At the Stockholm International Forum in January 2004, observing the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Genocide Convention, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared that there can be no more important issue and no more binding obligation than the prevention of genocide. When asked “if confronted with another Rwanda or a new Serebrenica, would the world respond effectively and in good time?” he replied “the day has not yet come.”

According to Professor Gregory Stanton, the President of Genocide Watch Coordinators, at least 55 genocides and politicides have taken place since the founding of the United Nations in 1945 in which about 75 millions have died, most of them murdered by their own governments — more than the deaths in all the wars combined.

In Rwanda in 1994, about 800,000 men, women and children of the Tutsi minority and moderate Hutus were slaughtered in just a hundred days. In the following year in Bosnia, some eight thousand Muslim men and boys were segregated by Serbs, taken out of Serebrenica and massacred. The United Nations had the capacity to prevent both genocides but lacked the will to do so.

In his statement in the thematic debate on the prevention of genocide held by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) at its 66th session last March, the SG’s special adviser on prevention of genocide warned that indicators of early warning of massive violations of human rights such as refugee outflows and hate speech directed at vulnerable populations, identify five countries most at risk and ten with a potential risk of massive violence based on national, ethnic, racial or religious grounds. But he did not name them.

The special adviser was appointed by the secretary-general last year to address the root causes of genocide and ethnic cleansing such as systematic and systemic discriminatory policies that endanger the right to exist of racial, ethnic, national, religious or other minorities such as indigenous peoples through policies or practices of exclusion, humiliation, dehumanization or oppression.

The special adviser’s mandate calls for him to act independently to give early warning with his recommendations through the secretary-general to the Security Council for early action to prevent potential situations that could result in genocide and to prevent and halt genocide. However, the special adviser interprets his mandate as not authorizing him to identify which violations such as war crimes and crimes against humanity would be tantamount to genocide.

The thematic debate was called for by me as a member of CERD at its preceding session last August. This committee consists of 18 members elected by 169 state parties to the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The committee monitors the implementation of the convention — whether they are complying with their obligation to ensure that their citizens enjoy civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights without any discrimination, on grounds of their race, colour, ethnicity, descent or national origin.

The participants in the debate which took place at its 66th session included members of CERD, other UN human rights bodies, the special adviser on prevention of genocide, the special Rapporteur on racism and xenophobia as well as international and national NGOs. The purpose of the debate was to activate civil societies and world public opinion into urging their governments to summon the will to prevent genocide and to suppress it if prevention fails.

On the tenth anniversary of the Rwanda genocide — April 7, 2004 — Kofi Annan, declaring that the risk of genocide remains frighteningly real, presented an action plan to the Commission of Human Rights. This action plan, inter alia, called for swift and decisive action, including military action by the UN Security Council in extreme cases, as a last resort to prevent or halt genocide. Earlier that year, in his address to the Stockholm international forum, Prime Minister Perssons of Sweden had empasized the need for a preventive strategy that must include action in the worst case when prevention fails and atrocities occur.

In September 2003, Kofi Annan had announced the appointment of a high-level panel of eminent personalities to focus on the current challenges to peace and security, including the best ways to respond collectively to threats of genocide or other comparable massive violations of human rights. The panel submitted its report in the first week of December last. With reference to prevention of genocide the panel observed that: “Where a state fails to protect its civilians the international community has a further responsibility to act through humanitarian operations, monitoring missions and diplomatic pressure — and with force if necessary though only as a last resort.”

Accordingly, the draft declaration on prevention of genocide presented by me to CERD includes a call for contribution by the developed countries of their own military contingents to peace enforcement operations besides funding by G7 developed nations to train, equip and provide logistic support to the contingents provided by developing countries. It also urges the UN to build the capacity of these contingents for more rapid deployment. At the present time, contingents earmarked by national armed forces cannot, on early warning, be deployed sufficiently in time to stem the blood dimmed tide of genocide.

The draft declaration considered it imperative to dispel the climate of impunity that is conducive to genocide, including war crimes and crimes against humanity by promptly referring their perpetrators to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

CERD adopted this draft Declaration on Prevention of Genocide with the addition of some important provisions such as developing national strategies for the prevention of genocide in close collaboration with civil society, national human rights institutions, non-state actors and the office of the high commissioner for Human rights. Another amendment calls for stronger interaction between human rights treaty bodies (namely CERD, the committees on civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, prohibition of discrimination against women and of torture, rights of the child and rights of migrant workers) and the Security Council to raise awareness of possible outbreak of violent conflict and genocide.

