<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[THE LOGIC OF&nbsp;FITZGERALD]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m as intrigued as anybody by the identity of the person who called Matt Cooper today to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt;_ylt=Ak_5UsIBOuT3A8FnF1RlU06s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-" target="_blank">release him</a> from the pledge of confidentiality he gave as a journalist to a source. The suspicion, obviously, is that Cooper&#8217;s source is not the same as Miller&#8217;s. I&#8217;m in awe of Miller&#8217;s courage as she faces jail; and equally dumbfounded by the zeal of the prosecutor. This quote from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald struck me: &#8220;Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality &#8211; no one in America is.&#8221; Does that mean, for example, that the doctor-patient and priest-confessee confidentiality pacts are now up for grabs by zealous prosecutors? Or that between two spouses? Just asking.</p>
]]></html></oembed>