WP: N.Y. Times Must Surrender Reporters' Phone Data (Judy Miller)

[deminks]

Two very different articles on the subject. One from the WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101207.html?nav=rss_nation/nationalsecurity

The New York Times may not withhold reporters' phone records from a federal grand jury investigating an alleged leak of a pending government raid on two Islamic charities suspected of supporting terrorism, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

A three-judge panel of the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the Times has no First Amendment or other legal right to refuse a demand for the records from the grand jury in Chicago, which was empaneled by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald

The government's interest in rooting out a possible crime outweighs the newspaper's interest in protecting reporters' sources, the court concluded.

"The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the secrecy of imminent asset freezes or searches lest the targets be informed and spirit away those assets or incriminating evidence," Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr. wrote. "At stake in the present investigation, therefore, is not only the important principle of secrecy regarding imminent law enforcement actions but also a set of facts -- informing the targets of those impending actions -- that may constitute a serious obstruction of justice."

and of course one from the NYT:

U.S. Wins Access to Reporter Phone Records

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02phones.html

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 dissenting judge said that the government had failed to demonstrate it truly needed the records and that efforts to obtain reporters’ phone records could alter the way news gathering was conducted.

The case arose from a Chicago grand jury’s investigation into who told the two 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.

Notice how the WP is emphasizing a possible crime, and the NYT is emphasizing the court's "sympathy" and the "dissenting" opinion. Stunning. I still hope we find out who in the WH or Justice tipped off our intrepid (/sarcasm) reporter, Judith Miller, and why she in turn tipped off the charities. The basic questions that the WP article also asks.

[wordpix2]

1. Judith Miller AGAIN, geez, she sure has WH insiders bending her ear

all the time. How come the WH isn't prosecuting the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity with such zeal---or with anything, for that matter? ;shrug:

[Me.]

2. 'Bout Damn Time

Judy thought she got away with this one after the previous ruling. Now what is going to be interesting to see is who is/was behind that so called charity, who was she giving a warning to...Chalabi? Or someone else, and the next question is why.

*shadow government*

[KoKo]

3. I can't see this as a freedom of the press issue. What Miller did...it

seems from reports about this was to tip off these charities before a raid. I don't see how that can be said to be "protecting a source" when she willingly involved herself in a tip off.

Good for Fitz...I read he was really pissed off about this but thought he'd lost the case already. Wonder if it is connected to PlameGate in some "roundabout" way? :shrug:

[Me.]

4. More Likely Connected To The AIPAC Spy Scandal

Where she was also messing about. And I agree with you about the fact that aiding and abetting is not covered by the 4th amendment. There's been a lot of that going on with Judy.

*shadow government*

[Major Hogwash]

5. Good point about highlighting the differences between the two.

Judy Miller has really done some stupid reporting lately.

I wonder if they can recall her Pulitizer Prize she got a few years ago.
Guess not, huh.
Not like a car that turns out to be a lemon.

We're just stuck with the war that she helped sell at the good ol' NYT.