The declaration will be considered by the UN General Assembly at its summit session of heads of state and governments next September in the context of the consideration of the high level panel’s recommendations for its reform to enable the UN system to meet the threats and challenges to peace and security, violations of human rights and attainment of the millennium development goals, including substantial poverty reduction and extending education and health care by the year 2015, in the context of economic globalization which frequently has negative effects on disadvantaged communities and in particular on indigenous peoples.

Kofi Annan, though weakened by criticism of his management of the Iraq oil for food programme, has strongly supported the panel’s recommendations. Reviews have been generally positive but certain specific proposals such as those relating to the expansion of the UN Security Council, confront acute differences among the 191 member states of the UN.

Plan A which provides for the expansion of the present five permanent members with the right of veto by six new permanent members but without the veto right (aspirants include Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, South Africa and Egypt/Nigeria) is not likely to attract the two-thirds majority of 191 states to gain acceptance.

The alternative Plan B, which provides for no new permanent members and envisions the addition of eight for a four-year renewable term seats and one two-year term non-renewable seat to be divided among Asia, Africa, Europe and Americas seems likely to attract greater support.

Pakistan’s earlier advocacy of confining the expansion of the Security Council to only non-permanent members — by increasing their number from the present 10 rotating members serving a two-year term to 20 with the present five veto-wielding powers, though highly desirable for democratizing the United Nations and providing a greater opportunity for representation to the overwhelming majority of the UN member states aspiring for two-year rotating seats. But Pakistan will find it difficult to make headway in its principled approach given the post-9/11 international “power realities” — submission to big power domination at the cost of further erosion of the principle of sovereign equality of states, large or small.

Another example of the panel’s departure from principles to accommodate the privileged position of the big powers is its failure to take into account state terrorism regarding which international law is insufficient for dealing with military strikes by states causing the deaths of innocent civilians — the so-called “collateral damage.” A hundred thousand civilian deaths were caused by the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, thousands of Palestinians were killed in their refugee camps and the destruction of their homes and nearly a hundred thousand Kashmiris killed under the Indian occupation.

On the other hand, The panel condemns terrorism which it defines as “...any action intended to cause death or severe bodily harm to citizens or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing anything...”

Does this formulation rule out the legitimacy of national liberation struggles against alien occupation and foreign subjugation? Consensus on the panel’s definition which reflects the thinking of the great powers is another appeasing gesture towards them, perhaps with a view to rehabilitating the credibility and authority of the Security Council which was marginalized by the unilateralist preemptive use of force by the US war on Iraq. At least the panel has ruled out unilateralism in the case of prevention of genocide, reserving the use of military force exclusively to the multilateralist Security Council.

The writer is former foreign minister and a member of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

On December 16, 1971, East Pakistan’s Commander Lt. Gen. A.A.K. “Tiger” Niazi surrendered to an overwhelmingly larger invading Indian force under Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Arora. Pakistan was sundered. East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Pakistani forces had been concentrating at various points along the border and were ready to give the Indians a good fight.

However, the Indian army bypassed these pockets of concentrations and seeped through the extensive and porous 2,500 mile (4,000 km) border between East Pakistan and India.

Some strategists are of the view that instead of dispersing our troops so far away from the capital, we should have concentrated on the defence of Dhaka. This stratagem would have given us more time and permitted Pakistan at the United Nations to bring about a ceasefire and withdrawal of Indian forces across the international border. Another disingenuous view is that the Polish resolution at the UN should have been accepted by Pakistan and it would have saved the country from being dismembered.

In early March this year Agha Shahi, our permanent representative at New York then (1971), openly stated in an interview on a private TV channel that the resolution might have delayed matters by a few days but would not have changed the political outcome. In the General Assembly, 204 countries, actually 205, (one representative was not familiar with the voting procedure) had voted for the integrity (and not dismemberment) of Pakistan. However, the General Assembly resolutions have moral value but are not militarily or politically enforceable. The former USSR (which had a veto in the Security Council) and India had concluded a mutual defence treaty a few months earlier. They had a common objective: the break-up of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh.

President Yahya Khan should have viewed this treaty as ominous. However, he seems to have failed to take effective measures to counter or neutralize its portent and relied more on international norms about the inviolability of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. His public response was mere bluster. The much trumpeted Chinese attack on India in support of Pakistan remained a mirage, a fevered mind’s wishful thought. China could help with arms but not with armed intervention. And a single American warship’s cruise to the Bay of Bengal could hardly be interpreted as a deterrent to the massive Indian invasion.

