Posted on 09/29/2004 12:43:10 AM PDT by kattracks
September 29, 2004 -- The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.
The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak.
The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.
He said he understood journalists' concerns about protecting the identities of their sources, but national security and preventing leaks that thwart probes into "terrorist fund-raising" trump such confidentiality.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The shrink said to ping you.
No wonder the liberals are opposed to the Patriot Act.
September 29, 2004 -- The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.
"New York Times joins al Queda in their joint war against the government and people of the United States."
Actually it is the reverse.
al Queda joins the NY Slimes in the war against Americans and the USA. The NY Slimes has been waging a war against America when it started supporting the mass murdering Communists in Russia in the early 1900's.
I am pinging all who posted to this thread yesterday to this article about what the DOJ is alleging.
Good morning, cyn. I pinged you to a New York Post article on this matter earlier today. I was wrong...it's not about anthrax. It's worse.
I think that the source of the leak is the subject of the subpoenas. This investigation is an outgrowth of the Wilson/Plame/Niger yellowcake leak. The Times has been protesting this subpoena, saying that it had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's CIA connection. My guess is that the justice department has uncovered a partisan, anti-Bush crowd at the CIA and is about to expose it. The WSJ had an article about the partisanship of some of the CIA this morning. So, it looks as though it may all be connected.
"I hope the Justice Department can make a case here. It would be sooooo satifying to see these two perp walked out of the NY Times Building."
Add to the perp walk, Pinch and the 3/4 of his editorial board that is filled with hostile gays against America.
The Plame/Wilson massive lie will take out a few more of these rotten SOBs as it winds through the left wing elite anti America mediots who lied about the Plame/Wilson mess.
The New York Slimes has hated a strong America for close to a century and has worked 24/7/365 to weaken America.
Read my post #90.
I'm guessing those phone records could help give that information
Well I got off on another thread this morning and missed the pings--I just checked and thanks to all who alerted me. I really appreciate it.
And ironically enough, that fool John Kerry recently added to his Bush bashing that if he were president he would look at terrorist funding. Many of us said 'WHAT?' when we heard that because we all knew the Bush administration had aggressively pursued it.
I think Kerry had no idea this NY Times matter would hit the news like this so felt free to misrepresent what had been done in that area. We all know that Kerry's ploy has been to take what Bush has been doing, pretend Bush hasn't been doing it and then present his own "plan" all based on what Bush has been doing.
So, a side benefit of this story coming out is exposing Kerry as playing games with out national security again.
Thanks Eva
LOL!
My laugh of the day. Kerry really thinks we should go after terrorist funding?
Like we haven't been doing that since the week of 9/11? HAHAHA
Have to run for an appointment; will check in later to see if there are new developments in this most interesting story.
If he does that AND THEN investigates other leaks which may have compromised national security, I'm all for it.
If he doesn't, but INSTEAD, pursues leaks which threaten the news sources of the leading liberal media, then I will conclude that this is a partisan witch hunt of the worst sort...and that all the liberal complaints about the low nature of the Bush Administration are true.
In another, but related matter, I saw that Kerry explained that he first voted for the $87 billion for Iraq because it was to be partially paid for by a rollback of tax cuts for the rich and included biddable contracts...and then changed his vote because these provisions were deleted from the final bill. If this is true, I might actually vote against Bush. I hope this issue is discussed in the debate.
I can't remember a time when I felt so bad about a Presidential election, when I felt both candidates were so unequal to dealing with the problems facing our country. I will vote for one or another because I must but I wish that my conscience would allow me to skip the whole shoddy business.
Hey, could you put me on your ping list for this type story? I missed the one yesterday, and I found this one today, then backtracked to the one yesterday thanks to someone linking the stories. The Patrick Fitzgerald investigation into leakers grows and grows, does it not? I doubt the folks who screamed the loudest for an investigation about Plame intended this. Should be interesting.
