« The greatness of Islam | Main | History is bunk »

No Sympathy for the New York Times

Reporters from the lip flapping New York Times are accused of tipping off Islamic charities that they were about to be raided by the Feds for funding terrorism, and now the Times is looking for protection from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The New York Times asked the Supreme Court yesterday to bar a federal prosecutor from reviewing the phone records of two of its reporters. The records, lawyers for The Times said, would allow the government to learn the identities of many of the reporters' confidential sources.


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 in 2001 against two Islamic charities. The United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, sought the reporters' records directly from their phone companies, and The Times filed suit to stop him.

In August, a divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled in favor of Mr. Fitzgerald, saying the reporters were not entitled to shield their sources. The needs of law enforcement, the majority said, outweighed any protections the reporters might have in the First Amendment or other areas of law.

Ms. Miller left the paper last year after spending 85 days in jail in connection with a separate leak investigation, also supervised by Mr. Fitzgerald.

The paper's filing yesterday was a limited one, seeking an order from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg staying the appeals court decision until the Supreme Court has an opportunity to decide whether to hear the case. The deadline for seeking review of the appeals court's decision is in January, but The Times said it would move faster.

In a letter filed in response to yesterday's application, the Justice Department said it "desires to review the records in question as expeditiously as possible" but agreed not to do so until Wednesday. Yesterday afternoon, the court ordered the government to submit a formal response to the stay application by today at 4 p.m.

The press has been on a losing streak of late in the federal courts, with several decisions refusing to recognize protection for confidential sources. The Supreme Court has not weighed in on the question since 1972.

The folks at the Times are hoping that Justice Ginsburg will come to their rescue and stay the order, thus saving their rear ends, for the time being. If the New York Times and its reporters are going to help charities fronting for terrorist groups to the detriment of FBI agents and our country and our troops by extension, then it should suffer the consequences. I have no sympathy for either of these reporters or the Times.

Michelle Malkin wrote about the New York Times' actions back in June:

"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.


Shenon's phone tip to the Muslim charity (which occurred one day before the FBI searched the foundation's offices), Fitzgerald said, "seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel." The Global Relief Foundation (GRF) wasn't some beneficent neighborhood charity sending shoes and Muslim Barbie dolls to poor kids overseas. It was designated a terror-financing organization in October 2002 by the Treasury Department, which reported that GRF "has connections to, has provided support for, and has provided assistance to Usama Bin Ladin, the al Qaida Network, and other known terrorist groups."

The Muslim charity had "received funding from individuals associated with al Qaida. GRF officials have had extensive contacts with a close associate of Usama Bin Ladin, who has been convicted in a U.S. court for his role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." Moreover, the Treasury Department said, "GRF members have dealt with officials of the Taliban, while the Taliban was subject to international sanctions."

Shenon's then-colleague, Judith Miller, had placed a similar call to another Muslim terrorist-front financier, the Holy Land Foundation, a few weeks before Shenon's call to the GRF. She was supposedly asking for "comment" on an impending freeze of their assets. According to Fitzgerald in court papers, Miller allegedly also warned them that "government action was imminent." The FBI raided the Holy Land Foundation's offices the day after Miller's article was published in the Times.

Jay at Stop the ACLU is just as disgusted with the Times:

Where do we draw the line on freedom of press? That seems to be what this comes down to. It is scary and despicable that the NY Times so often prints classified material for our enemies to read on their front pages. The NY Times have argued this kind of stuff is in the public interest. This is a lame and deploreable excuse in my eyes, but many were eager to buy it. Now, to actually leak information out to the enemies to warn them is nothing more than taking sides against our public interest in the war on terror. The people who did this have shown where their sympathies lie. They should definitely be investigated at the least. The actions of the NY Times to protect these traitorous individuals sends my rage meter off the scale.

Mine too. This goes way beyond freedom of the press. Tipping of terror front groups of an impending FBI raid is offering aid and comfort to our enemies.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Sympathy for the New York Times:

» Blogs of War linked with The New York Times Runs to Ruth Ginsburg

» Joust The Facts linked with They Got Some 'Splainin' To Do

» Maggie's Farm linked with Sunday Morning Links

» Church and State linked with Treasoners Run to Ginsberg for Protection

» Stingray: a blog for salty Christians linked with Supreme Court slams New York Times

Comments (32)

Ah, yes, the NYTimes: "Secr... (Below threshold)
Wethal:

Ah, yes, the NYTimes: "Secrets for me, but not for thee."

"It has been concl... (Below threshold)
Brian:
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with freedom of the press, or protection of sources. If what Fitzgerald says is the official word, then Shenon is guilty of obstruction of justice, interfering with an investigation, or any number of other things. He should be charged, and dealt with in that matter. Why does this need to turn into a big "freedom of the press" issue?

Why turn it into a freedom ... (Below threshold)
Wethal:

Why turn it into a freedom of the press issue? Because the NYTimes has no other defense for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. To the Times, law enforcement or even defense of the homeland, is not as important as reporter confidentiality.

That the people who flew planes into buildings south of the NYTimes building are in league with the people these reporters tipped off did not seem to cross the Times staffers' minds.

If there was another attacke in NYC, the Times would blame the administration for not preventing it, despite the Times' best efforts to nullify every tool for preventing an attack.

Is it me, or did I read abo... (Below threshold)
Frank:

Is it me, or did I read above that they were merely accused at this time? Yet they are already convicted in the eyes of the knee jerk right-wing BS machine. If they are guilty, let them burn. Although, if it turns out they're innocent, I'm sure Kim and Jay at Stop the ACLU will issue an apology for accusing them of treason...Right?

The NYTs ALL THE SECRETS TH... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

The NYTs ALL THE SECRETS THATS FIT TO PRINT dont you think its one paper that should be boycotted?

Uh frankie are you going to... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Uh frankie are you going to offer an apology when they let Tom Delay off? Seems to me that I don't remember a conviction. The NYT is a disgrace to this nation. Nothing but a bunch of traitorus bastards.

Judith Miller has boasted b... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Judith Miller has boasted before that her sources had 'high security clearances' and we know she was very close to the 'neocons' in the Executive, many of who viewed her as a propaganda tool for the administration, in their efforts to sell the WMD Iraqi threat . Apparently, even Rumsfeld personally signed off on her reporter's embedding reporters agreement with the troops in Iraq in 2003. So yes it might be interesting, and uncomfortable for others, to discover who were 'the privileged government source(s)' that was or were leaking her information about the impending anti-terrorist raid on Islamic charities in 2001.

Why turn it into a freed... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Why turn it into a freedom of the press issue? Because the NYTimes has no other defense for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

More cheap blather.

The NYT doesn't seem to be involved. The issue is "Shenon's phone tip to the Muslim charity". This is not a published NYT article, this is not "the press". This is a guy tipping off an organization that the authorities were going to raid it. The fact that he was a reporter appears to be irrelevant. If what he did is grounds for obstruction or similar crimes, then charge him. If not, then drop it.

Jeez, Frank, where do you d... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Jeez, Frank, where do you draw the line? Is anything off limits?

Or does simply forcing in the word "neocon" automatically mean that Jay Tea's article is bullshit?

Bobdog, in Frank's defense,... (Below threshold)

Bobdog, in Frank's defense, I think he means Jay of Stop The ACLU, not me.

That being said, I'm still waiting for a ton of apologies to Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the Bush administration officials who did NOT "out" Valerie Plame. Funny how it turned out to be Richard Armitage, a Powell protege who opposed the war...

J.

bobdog, the name of the gam... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

bobdog, the name of the game for the Left is ANYTHING HURTS AMERICA IS GOOD FOR THEM!

Of course, they prefer it when they can hurt a Republican at the same time...but they'll settle for just hurting America.

In this case they also hurt Israel, and a host of other people around the world. Truly a banner day for the Left.