The US advised Gen Yahya Khan from time to time to pursue the path of negotiated peace but he could not or would not relent. The Nixon administration had a soft corner for Pakistan and Yahya but the politicians and the American people at large were for the oppressed Bengalis, the much publicized victims of ravaging West Pakistan forces.

In February 1971 there was talk of Sheikh Mujib’s forming two committees for drafting Pakistan’s future constitution — one for East and another for West Pakistan. And if the Awami League with its majority had passed a resolution declaring East Pakistan a sovereign independent Bangladesh, what then? In such an event, if after efforts at persuasion by politicians as well as international friends the Awami League would prove adamant? Even in such an event other options could perhaps have been sought rather than the pre-emptive military occupation of March 25, 1971.

President Yahya’s stance was: ‘Political dialogue has failed. Mujib has defied the central government and declared a civil war. It is my duty to save the country so I must militarily occupy East Pakistan.’ Consequently, from early March he started sending troops to Dhaka via Colombo; India had banned overflights after a red herring airplane hijacking drama enacted at the Lahore airport. Bhutto’s stance was: East Pakistan, because of its simple majority in parliament, cannot impose its six point-based constitution on Pakistan because the country was a federal republic and the western provinces also had to have their say in the future constitution.

Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi posed as the economically burdened protector of the Bengalis. Her grievance was: Pakistan was not taking back the millions of its persecuted citizens who had fled for their lives and taken shelter in India. She had been housing and feeding them for months on end. They did not want to go back for fear of their honour and of their lives. Therefore all Pakistani military must return to West Pakistan first. and Mujib must be allowed to return from incarceration in West Pakistan and to form his civilian government without West Pakistan pressure.

If he had permitted the first session of the elected assembly to meet on March 3, 1971, could President Yahya have averted the dismemberment of Pakistan? Each of the protagonists envisioned a solution that was a chimera to the other two or at best a will-o-the-wisp. Each wanted his pound of flesh but there was no debtor. Should Yahya have allowed the National (Constituent) Assembly to convene on March 3 as scheduled? If then two constitutional committees brought forward two drafts, one for East and one for West Pakistan — what then? Would it be one Pakistan? A number of possibilities with consequent actions can be envisaged ex post facto but all in the realm of conjecture.

According to Yahya’s Legal Framework Order, the constitution had to be produced for the President’s authentication within 120 days from the first sitting of the National Assembly. The question whether a simple or a two-thirds majority was required was left hanging in the air.

For this reason PPP Chairman Bhutto had asked for relaxation of the 120-day deadline but his demand received a stony silence from Yahya as well as Mujib. Despite a series of parleys, there was no agreement between Yahya, Mujib and Bhutto. Somewhere along the line in March 1971, President Yahya reinforced his apparent earlier inclination into a firm decision for military action in East Pakistan.

The governor of East Pakistan then was Admiral Ahsan. In August 1947 Viscount Montgomery reportedly said to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah on installing him as the Governor-General of Pakistan — “You are lucky to have achieved Pakistan but luckier in inheriting Ahsan” (his naval aide-de-camp). Governor Ahsan felt the impasse, if such a mild word would convey the approaching cataclysm in March, advised President Yahya Khan against attempting military solution.

His view: only a negotiated political solution was the answer. When his advice was ignored, he resigned and returned to West Pakistan. The military commander Sahabzada Yaqub Khan also advised against deployment of troops against the civilian Bengalis. He was relieved of his command. He wished to leave Dhaka immediately but was asked to stay on for a few more days for the arrival of his successor Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan.

Notwithstanding all sane advices to the contrary, military action did take place. By the middle of May 1971 the rebellion had more or less been crushed and the army had taken physical control of East Pakistan.

Could a series of effective measures taken then have averted the loss of East Pakistan?

By the autumn of 1971 four factors weighed heavily against President Yahya. Firstly, the Bengalis had been totally alienated; secondly, Indira Gandhi (with a superpower backing her) was determined to create Bangladesh; thirdly, world opinion supported independence for East Pakistan; and fourthly, Pakistan could not muster sufficient military support from its allies to take on and overcome the impending Indian invasion.

As the New Year begins, the officials of the Central Board of Revenue commence formulating their budget proposals for the next financial year. In a country wanting larger revenue resources all the time a number of new taxes are proposed, some earnestly and some to ascertain public reaction to them.

