Win for Patrick Fitzgerald in Islamic Charities Case re NYT's Judy Miller

[KoKo]

Appellate Panel Rejects First Amendment Claim in Federal Grand Jury Probe

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A16

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.

It arises from Fitzgerald's post-Sept. 11, 2001, investigation of possible links between al-Qaeda and two U.S.-based Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Fund.

In December 2001, Times reporters Miller and Philip Shenon learned of a pending government move to freeze the two groups' assets. They called the charities for comment shortly before FBI agents raided their offices.
Fitzgerald argued that the Miller and Shenon calls tipped off the charities, increasing the risk to agents and encouraging destruction of evidence. The Times denied this. Fitzgerald is trying to find out if any government officials illegally leaked information to the reporters.

(Article goes on to say that NYT's may appeal resubmit it's case to the Circuit Court or take it to the Supreme Court)

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

[originalpckelly]

1. WOW! It amazes me how short-sighted people are...

you know this kind of case sets precedent for people who reported on the NSA spying programs.

[KoKo]

3. No...those were "whistle blowers" who have protection. Miller case is

where she allegedly "specifically warned" two groups that were about to be raided in a criminal government investigation of the RAID.

If a reporter for a newspaper hears that the police are going to raid a Mafia operation on a specific day and time...that would mean the reporter attempted to impede the raid by involving themselves on the side of the Mafia.

That's very different from government insiders whistle blowing on activities to reporters trying to get a story out about what they think are illegal activities going on in their departments.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Actually, the request is coming from a grand jury. Not a secret agency

which has political designs for the information.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Patrick Fitzgerald always win!

:-)

[KoKo]

4. Good post from DU'er "demink" last night contrasting NYT's Report w WaPo!

deminks (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-01-06 11:33 PM
Original message
WP: N.Y. Times Must Surrender Reporters' Phone Data (Judy Miller)

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

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.h...

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.