Ef 'em

Jay/BobdogYes, you... (Below threshold)
Frank:

Jay/Bobdog

Yes, you're correct, Dems and the MSM owe all of those people apologies, which sadly will never come. However, stooping to the level of the left negates any of the moral advantage gained by all of those casualties.

Frank

I don't know which is worse... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I don't know which is worse: That loons like Justrand really believe the hating drivel that dribbles from their mouths or that they just make up shit because they are delusional. Either way these representatives of the right wing conservative movement in this country are more dnagerous than Osama and his followers.

God bless the NYT and the ACLU.

Hey Brian,The NYT ... (Below threshold)

Hey Brian,

The NYT is the freakin' petitioning party, dude.

Jebus, pay attention.

Hey, wavemaker. I know it i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Hey, wavemaker. I know it is. That's my point. My question was (were you paying attention) why is the NYT involved in this, since it seems to be a "possible criminal actions of some guy who happens to be a reporter" issue, as opposed to a "freedom of the press" issue.

Funny how it turned out ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Funny how it turned out to be Richard Armitage

Yes, funny. By the way, I seem to have forgotten... in what prison is Armitage serving his sentence again?

"Yes, funny. By the way,... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"Yes, funny. By the way, I seem to have forgotten... in what prison is Armitage serving his sentence again?"

Seems there's a lot of funny going on here. har-de-har.

When the Left and the MSM were 'sure' it was Cheney or Rove or some loyal Bush admin official who 'outed' 'secret agent' Plame, they printed endless stories, demanded an investigation and wanted Rove frog-marched to prison. During this whole circus, the Right and the Bushies were saying they weren't the leakers and even if they were, no crime had been committed anyway.

Now that Armitage has admitted to being the leaker, the Lefties suddenly say....nothing. No more stories, no more calls for prison time. After all the investigating, all the smearing, all the inuendo...just a big 'oh, nevermind!'.

Funny.

Hugh: "God bless the NYT... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Hugh: "God bless the NYT and the ACLU."

Don't you mean: "ALLAH bless the NYT and the ACLU."???

These two lockstep organizations are attacking the United States from within...with Hugh's full approval.

"...loons like Justrand really believe the hating drivel that dribbles from their mouths ..."

Technically from our KEYBOARDS, but I take your meaning. "loons"?? hmmmm, anyway YES, I do believe that which eminates from my keyboard...and my mouth I open it.

For example I DO believe the greatest danger we face is from within.

And I DO believe the NY Times penchant for twisting what truth they DO print, and simply not printing anything which they can't sufficiently twist are an affront to journalism. When that tendancy of theirs gets added to their addiction for exposing our weapons in the war against Radical Islam, then they become a true danger.

As for the ACLU. Roger Baldwin, the first director of the ACLU: "We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."

This is from the FIRST DIRECTOR of the ACLU...and his spirit and direction lives on to this day. American Cival Liberties include:
- Private ownership of property
- Freedom to succeed and, yes, produce wealth
- The right to bear arms

Just three of OUR Cival Liberties trampleled by him in his own words!!!

When the Left and the MS... (Below threshold)
Brian:

When the Left and the MSM were 'sure' it was Cheney or Rove or some loyal Bush admin official who 'outed' 'secret agent' Plame

Well, first of all, it was a Bush admin official. You can't hide that fact by inserting new adjectives into the sentence.

Plus, let's not forget, when the Right was 'sure' it wasn't Cheney or Rove, they talked tough about "leakers". When it looked like they might have been, suddenly the tough talk evaporated.

During this whole circus, the Right and the Bushies were saying they weren't the leakers

Even though they were.

and even if they were, no crime had been committed anyway.

Even though it had been.

Now that Armitage has admitted to being the leaker, the Lefties suddenly say....nothing.

Wrong. It's Bush who has the power to act. It's Bush who has said nothing. It's Gonzalez and the Justice Dept. who now say Republican leakers good, Democrat leakers bad. After all the tough talk, after all the threats, after all the posturing, all the inuendo...just a big 'oh, nevermind!'.