We are told the maximum import duty is to be brought down from 25 per cent to 20 per cent from next financial year. Several countries in the region have lower rates of import duties. For Pakistan it is a great climb down from 125 per cent duty in 1990-91 and 80 per cent in 1993-94. Finally, it dropped down to 25 per cent in 2002-03 and we may have a 20 per cent maximum duty from July. This is a global trend, and the WTO wants a duty-free world so that trade between nations is conducted on the basis of the survival of the fittest.

Anyway, high import tariff or non-tariff restrictions are a temptation to various smugglers to crack the system and gain by that in a big way, while such countries lose their customs revenues. The best example of such illegal transactions is the flourishing informal trade between India and Pakistan, which is on the rise.

Now the chairman of the Central Board of Revenue Abdullah Yousuf says the entire export of textiles and related items are to be brought under zero-rated tax which will help resolve 70 per cent of the sales tax refund problems. If that helps stop textile traders from claiming rebates for exports which they did not make that will be a significant achievement. There has been too much fraud in this sector, often with the connivance of the taxation officials. Anyway, the genuine exporters have to be helped in a highly competitive textile world, with China in the lead, following the end of the quota system in 2004.

But one good news is to be followed by many bad news. The CBR proposes to make up for the loss of five per cent import duty by spreading the stiff sales tax of 15 per cent over a number of items and services, which can make life far more costly. In the case of sales tax, the government always says it has not levied a new tax but merely withdrawn the old exemption as sales tax is levied on every conceivable goods and services and then withdrawn to be re-applied when it suits the government. So even when it comes up with hefty additional taxes it claims it has levied no new tax which is technically correct but factually not. And a 15 per cent sales tax on any item or service is hurting the tax-payers who get very little or nothing in return for the taxes they pay.

Despite an increase in income tax revenue, indirect taxes still form 68 per cent of the tax revenues. A fair mix is said to be 50 per cent of the revenues as taxes on income and 50 per cent as indirect taxes. But in Pakistan indirect tax revenues still form more than two-thirds of the tax revenues. In reality, the industrialists, importers and traders charge the people far more than they pay as taxes. Direct tax revenues, too, are adjusted while fixing the prices so that the seller is always the gainer by several times than the taxes he pays. There is no competition in this but a consensus on high profits in an overhaul high profit economy, in fact the highest in the region.

The CBR now proposes the government should levy 15 per cent sales tax on bricks, cement blocks, computers — hardware and software — certain specified machinery and real estate. It proposes 15 per cent sales on all services, except residential rent and health, education and financial services once the administration of the current tax base has been stabilised. When will that be?

The fact is that sales tax is the largest single source of revenue for the government. It is budgeted to provide Rs. 249 billion this year against Rs. 174 billion from income tax. And the government has reasons to be delighted by the large income from this single source with its hefty levy of 15 per cent. But the CBR argues the sales tax revenues from domestic sources have been falling, and that demands sales tax on goods produced and used in the country, and the varied services like real estate operations.

But there can be stiff opposition to taxing bricks and cement blocks on three valid grounds. Firstly, it will make house-building far more costly after cement and steel price have shot up. Secondly, it will be cutting across the official policy to promote small industries and micro-enterprises. Thirdly, it will deprive a number of kiln workers of their employment at a time when the government has promised to provide more employment, particularly for the very poor.

When it comes to taxing the computers — hardware and software, there will be widespread resistance. The protesters can argue that even before computers can become popular and widely used the government is cutting across its own enlightened policy. There may be a nationwide support for levying sales tax on real estate but if that means further increase in rent rates, that will be opposed.

The fact is that property prices have risen four to eight times in recent times. And those who made Rs. two to Rs. three crore on a small plot of land with a modest house and far more on large houses did not pay any income tax, while a widow or pensioner getting Rs. 100 out of her or his bank deposits paid Rs. 10 withholding tax. The law should force those who made crores of rupees out of a small investment to pay proper income tax, though not the standard rate. But now the property rates have come down by 20 to 30 per cent, they will argue following a sales tax on real estate transactions, they are being made to lose at both ends and their bonanza has become a bane.

There is resistance to sales tax, and desperate attempts to evade that by businessmen while charging their customers full sales tax, as it has a very high 15 per cent rate. In South-East Asia it is between three and six per cent. In Japan, it used to be three per cent, as in Singapore. But Pakistan raised its sales tax rate from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent and then to 15 per cent, and for some categories even 20 to 22 per cent.

Earlier there were reports the GST would be lowered to 10 per cent and spread to more items. But now it seems the rate would remain 15 per cent, and yet be spread to a larger number of new items and services.

