Posted on 10/18/2005 6:37:52 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
RICHMOND, Va. - A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed a former Army scientist to proceed with a libel lawsuit against The New York Times that claims one of the paper's columnists unfairly linked him to the 2001 anthrax killings.
Steven Hatfill sued the Times for a series of columns written in 2002 by Nicholas Kristof that faulted the FBI for failing to thoroughly investigate Hatfill for anthrax mailings that left five people dead.
The initial columns identified Hatfill only as "Mr. Z," but subsequent columns named him after Hatfill stepped forward to deny any role in the killings. Federal authorities labeled Hatfill "a person of interest" in their investigation.
In a 6-6 decision, with one judge not participating, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals failed to produce a majority of judges needed to grant a rehearing and affirmed an earlier decision to reinstate the case.
Hatfill, a physician and bioterrorism expert, worked in the late 1990s at the Army's infectious disease laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md.
In July, a three-judge panel of the court overturned a federal judge's ruling to toss out the case, saying that Kristof's columns, taken as a whole, might be considered defamatory. The Times had asked the court to reconsider.
The case will go to the back to federal court in Alexandria, unless the Times files a motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote for the dissenting jurists: "The panel's decision in this case will restrict speech on a matter of vital public concern. The columns at issue urged government action on a question of grave national import and life-or-death consequences."
Wilkinson, joined by Judges M. Blane Michael and Robert B. King, added that when viewed as a whole, the columns "do not pin guilt" on the plaintiff but rather urge the investigation of an "undeniable public threat."
The dissenting judges also wrote that they believed the Times was only doing its job, emphasizing the public's right to know as more than a "matter of voyeurism, titillation, or idle curiosity."
"The bioterrorism presaged by these anthrax mailings was no small matter, and it may one day pose a threat on a very large scale."
David McCraw, counsel for the Times, said the paper was disappointed the court declined to rehear the case and noted that the dissenting justices addressed important issues relating to free speech and defamation.
Journalists "shouldn't have to worry about where the line is going to be drawn," he said. "If those lines are drawn too tightly, there won't be adequate public commentary."
Hatfill's attorney, Tom Connolly, said his client was pleased with the ruling. "The press is entitled to report on important issues," Connolly said. "But it has the obligation to get it right."
Last month, a federal judge dismissed two claims in Hatfill's lawsuit against the Justice Department but left open the possibility that he could hold officials accountable for comments made about him during the anthrax investigation.
Hatfill sued the Justice Department, the FBI, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other officials in 2003, claiming that his civil rights were violated when he was labeled a "person of interest" in the anthrax investigation.
Ping
The Times is in need of new owners. I hope he cleans their clock.
There will adequate public commentary, so long as FreeRepublic and other Internet sites' rights are not infringed. Please relinquish your outdated, tarnished and cherished notions, Mr. McCraw, that today's MSM are the only bastions of public discourse.
So long as libel remains illegal, journalists should stay on the legal side of the line, just as the rest of us are obliged to do. Is that so hard, Mr. McCraw?
HF
I spent 35 years in the media and I firmly believe that the media should have to pay for its failure to get the facts.
The media has non many occasions destroyed peopled careers and reputations because the media member does not like the person harmed. Sometimes the meida are just helping a law enforcement agency get the public off their backs by using the leaked Person of Interest ploy.
It is based on the belief that it is better that an innocent person be ruined than the public discover that the law enforcement agency is inept.
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have often used the technique of leaking to the media that someone is a person of interest. They sometimes do it even when they have zero proof that the person committed any crime. They have a record of leaking this person of interest stuff about innocent persons.
If the media had to pay for publishing the law enforcement lies, they would stop printing and broadcasting it. Law enforcement would have to respond to public pressure by actually finding the guilty person or persons.
As it is the FBI still does not know who sent the Anthrax..
Covering a failure to solve crimes by listing innocent people as ersons of interest needs to be stopped. Stopping it at the media level is a good way to proceed.
Great post.
But I have my doubts about this case.
The Times says "The FBI ought to investigate Hatfield".
Is that statement true or false? Neither one. The dissenting judge had a point.
As for printing what LEA says at a press conference, the truth defence applies. They really did say it.
Kristof was one of the first to get Wilson BS out to the poblic.
I agree with every word you've said, CT.
It's always interested me that two of the 9/11 hijackers had what was later determined to be cutaneous anthrax by the physicians and pharmacists who treated them.
