Miller and Her Stand Draw Strong Reactions

Miller said yesterday that she would have remained behind bars if her source -- Libby -- had not provided a "personal" waiver, as opposed to a blanket offer to reporters, and if Fitzgerald had not agreed to limit the scope of her testimony. "I am hopeful that my long stay in jail will serve to strengthen the bond between reporters and their sources," she said.

A hard-charging Pulitzer Prize winner and co-author of a best-selling book on bioterrorism, Miller was embedded with a U.S. military unit searching for illegal weapons in Iraq in 2003 and dealt extensively with Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who had close ties to the Bush administration at the time.

A Times ombudsman criticized one of Miller's stories from that period for its "apparent flimsiness." Her aggressive brand of reporting has won her devoted fans as well as fierce detractors.

Arianna Huffington, the liberal commentator and blogger, accused Miller yesterday of "grandstanding" by going to jail. She said Miller was "effectively discredited" because of the weapons stories and that jail was "an opportunity to cleanse herself." Huffington also said Miller "has no obligation any more to remain silent" and should provide a full accounting in the Times, as Cooper did in Time after testifying.

Dalglish said she is struck by how "hostile" and "vicious" some journalists are toward Miller, which she attributes to both the weapons controversy and Miller's style.

"She's not exactly a warm and fuzzy person," Dalglish said. "She's reserved. She's not going to go out of her way to make lots of friends."

The case has galvanized support for a federal shield law, which has bipartisan sponsorship, that would limit the circumstances under which reporters could be prosecuted for refusing to reveal confidential sources.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the bill's sponsors, yesterday hailed Miller's release, saying "no reporter should be thrown in jail for doing their job." He added in a statement that the primary purpose of the measure, which the administration opposes, is not to protect journalists but "the public's right to information."