting the whistle-blower. Her actions will actually deter future whistle-blowers from coming forward.