The New York Times is fighting for it’s perceived right to facilitate illegal activities that jeopardize our national security:

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.

Michelle Malkin has been all over the Times both on her blog and in the mainstream media. I’m just barely recovering from my post-turkey coma while she’s in full attack mode. She even dug up one of my earlier NYT photoshops in today’s post. I think we both find it hard to believe that this story doesn’t spark more outrage given our current security issues - we are at war. Michelle’s appeal:

The NYTimes’ refusal to cooperate with the feds to find illegal leakers in these counterterrorism cases deserves to be on the front page. Spread the word.

That seems to be happening:

Axis of Right: The First Amendment does not protect leakers of Classified information. It may in fact protect the Times from prosecution, despicable as they may be, as the Times can print anything it wants so long as it has a factual basis. However, the people who leak classified information to news organizations are not journalists, and not protected from the law. It is about time we as a nation took a common-sense approach to interpreting the First Amendment to allow for maximum freedom of the press, but harsh prosecution of those who leak classified information that can harm this nation in the current War on Terror.

Stop the ACLU: 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.

Wizbang!: 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.

Third World Country: Jay, at Stop the ACLU, asks concerning the NYT publication of classified information aiding our enemies, “Where do we draw the line on freedom of press?” Urm, Jay, I’d draw that line at open treason, which is, IMO, a fair characterization of the NYT’s behavior…

Macsmind:Let’s not forget while at the same time the NY Times is asking for protection, they also admit that the leaking of the Swift Program was wrong.

Dave Lucas: If the democrats take the White House and the Government in 2008, will the NY Times change it’s tune on it’s own? In essence, is this more POLITICAL than anything else?

The Discerning Texan: It is so difficult for me not to boil over with anger whenever I bring up the topic of the seditious New York Times that I often lose what coherence my sentences have when I even try.

The Hill Chronicles: The NYTimes’ absolute refusal to cooperate with the feds to find illegal leakers in the now many counterterrorism cases deserves to be on the front page. Please spread the word.

Say Anything: I’ve never understood what gives these reporters the idea that they have rights which go beyond the freedoms enjoyed by ordinary citizens. Rights that allow them to protect sources who break the law in various ways, up to and including talking out of turn to reporters. The courts routinely issue search warrants authorizing the review of phone and even bank records from people suspected of crimes like fraud, racketeering and tax evasion. Why should reporters be given protections beyond that which non-reporter citizens enjoy?

SCOTUSblog: Justice Ginsburg has the authority to act alone on The Times’ request, but also may refer it to the full Court for action. With the government response in hand, she or the Court could act at any time.

Post a Comment