Posted on 10/23/2006 9:00:24 AM PDT by EdLake
That's a mere two days from today!!!!
Thanks for the ping!
Judge: Times Must Reveal Anthrax Sources
By MATTHEW BARAKAT The Associated Press Monday, October 23, 2006; 4:46 PM
ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A federal judge ordered The New York Times to disclose a columnist's confidential sources as part of a libel lawsuit filed over the newspaper's coverage of the 2001 anthrax attacks.
Former Army scientist Steven Hatfill, once identified by authorities as a "person of interest" in the anthrax mailings that killed five people in late 2001, is suing the Times for libel for a series of articles written by columnist Nicholas Kristof.
The order issued Friday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady requires the newspaper to disclose the identities of three of Kristof's sources, including two FBI sources who allegedly provided some of the most incriminating information in Kristof's columns. The order was made public Monday.
The judge said Virginia law gives reporters only limited immunity from disclosing sources, and that privilege is outweighed by Hatfill's right to proceed with his lawsuit.
The court "understands the need for a reporter to be able to credibly pledge confidentiality to his sources," O'Grady wrote. "But that privilege must be balanced against the rights of a plaintiff."
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the paper would appeal the ruling.
Hatfill's lawyers said they need to question the sources to see if Kristof's reporting was accurate. The FBI sources told the Times that Hatfill was one of a limited number of people with the access and technical expertise to manufacture the anthrax and that he failed several lie-detector tests.
The FBI agents "are the only sources who would have the type of inside information on which the columns claim to rely," said Charles Kimmett, one of Hatfill's lawyers.
Hatfill was a a physician and bioterrorism expert who worked at the Army's infectious disease laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., in the late 1990s.
The Justice Department refuses to discuss Hatfill but has recently acknowledged that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was accessible to a much wider circle of people than initially reported.
So, It looks like the Times is going to appeal the Order. That will delay things for weeks or longer, but I don't think they have much of a chance of winning on appeal. The law seems pretty clear on this.
The article also implies that someone is saying the "confidential sources" were in the FBI. We'll see if that is true or not.
Ed
"The article also implies that someone is saying the "confidential sources" were in the FBI."
The article doesn't "imply" it - the article states it as a fact. Your idea that somehow the FBI were forced to investigate Hatfill by "conspiracy theorists" doesn't quite fit with this little piece of information. But I'm sure you'll find a way to spin something otherwise.
I don't believe there's any reason to think the FBI hasn't "made any progress in their investigation." That's only true of "progress" means "an arrest" and "no progress" means "no arrest."
Supposedly, they were ready to make an arrest sometime before Christmas of 2001, but then they backed off. They may have backed off because the conspiracy theorists had started pointing at Dr. Hatfill. A case can get very complicated when everything turns political and respected scientists are pointing at someone else.
The "word" for the past few years has been that the FBI was hoping to make a solid case using the new science of microbial forensics. I'm not sure how that worked out. There are conflicting reports, some of them saying how difficult it is to nail down details about what kind of nutrients were used to make the spores, where the water came from, what kind of equipment was used, etc.
This is not a case the Department of Justice can afford to lose, so they're going to make certain they have a very SOLID case before they make an arrest.
KNOWING who did it and PROVING who did it are two very different things.
Ed
No it won't. Ciprofloxacin, tetracylines, erythromycin, doxycycline are the preferred treatments.
L
The article doesn't "imply" it - the article states it as a fact. Your idea that somehow the FBI were forced to investigate Hatfill by "conspiracy theorists" doesn't quite fit with this little piece of information. But I'm sure you'll find a way to spin something otherwise.
Kristof's columns were all about how the FBI was NOT investigating Dr. Hatfill. That conflicts with the idea that the confidential sources were IN the FBI. There were LOTS of other articles later where reporters claimed that the FBI was giving them information, but Kristof's columns weren't part of that.
I just think the AP reporter may have gotten his facts mixed up. There are no other news reports so far about this Order, so we may have to wait to see how things sort themselves out.
Ed
How DARE you reach into the MSM's "memory hole"!
Is this a libel suit?
In my opinion, newspapers shouldn't be forced to reveal sources, but if the "source" claims something libelous that the paper prints, it should have the choice of revealing the source so he can face the lawsuit, or taking sole responsibility for any libelous content and facing the suit itself.
No it won't. Ciprofloxacin, tetracylines, erythromycin, doxycycline are the preferred treatments.
They are the "preferred treatments" but penicillin works just fine as an antibiotic against anthrax. I don't have time to find the sources on that, but I know it's true.
I'm about to shut down operations for today.
Ed
L
"I just think the AP reporter may have gotten his facts mixed up."
Yes, when he was told that two of the sources were "conspiracy theorists" he accidently wrote "FBI agents".
so....................
the feds have no clue, yet the NYT has "confidential" sources that might somehow reveal the identities of the "anthrax terrorists"................
Gotta call BS here.
Can you imagine what people would have believed if the culprit had suggested that people take Cipro? It would have pointed at the makers of Cipro as being the culprits.
Ed
Hardly.
L
The article says "two FBI sources", which might be different from FBI agents.
It's news to me, but it doesn't really change much. It was also an FBI AGENT who was behind the questioning of Dr. Tsonas to see if the "gash" in that terrorist's leg COULD have actually been anthrax. The FBI agent reportedly didn't accept the belief from FBI headquarters that al Qaeda wasn't behind the attacks.
The FBI is not a Borg Collective where everyone knows what everyone else knows and all think alike.
I'll be back tomorrow.
Ed
"I don't believe there's any reason to think the FBI hasn't "made any progress in their investigation."
Nice try at spin-control, Ed. Apparently, however, Judge Walton, who, unlike you, has received the FBI's confidential briefings, doesn't agree. In fact, he outright said the he saw no progress and didn't imagine there would be progress.
Anthrax Inquiry Draws Criticism From Federal Judge
October 8, 2004
New York Times
By SCOTT SHANE
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/08anthrax.html?oref=login
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - A federal judge who reviewed a classified update on the F.B.I. investigation of anthrax-laced letters that killed five people in 2001 said on Thursday that he saw little chance of the case's being solved in the next six months.
"Candidly, from my review of the classified information, it doesn't seem to me that anything is going to happen in the near future that's going to change the status quo," said Judge Reggie B. Walton of United States District Court. The judge is handling a lawsuit filed against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department by a former Army bioweapons expert, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill.
Just out of curiosity, how would you apply that to the disclosure of classified material? In that case, the source of the information has entered into a written contract with the U.S. government not to disclose the information, in the interest of national security. Would you treat that the same? Give the newspaper the option of revealing the source, or accepting civil liability for the results of the disclosure?
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.