Also, the first man to die of anthraax in 10/01 was the boss of the man who rented apartments to the 9/11 hijackers.
I don't believe those kind of coincidences are incidental to the investigation and the FBI has made a major mistake not pursuing the foreign terrorist aspect, imo.
Ah.. you need to learn about the real world.
The law is what ever the judges say it is. And the verdict is what ever the jury decides.
I have hired many lawyers in my lifetime. All of them could quote me the law and tell me what it meant.
NOT one of them could ever tell me how the judge would rule or the jury would decide.
Predicting law suit outcomes by quoting the law, is like saying you will not be robbed because the law says robbery is illegal. It is true.. but irrelevant.
Thanks...
LOL. What a great analogy!
Good post. Judge and expect to be judged.
Ditto.
It seemed to me that the Jewish scientist was accused (on the internet, that is) because he was Jewish, while Dr. Hatfield was accused because of his political opinions.
Peach:that case was NEVER "determined" to be anthrax. A doctor-who had never seen or treated an anthrax infection- looked at and treated a skin infection.
Months later, he "recalled" it resembled an anthrax lesion.
Gene - no one can confirm it was anthrax of course since the guys are dead. But these are the links that have convinced me that the hijackers left those letters with a friend to mail after they were dead:
SERIOUS CONNECTIONS
- The most serious bioterror attack in America began only days after 9-11
- The letters all mention standard Islamic catch-phrases.
- Florida Dr. Tsonas treated Ahmed al-Haznawi for a severe leg lesion in late June.
Dr. Tsonas is now convinced it was cutaneous anthrax.
- Two Johns Hopkins biodefense experts (Dr. Thomas Inglesby, Dr. Tara O'Toole) agree with Tsonas.
- FL hijackers inquire about crop-dusters and dispersal characteristics of chemical loads.
- Atta attempted to obtain a loan to buy a plane and convert it into a chemical transport.
- Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker", had tech info on airliners, crop-dusters, and wind patterns.
- Mohamed Atta went to a drugstore with red, chemical-burned hands mid-2001.
Druggist thought Atta was suffering from exposure to a chemical with basic pH, possibly bleach (used to kill anthrax).
- Allah Rakah, detained by FBI, for placing suspicious bag of letters in his car with FL license plates
- Atta met twice with Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, a "very senior" Iraqi 'Special Ops' agent.
(one report says the Czechs confirmed they had video...spycraft SOP)
(another report claims that a vacumm bottle was passed to Atta during the meeting)
- Ziad Jarrah also met with an Iraqi agent in 2001 in the UAE.
- Marwan al-Shehhi also met with an Iraqi agent in 2001 in the UAE.
- Iraq is the ONLY hostile country known to have succeeded in weaponizing anthrax
- Iraq conducted military exercises simulating the dispersal of anthrax spores from crop-dusters
- The anthrax coating is silica, a material used by Iraq on biological agents.
- Chemical and biological weapons are effectively dispersed from crop-dusters
- The terrorists had two operational hubs: Hamilton, New Jersey and Delray, Florida. Anthrax was found in both areas.
JUST COINCIDENCES??
- The wife of the Sun tabloid's editor rented two apartments to two hijackers In Florida.
- The intials of the ringleader, A-T-T-A, are highlighted in letter 3a (Brokaw).
- Marwan al-Shehhi went to Huber Drugs (with Atta) with severe chest congestion.
The pharmacist sold him a bottle of Robitussin initially, and later antibiotics
Peach, I don't rule out Iraq-far from it !
It's worth noting the weaponization method they were LAST known to be using was Russian/Cuban in origin.
Here's what I wrote about WMD in Iraq a months or so back.
My post did contain some errors; on the other hand, I wasn't aware the Russians had developed a "micro-encapsulization" technique, which greatly prolonged the life of BW agents-and made them "fly" better.
http://mrmeangenesnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/written-on-wind-wmd-use-in-iraq-part.html
Peach, I don't rule out Iraq-far from it !
It's worth noting the weaponization method they were LAST known to be using was Russian/Cuban in origin.
Here's what I wrote about WMD in Iraq a months or so back.
My post did contain some errors; on the other hand, I wasn't aware the Russians had developed a "micro-encapsulization" technique, which greatly prolonged the life of BW agents-and made them "fly" better.
http://mrmeangenesnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/written-on-wind-wmd-use-in-iraq-part.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.