Spin til you're dizzy (dizz... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Spin til you're dizzy (dizzier, whatever), Brian. Nobody believes you on this. Even you don't believe you.

The Dems/Left/MSM screamed bloody murder for this to be investigated. They used it to politically smear the Bush admin. Pure, dishonest hit job. We all know it.

The Reps/Righties said all along that there was no 'there' there. They were correct.

I guess we'll wait and see if the Dems/Left/MSM scream for Armitage to be sent to prison. And wait and wait and wait...

The Righties were correct and the Lefties were on another political witch hunt.

"who 'outed' 'secret ag... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"who 'outed' 'secret agent' Plame"

Outed a what? Can't stop telling your Party's stupid lies. Every other sentence you frauds speak are total lies because that is all the Democrats are about. Fraud and deceit. Democrats must lie to to try and prove a lie and or lie to divert attention from other lies. That or to run smokes screens for some criminal activity they have going on in the background.

Keep on lying dummies.

Frank: The conservatives wi... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Frank: The conservatives will not have to apoligize to the NYT, they convicted themselves by asking an ACLU (communist) member of the SCOTUS to protect them.

The leaks of classified information by the antique MSM and dim politicians have killed 75% + of the American soldiers and kept the war going. If you were the terrorists would you quit when you have that much support pouring out of the people trying to stop you from murdering thousands? If one of my family members is killed in Iraq there will be lawsuits by the hundreds agains dim and media traitors.

Steve Crickmore : I guess you missed the NYT article that verified all of the documents captured duing the invasion. They show that everything said about the WMD and Saddam was correct. They figured out real fast they (NYT) had screwed up and told the truth and dropped the story like a hot coal. How could there be captured documents showing how to build a nuclear bomb if Saddam wasn't working on a nuclear bomb. I'm going to enjoy it when the idiots like Waxman start pushing too hard and the President declassifies all of the documents and the dim's and all of the media will be put in such a hole no one will ever (if they do now) believe a word they say again.

Rob, you got it right. They lived on lies for 8 years in the nineties and everyone in the world knew it was lies. Now they don't have an out, except to keep lying.

I love this election. It sure flushed out the idiots on the left. Now it's a comedy or two per day. I just hate to see half of the American people lose their a** in the stock market again because of them. I'm no longer investing in the market, everything now in Gold and Silver or cash.

Everyone had better get out of the market before Jan and everyone in the military had better get out by 09, and no one should enlist. Let them draft an army of know nothings, do nothings, worth nothings, from the left wing. Come on Republicans, support Rangel right up to the vote and then abstain. Let it fall on the dim's to draft their own.

Oh so jeez, the NYT, who mu... (Below threshold)

Oh so jeez, the NYT, who must have nothing to do with its reporters' actions because obviously they were off on their own little toot with absolutely no knowledge of their bosses suddenly and gallantly comes to their defense and decides to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Get your head out of your ass, Brian.

If the NYT is the petitioner, it is admitting it has a sufficient interest in the reporters' predicament to have standing to bring the petition. In other words, what you're so reluctant to admit the Times already has.

I do believe it's long past... (Below threshold)
PhoenixPat:

I do believe it's long past time to make it illegal to publish classified information. The NYT and others hide behind this liberty to undermine our efforts to defend ourselves. In times past, the media could be trusted with a secret. One might even argue that knowing a secret allowed the media to avoid inadvertently revealing a plan. For example, an article that offers opinion, analysis, or speculation might unwittingly suggest something that is exactly what is being planned. Knowing that, the author could avoid using such an example in an article. Unfortunately, the media has not been trustworthy since Vietnam. Since they cannot govern themselves, then I think we should criminalize the practice. I would like it a lot if they called it the Keep Your Big Bazoo Shut Bill.

