Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NormsRevenge

I read the entire article, and I'm not so sure the judge is wrong about this. If my understanding of the case is correct, the Justice Department was looking to secure these records through some kind of investigation or probe of these reporters. What the judge said is that the Justice Department can't just go around seizing those records without a grand jury in place that is overseeing the potential prosecution of an actual crime.


3 posted on 02/24/2005 2:54:45 PM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

I tend to agree with Norm. The judge may be right on this one. It sounds like a bit of a fishing expedition rather than a need to expose criminal activity. Of course, perusing one article doesn't make it crystal clear what the case is, but there ARE times when the government should be made to keep its nose out of peoples files.


5 posted on 02/24/2005 3:10:01 PM PST by lOKKI (You can ignore reality until it bites you in the ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson