Federal Court Backs 'NYT' in Phone-Records Case

AP via Editor & Publisher ^ | February 24, 2005

[cyncooper]

I will post some background links and excerpts on this story shortly. I expect Fitzgerald will appeal this long awaited decision.

[cyncooper]

Finally the judge has ruled in the other Fitzgerald grand jury. He has said Fitzgerald cannot get those phone records.

[Howlin]

Thanks for this information.

But I'd like to go on record as wishing we could/would boycott Editor and Publisher.

They seem to have an agenda lately.

[Pikamax]

They have always had an agenda since I started reading them a couple of years ago, they are liberal media apologists.

[cyncooper]

You are right. I saw the source and grabbed it in haste despite misgivings. I agree.

[Mo1]

Bump for a later read

[Howlin]

I never realized it.

[cyncooper]

Some background (from WaPo so just snippets):

Reporters' Files Subpoenaed

September 10, 2004

excerpts;

The FBI believes that a call from a reporter to a representative of the charity, the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation, may have led to the destruction of documents there the night before the government's raid, according to findings by the Sept. 11 commission.

The subpoena seeks the phone records of two Times reporters, Philip Shenon and Judith Miller, according to the sources. Officials at the Times and in Fitzgerald's office refused to comment.

~snip~

So who leaked to these reporters that this raid was going down? It took place in December 2001.

[cyncooper]

More:

TIMESMAN TIPPED OFF TERROR CHARITY: FEDS (NY Times Correspondent Accused)

9/29/04

excerpt:

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.

~snip~

And may I point out, that the "real" journalists in the media keep saying that Fitzgerald was going after who "outed Plame" and now is going after these Times reporters.

Note the date of this letter: August 2002 is almost a year before we were graced with hearing from Joseph Wilson about his trip Niger way. Therefore Fitzgerald was on the trail of leaks and media skullduggery before the Plame affair came on the scene.

[cyncooper]

PING

[petitfour]

If my memory is correct, I think that the reason Fitzgerald was chosen to take over the Plame case was because of the work he was doing out of Chicago. I'm sure there are stories about what he was doing when the Plame matter began. I would look them up right now, but I don't have enough time.

[AndyTheBear]

The New York Times has a First Amendment privilege to protect the confidentiality of its sources by denying the government phone records in certain instances.

Is this description of the ruling really accurate? Did the judge actually rule the reporters had a special protection the rest of us don't have? If so, can Freepers or bloggers qualify as reporters if the post enough articles?

[cyncooper]

I'm fixing to leave but just am googling this judge and surprise! (not), he's a Carter appointee and O'Reilly (not that I'm a huge O'Reilly fan, per se), called him a loon because of a ruling he made in favor of protesters during the Republican Convention.

This will be appealed and Fitzgerald is armed with the recent unanimous Appellate decision in his other grand jury case which found no special privilege for reporters.

I have not read Judge Sweet's decision, just these articles characterizing the ruling.

[ArmyBratproud]

"They seem to have an agenda lately."


Seem to???

[jriemer]

Finally the judge has ruled in the other Fitzgerald grand jury. He has said Fitzgerald cannot get those phone records.

I don't read the article the same way.

"Noting that secrecy in government appears to be on the increase, Judge Robert W. Sweet refused in a 120-page ruling to toss out a lawsuit the newspaper filed last year to stop the Department of Justice from getting records of phone calls between two veteran journalists and sources."

This mearly states that at this time the judge did not toss the case out and is allowing it to proceed. There still is a chance that the NYT will lose at the final verdict.

[cyncooper]

I don't read the article the same way.

This article makes no reference to the ruling I referred to. I was merely saying Fitzgerald will appeal Sweet's ruling.

[cyncooper]

...the ruling about getting those phone records...

[cyncooper]

Here's Newsday's report:

Judge: The New York Times can stop government from seeking phone records in leak inquiry

Excerpt:

"The government has failed to demonstrate that the balance of the competing interests weighs in its favor," he added.

[jriemer]

Here's another choice quote from the article:

The Dec. 14, 2001, raid was not unexpected, and the newspaper had reported on Oct. 1, 2001, that the organization was suspected of providing money and support to terrorist operations, the Times had said in its lawsuit. It added that neither Shenon nor the Times reported on the raid until after it occurred.

Since GRF was engaged in supporting terrorism and other illegal activities, Global Relief Foundation should have expected a raid at anytime from the FBI regardless of any helpful "heads-up" provided from NYT reports.
No harm, no foul.

[MizSterious]

Thanks for the ping. Surely this will be reversed on appeal?