"who 'outed' 'secret age... (Below threshold)
Brian:

"who 'outed' 'secret agent' Plame"
Outed a what? Can't stop telling your Party's stupid lies.

Oh no, not the "she wasn't secret at the time" myth again! Is it still possible anyone is using that anymore?

Spin til you're dizzy (d... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Spin til you're dizzy (dizzier, whatever), Brian. Nobody believes you on this.

There's nothing to "believe". I cite facts, not beliefs. Not "believing" facts is usually called "delusion". You might want to have that looked at.

The Dems/Left/MSM screamed bloody murder for this to be investigated. They used it to politically smear the Bush admin. Pure, dishonest hit job. We all know it.

Are you referring to this?

Oh so jeez, the NYT, who... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Oh so jeez, the NYT, who must have nothing to do with its reporters' actions because obviously they were off on their own little toot with absolutely no knowledge

Doesn't matter. The guy did it. He's responsible.

If the NYT is the petitioner, it is admitting it has a sufficient interest in the reporters' predicament

No, it is claiming that it does, as a tactic to help the reporter. Big difference. The court should shut it down and tell them that they don't.

I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to want this to be ruled as a "freedom of the press" issue, and have the reporter get off. I'm saying this is not a "freedom of the press" issue, and the reporter should be held accountable.

Posted by: Brian at Novembe... (Below threshold)
CayuteKitt:

Posted by: Brian at November 25, 2006 02:46 PM

"Why does this need to turn into a big "freedom of the press" issue?"

It shouldn't, for a very important reason that the NY Times and others of the MSM desperately don't want to talk about.

They're all self-appointed "watchdogs", whose bottom line is two-fold for the past several of decades:

1. The vast majority of the MSM is Liberal in bias, as has now well been established, making it nearly impossible for their editors to recognize, let alone approve of, truly objective and non-biased reporting.

2. Like all other businesses, they're executive boards set the tone and mode for the business, and it is indeed a business first and foremost, top to bottom. The NY Times has long established itself as a radical Liberal activist vehicle, intent on using its power and public influence to steer the political course for the USA according to their top-down dictated Liberal/Socialist agenda.

These two issues comprise the damning conflict of interest foundation which they hide from the public under the auspices of "freedom of the press" because the public has a "right to know" certain information.

Calling them to account for their treasonous actions in their publication policies would expose them finally for what they really are: A political party watchdog, generally meaning the Democratic Party. Nothing more.

The vast majority of the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The vast majority of the MSM is Liberal in bias, as has now well been established

The real problem is when simple-minds like you take the right-wing talking points and declare them to "well be established". When the reality is that they have well been debunked. Frequently.

<a href="http://newsbusters... (Below threshold)
CayuteKitt:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9257

http://newsbusters.org/node/8196

And there are new books out with the stats to support all of it, Brian. If you're serious about researching the issue, DYI. I do my own, and I can't understand why you and others like you stop with just those bits of news which support your position only, and nothing more.

But of course, why challenge your long held beliefs? You might have to actually look at the facts and acknowledge the bias....heaven forbid you should be part of exposing one of the Dems foundation of power in this country: a Liberal MSM that has become the Democratic Party's staunchest ally!

CayuteKitt - A former JFKennedy Democrat who finally got a "clue".

Hugh wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Thrush:

Hugh wrote:


That loons like Justrand really believe the hating drivel that dribbles from their mouths or that they just make up shit because they are delusional. Either way these representatives of the right wing conservative movement in this country are more dnagerous than Osama and his followers.

Hugh, pot. Pot, meet kettle.

If you're serious about ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If you're serious about researching the issue, DYI. I do my own, and I can't understand why you and others like you stop with just those bits of news which support your position only, and nothing more.

That's what you call "research" of the issue?

I posted a link to a statistical and multi-source analysis of media over time, with citations and attributions that you are free to follow up on and dispute if you find them to be flawed. You posted links to individual peoples' personal opinions.

You obviously are using a definition of "research" that I'm not familiar with.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy