Posted on 02/24/2005 12:28:19 PM PST by cyncooper
NEW YORK (AP) A federal judge ruled Thursday that 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.
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.
The judge noted that the government can obtain telephone records during a grand jury investigation when the information sought is highly material and relevant and cannot be obtained elsewhere but he said those conditions had not been met.
The government had sought records reflecting confidential communications between journalists Philip Shenon and Judith Miller and their sources from third parties that the newspaper said were unlikely to be interested in challenging its authority.
The justice department had advised the Times that it planned to obtain records of all telephone calls by Shenon and Miller for 20 days in the months immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Times lawyer George Freeman did not immediately return a telephone message requesting comment.
Megan L. Gaffney, a spokeswoman for federal prosecutors in Manhattan, said the office had no comment.
In his ruling, Sweet wrote: "The record before this court has demonstrated that the reporters at issue relied upon the promise of confidentiality to gather information concerning issues of paramount national importance -- the nation's preparedness for the attacks of September 11, the government's efforts to combat al-Qaida post-September 11, and the risk posed to the American people by biological weapons.
"The government has failed to demonstrate that the balance of the competing interests weighs in its favor," he added.
The government had told the Times it wanted phone records from Shenon for a probe into a leak by a government employee about a planned raid on the offices of the Global Relief Foundation, an Islamic charity group accused of funding terrorist operations.
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.
The lawsuit had said Miller's phone records were being sought in connection with an investigation into an alleged leak from a government employee to Miller in late September and early October 2001. It said the alleged leak concerned a government decision to freeze the assets of the Global Relief Foundation and a Dallas-based Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation, which has been accused of aiding Hamas.
Finally the judge has ruled in the other Fitzgerald grand jury. He has said Fitzgerald cannot get those phone records.
But I'd like to go on record as wishing we could/would boycott Editor and Publisher.
They seem to have an agenda lately.
They have always had an agenda since I started reading them a couple of years ago, they are liberal media apologists.
You are right. I saw the source and grabbed it in haste despite misgivings. I agree.
Bump for a later read
I never realized it.
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.
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.
PING
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.
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?
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.
"They seem to have an agenda lately."
Seem to???
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.
This article makes no reference to the ruling I referred to. I was merely saying Fitzgerald will appeal Sweet's ruling.
...the ruling about getting those phone records...
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.
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.
Thanks for the ping. Surely this will be reversed on appeal?
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.