Not only that .. but also potentially endangering all americans
My guess is that this is all related to this:
The CIA's Insurgency
The agency's political disinformation campaign.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congratulations to Porter Goss for being confirmed last week as the new Director of Central Intelligence. We hope he appreciates that he now has two insurgencies to defeat: the one that the CIA is struggling to help put down in Iraq, and the other inside Langley against the Bush Administration.
We wish we were exaggerating. It's become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated and anonymous leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush Administration look bad.
Their latest improvised explosive political device blew up yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, in a story proclaiming that the agency had warned back in January 2003 of a possible insurgency in Iraq. This highly selective leak (more on that below) was conveniently timed for two days before the first Presidential debate.
This follows Joe Wilson, whose CIA-employee wife nominated the anti-Bush partisan to assess intelligence on Iraq. Then there's the book by "Anonymous," a current CIA employee who has been appearing everywhere to trash U.S. policy, with the approval of agency higher-ups. And now we have one Paul R. Pillar, who has broken his own cover as the author of a classified National Intelligence Estimate this summer outlining pessimistic possibilities for the future of Iraq.
That document was also leaked to the New York Times earlier this month, and on Monday columnist Robert Novak reported that it had been prepared at the direction of Mr. Pillar, the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia. Mr. Novak reported that Mr. Pillar identified himself as such during an off-the-record gathering last week and, while denying he leaked the document, accused the Bush Administration of ignoring the CIA's prewar speculation about the consequences of war with Iraq. Others have since confirmed the thrust of the Novak report.
Keep in mind that none of these CIA officials were ever elected to anything, and that they are employed to provide accurate information to officials who present their policy choices for voter judgment. Yet what the CIA insurgents are essentially doing here, with their leaks and insubordination, is engaging in a policy debate. Given the timing of the latest leaks so close to an election, they are now clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry. Yet somehow the White House stands accused of "politicizing" intelligence?
None of this is surprising in the case of Mr. Pillar, who is also trying to protect his own lousy track record in misjudging the terrorist threat. Around September 11, he had the misfortune to write a book that rejected the "war" metaphor for counterterrorism, comparing it instead to "the effort by public health authorities to control communicable diseases."
In a public lecture last year at Johns Hopkins University, he sought to downplay Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism. And his corner of the CIA has long claimed that the "secular" Baathists in Iraq would never do business with the fundamentalist al Qaeda. Tell that to Abu Musab al Zarqawi and the Baathists now cooperating in Fallujah.
Yesterday's CIA leak, of the January 2003 memo, also turns out to be what the spooks call "disinformation." We're told that its ballyhooed warning of an insurgency is not among the document's key findings and occurs only in the very last sentence of its 38 pages. We're also told there is not a single mention of Zarqawi, the dominant terrorist now in Iraq, or of "the Party of Return," the name the Baath Party remnants began circulating soon after the fall of Saddam.
The document's after-thought sentence reads: "In addition, rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare against the new government or coalition forces." We highlight that phrase about "existing terrorist" groups because critics of the war like to claim that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war; now we know that in January 2003 even the CIA said there were.
Notably, too, the leakers of this document somehow overlooked the many predictions it made that did not come true. Those include: sectarian violence, seizure of the oil fields in the north by Kurds and in the South by Shiites, a humanitarian and refugee crisis, and the possible use by Saddam of "chemical or biological weapons against his own people and coalition forces." Worst of all, the document anticipated that the Iraqi police and regular army could be relied upon to provide order in Iraq after the invasion. Deputy Director John McLaughlin personally assured Mr. Bush on this one--which we now know to be a mistake as large as predicting that finding Saddam's WMD would be a "slam dunk."
Our point here isn't to assail everyone at the CIA, which includes thousands of patriots doing their best to protect America. But clearly at senior rungs of the agency there is a culture that has deep policy attachments that have been offended by Mr. Bush, and these officials want him defeated. American voters need to understand this amid this election season. As for Mr. Goss, his task is to tell the Pillars of Langley to shut up--or quit and run for office themselves.
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.