I'd like to respond to a letter by Free and liberal journalism? Not the US .

The writer seems to suggest that Judith Miller's jailing is simply a press freedom issue and overlooks the fact that she had defied the law by refusing to testify before a grand jury despite being subpoenaed. This is called breaking the law.

While it can justifiably be argued that special prosecutor Patrick J Fitzgerald is being overzealous in his attempt to get Miller to talk, it cannot be said that the law is on Miller's side.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides absolute guarantees in the right to publish, but it does not provide similar guarantees for the reporting process. A 1972 Supreme Court decision (Branzburg v Hayes) rejected any special privilege for journalists to protect the identity of their sources.

Earlier in Fitzgerald's investigation, NBC and the Washington Post also had journalists subpoenaed. All of them ended up working out deals that provide limited testimony in ways that did not compromise their promises to their sources. Even Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who also initially refused to talk, eventually managed to strike a deal with his source that allowed him to testify and avoid jail time.

Miller refused to cut any deal and didn't seem to seek any release from her source. It would be too cynical to say she was courting martyrdom. But with all the other reporters managing to secure face-saving compromises, one can't help but speculate that she simply wasn't looking for one.

Both Miller and Cooper have taken their case all the way to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, effectively upholding the 1972 Branzburg v Hayes decision. Cooper found a way out; Miller chose to stick to her guns.

Miller's employer, the New York Times , has characterised her defiance of the law as a matter of 'civil disobedience'.

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Kinsley, a renowned liberal commentator, in his article, 'Reporters aren't above the law', has an appropriate response to that characterisation:

"The New York Times is an influential newspaper owned by a large corporation. It is claiming an exemption from one of the normal duties of citizenship. It has hired some of America's best lawyers to pursue this claim through every available avenue.

'And then, when the claim has been rejected, it encourages its employees to defy the courts and break the law. If that is civil disobedience, then almost any law that anyone does not care for is up for grabs.'

I have been a journalist for most of my working life. Protecting a source is a time-honoured journalistic tradition but when this value comes into direct conflict with the law, a tough choice has to be made.

And that choice must be to comply with the court order. It's worth remembering that even President Richard Nixon, who claimed executive privilege over the Watergate tapes, surrendered them when the court ordered him to do so.

That shows that nobody is above the law, not even the president of the US. Why should journalists be any different?