It has been reported that professionals, too, will be charged sales tax for their services. If lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers etc., are charged sales tax on their services the income of the government can be very large. But will these professionals pay the full tax. And will those who hold coaching classes in institutes and collect large sums pay full tax?

The government will be trying to levy sales tax on new items and services at a time when inflation or consumer price index has risen to 9.95 per cent by the end of February. There is no abating of inflation despite the directive of the President Musharraf to the chief ministers to lower the inflation and reduce the high prices. In such a context should the spread of sales tax to new areas be allowed to make the situation far worse, except in real state?

Inflationary pressures are bound to go up and assert themselves when the demand pressure increase. And demand pressure will increase when the money supply increases drastically as has been happening in Pakistan and banks with surplus credit are looking for credible borrowers. When the banks prefer the high paying consumer banking the demand pressure on the market will be felt all the more. And the money will circulate fast as is happening in Pakistan now.

Money supply in the country in the current financial year rose up to February by 10.4 per cent, while the target for the whole year is 14.4 per cent which will be fulfilled, says the prime minister. The private sector until February received bank credit of Rs. 309 billion compared to Rs. 230.5 billion in the same period last year.

If more money is chasing the same volume of goods, prices are bound to go up despite the faltering administrative steps at price control. The supply has to be increased to match the larger volume of money or meet the real needs of the people.

Amidst the discouraging news in the consumer sector, comes the statement of the minister for water and power Liaquat Jatoi, that the government is fixing power rates for four to five years. Will that really come to pass before we have the large dams for hydel power that we are seeking and when world oil prices are high and the oil producers, particularly the Opec members, intend to keep it that way so that they can get 40 to 50 dollars a barrel regularly.

Meanwhile the Asian Development Bank has cancelled some important project loans in the water sector as the loans were not used well in time.

Simultaneously the World Bank has asked the Pakistan government to finalise its water policy within a month, complete with the dams proposed to be built for power and water. Tariq Hameed, chairman of WAPDA, says the WAPDA is ready to start work on the Kalabagh dam or Bhasha dam depending on which dam the government finally chooses. Much work has been done on the Kalabagh dam and so it is easy to start work on that immediately. If instead the President settled for Bhasha dam work on that will begin right earnest. Anyway the World Bank is forcing the government to take a decision quick instead of dragging its feet for too long.

The old project to bring 1,000 MW of power from Tajikistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan is also to be revived. The project was conceived in the days of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister and referred to from time to time. The disturbed state of affairs in Afghanistan stood in the way. But things are much better in Afghanistan now, and one final bid should be made to implement the project or given up for good for better times in the region.

The prime minister has now appointed a committee of 12 members comprising ministers, secretaries to government and members of parliament to keep a watch on prices and monitor the supply and demand situations.

We, Americans, are a nation of closet welfare junkies, which helps explain why we can’t have an honest debate about Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are our biggest welfare programmes, but because most Americans regard “welfare” as shameful, we’ve found other labels for them.

We call them “social insurance” or “entitlements.” Anything but welfare. Democrats and Republicans alike embrace the deception. No one wants to upset older voters. Well, if you can’t call something by its real name, you can’t discuss it honestly. Welfare is a governmental transfer from one group to another for the benefit of those receiving. The transfer involves cash or services (health care, education).

We have welfare for the poor, the old, the disabled, farmers and corporations. Social Security is mainly welfare. Workers’ payroll taxes pay the benefits of today’s retirees. The taxes aren’t “saved” for the workers’ own retirement. There have been huge disparities between taxes paid and benefits received. Ida May Fuller, the first retiree to receive benefits, in 1940, paid $24.75 and got almost a thousand times that ($22,888.92). In the 1950s and ‘60s, many beneficiaries received 10 or more times the amount their payroll taxes would have returned if invested in US Treasury bonds and kept for retirees (they weren’t).

Indeed, most beneficiaries who retired before 2000 have received — or will receive — a surplus in benefits over what their taxes would have returned if similarly invested, write Sylvester Schieber and John Shoven in their history of Social Security, “The Real Deal.” This surplus now has a present value of almost $16 trillion, says Schieber, head of research for the consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide. (Shoven is a Stanford University economist.)

Naturally, the elderly don’t see themselves as freeloaders. They think they’ve “earned” their Social Security benefits by paying payroll taxes. As Schieber and Shoven note, the term “social insurance” dates to Bismarck in 19th-century Germany. But applying it to Social Security involved much political licence. In normal usage, insurance suggests protection against something you don’t expect to happen — a house fire, a car accident.

By contrast, most people expect to grow old. Using the “terminology of insurance . . . [was intended] to mask the huge welfare payments being made,” they write. People falsely believe they’re “only getting what they have paid for.”

That is even less true of Medicare. In 2006 the Congressional Budget Office expects Medicare to cost $383 billion. Medicare premiums (paid by recipients) pay 12 percent; payroll taxes, 49 percent; general taxes and borrowing provide the rest.

This mass deception may seem harmless. After all, most Social Security recipients have been responsible citizens and productive workers. Why accuse them of living on government handouts? The answer is that today’s myths perpetuate unrealistic expectations and prevent honest debate. Americans regard “earned benefits” and “welfare” differently. The first is a right, the second a privilege.

In theory, welfare should serve some public purpose and not just enrich the recipients. By admitting that Social Security and Medicare are welfare, we allow relevant questions to be raised. Do all beneficiaries “need” or “deserve” their welfare? Is the cost “unfair” to taxpayers or burdensome to the economy? Have the social and economic conditions that originally justified the welfare changed?

For Social Security, they have. In 1935 Americans 65 and older were 6 percent of the population. They’re now 12 percent and by 2030 are projected to be 20 percent. Most Americans can now save for their own retirement, including the cost of health insurance. The Social Security debate ought to involve moral values and economic realities.

How generous a “safety net” for the elderly can a decent society afford without overtaxing the young or harming the economy? How can changes be made without being too disruptive? Instead, the debate has degenerated into an obscure technical exercise focused on baffling accounting concepts (trust fund “solvency,” “unfunded liabilities”).

Despite what you’ve heard, the real issue is not Social Security’s “solvency.” It is the total cost to the government of baby boomers’ retirement, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which covers much nursing home care). The real issue is preventing those costs from becoming economically oppressive and politically poisonous.—Dawn/Washington Post Service

The National Press Club Bar was crowded at 6 p.m., when all honest reporters are relaxing after a hard day’s work. Ironically, the main topic was not Martha Stewart’s time in the slammer. We had discussed it every night for a week and no one had anything new to say.

The subject that evening was: Should reporters be jailed for not revealing their sources? I can’t tell the names of the people at the bar, because that would be revealing my sources. I will identify them only as colours.

This is how it went.

Orange said, “What I don’t understand is why Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants to send Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine to prison if they refuse to testify in front of a grand jury, but as far as we know he didn’t threaten Robert Novak with jail for printing the name of the CIA agent, Valerie Plame, in his column.”

Blue said, “Novak is now a household name.”

White said, “The worst part of it is Judith Miller didn’t write anything about Plame. Fitzgerald wanted to know the sources on other stories she wrote. The same goes for Cooper.”

Pink said, “Fitzgerald is just fishing. Special prosecutors are known to do that.” Green added, “As Hamlet said, ‘There’s the rub.’ If reporters have to reveal their sources, whistleblowers won’t talk to us.”

Red said, “Deep Throat would refuse to meet in a garage with Woodward and Bernstein, and Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman would never have been in the movie.”

Red took a swig of his beer. “Well,” he said, “The most frightening part of this is the that government wants the courts to decide if reporters have the same immunity as priests, doctors and lawyers.”

Blue said, “Of course we do. Our job is to report the news fairly and objectively and we can’t do that if we can’t quote someone off the record.”

“They don’t tell you in journalism school that if you do a good job you can go to jail,” I said.

Black said, “When it comes to leaks, the government is still our best source. They usually tell you something that will hurt the guy in the next office.”

Red said, “The question is, do you print a leak if it’s not verified by another leak?”

“It depends on what newspaper you work for.”

Green said, “Why don’t they send reporters who are paid thousands of dollars under the table to push a White House programme to jail?”

Red said, “Are we all agreed that if Judy Miller and Matt Cooper have to go to jail, we picket in front of the Supreme Court?”

Pink said, “I’ll drink to that.”

Blue declared, “If Judy has to go to prison, it’s not going to be a piece of cake like it was for Martha Stewart. Judy doesn’t own a magazine or a TV show, and she doesn’t design pillowcases and monogrammed sheets for the New York Times. Black said, “We have to think about all of us. Judith Miller and Matt Cooper should not be punished for all our sins.”

“I’ll drink to that,” I said. “And to all our sources, no matter who they are.”

—Dawn/Tribune Media Services