Posted on 08/01/2006 10:39:51 PM PDT by summer
A federal prosecutor may inspect the telephone records of two New York Times reporters in an effort to identify their confidential sources, a federal appeals court in New York ruled yesterday.
The 2-to-1 decision, from a court historically sympathetic to claims that journalists should be entitled to protect their sources, reversed a lower court and dealt a further setback to news organizations, which have lately been on a losing streak in the federal courts.
...The case arose from a Chicago grand jury’s investigation into who told the two [NYT] reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government was planning to take against two Islamic charities, Holy Land Foundation in Texas and Global Relief Foundation in Illinois. Though the government contended that calls from the reporters tipped off the charities to impending raids and asset seizures, the investigation appears to be focused on identifying the reporters’ sources. No testimony has been sought from the reporters, and there has been no indication that their actions are a subject of the investigation.
...Patrick J. Fitzgerald was the prosecutor ...
... the court rejected The Times’s central argument, saying that neither the United States Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, which considered the scope of the protections offered by the First Amendment, nor later developments in other areas of the law provided the paper with the ability to protect the phone records at issue in the case.
The majority ruled that the government could overcome any privilege that even a broad reading of the Branzburg decision allowed. It also declined to adopt a so-called common-law evidentiary privilege based on the shield laws almost all states have adopted, saying the government could similarly defeat any plausible version of such a privilege...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
FYI.
I'm thinking the NYT must really hate this administration by now! LOL...
Maybe we are seeing a small chink in the reporters armor.
...especially when GW wins in court.That must drive the NYT absolutely bonkers.
A lot of court decisions have come out these past few years. I am guessing journalism schools may need to again offer updated courses, just to keep up!
..yeah.....we've now got their little black book....lol
Seething rage from the Id doesn't even begin to describe it.
Yeah it's an interesting article. My question to the OWNERS, AND EDITOR'S of the N.Y. Slimes is have you ever heard the term 'PUCKER FACTOR"?
EVEN MORE interesting with FairOpinions thread!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676199/posts
Leakers Of Classified Information Will Topple Our Dam Of Security (by Sen. Bond -R)
>>>We must send a message that leaks will not be tolerated and give prosecutors a modern, clear and appropriate tool to go after those who violate the law, violate their oath and make America less safe.
— Bond, R-Mo., is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.<<<<
HMMMM!
I hope something comes of this. I have had it with these reporters getting away with murder and then claiming they are the bright beacons on journalistic morality. There has to be a line drawn.
Oh, and how I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the NYT when that ruling came down.....
you bet...maybe we can bring down a drug and prostitution ring too while we are at it....those seedy little journal-whores
Bookmark
George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company, disputed the majority’s characterization. Ms. Miller and Mr. Shenon, he said, “were conducting their journalistic duties by getting reaction to an ongoing story.”
Mr. Freeman added: “The move against the charities was not a surprise. No one has ever alleged that any federal agent was hindered or hurt or didn’t succeed.”
As I recall, the issue was not the hindering of federal agents, but the fact that the advance warning may have enabled the Islamic charities to destroy or hide potential evidence of wrongdoing. The move "wasn't a surprise" because the NYT warned them.
The Times conveniently ignores the central point, IMO. Fitz wants to know who in the government tipped Miller off to the raid.
Unless and until the federal government recognizes that the New York Times is essentially a fifth columnist extension of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and works to undermine the U.S. war effort at every turn, we will continue to see leaks show up in print, provided by traitors within the government itself.
Sulzberger and the lot of them need to be sent on an extended trip to Gitmo for the duration of the war.
I wonder how long it is going to take before judges ALL figure out that we're in a war, and that the executive branch must have all its traditional tools to prosecute this war. At least some judges are getting it . Long way to go, though.
So now Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the good guy?
Say it ain't so!
Maureen Dowd hates Judith Miller. Miller was much the superior reporter and her books have won widespread academic acclaim.
Look at this post and note FairOpinions with it in post 10 for an interesting picture! :)
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.