Text 21543, 98 rader
Skriven 2006-08-01 19:17:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: NY Times
================
I'll bet Bob and the libs forgot about this investigation.  One thing 
Americans don't lie are folks who aid the enemy and treason.   Where is 
all of the outrage from the left over classisifed information being 
leaked ?


===============================

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/01/D8J7TKF00.html

Court OK's Look at Times' Phone Records
Aug 01 6:47 PM US/Eastern
 Email this story    

By DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press Writer


NEW YORK


Federal prosecutors investigating a leak about a terrorism funding probe 
can see the phone records of two New York Times reporters, a federal 
appeals court ruled Tuesday. 

A panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned on a 2-1 
vote a lower court's ruling that the records were off limits unless 
prosecutors could show they had exhausted all other means of finding out 
who spoke to the newspaper. 

The judges said a grand jury investigation of the disclosures wasn't 
likely to go anywhere without help from the reporters or access to their 
records. 

"There is simply no substitute for the evidence they have," Judge Ralph 
K. Winter wrote. 

The newspaper was considering an appeal, its lawyers said. 

The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith 
Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed the government's plans to freeze 
the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the 
Global Relief Foundation. 

Prosecutors claimed the reporters' phone calls to the charities seeking 
comment had tipped the organizations off about the government 
investigation. 

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked the Times for information about 
the source of the reports in 2002, then threatened to subpoena phone 
company billing records in 2004. 

The newspaper sued to block any such effort, saying prosecutors might 
use the records to fish for information about the Times' sources for a 
long list of stories. 

In February 2005, the newspaper appeared to achieve a victory when U.S. 
District Judge Robert Sweet ruled that the government had failed to 
prove that it had exhausted all other methods. 

Tuesday's decision to overturn the lower court ruling prompted a dissent 
by Judge Robert D. Sack, who said prosecutors had made little effort to 
assure the court that the information was unavailable from any other 
source. 

He noted, however, that the majority opinion contained at least two 
victories for journalists: It held that reporters do have a right, in 
some circumstances, to protect the identities of people they speak to, 
and government investigators may not simply bypass an uncooperative 
reporter by seizing records from a phone company. 

"Without such protection," Sack wrote, "prosecutors, limited only by 
their own self-restraint, could obtain records that identify 
journalists' confidential sources in gross and virtually at will. 

"Reporters might find themselves, as a matter of practical necessity, 
contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers reach theirs _ by 
use of clandestine cell phones and meetings in darkened doorways." 

Times attorney Floyd Abrams said the closeness of the vote illustrates a 
disagreement within the courts about whether reporters have a limited 
privilege to protect their sources. 

"Not until the U.S. Supreme Court takes one of these cases and decides 
it will we really know where we are," Abrams said. 

It is unclear whether prosecutors already have the Times' phone records. 
Fitzgerald's office has refused to say whether it received the records 
before the Times sued. 

A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment. 

Fitzgerald had Miller jailed last year for refusing to tell a grand jury 
about conversations she had with the vice president's chief of staff 
regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)