Text 25477, 99 rader
Skriven 2006-11-27 19:52:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Classified leak
=======================
Democrats forget that leaking classified documents to win an election is 
a federal offense....

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

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/27/D8LLNPVG0.html

Court Rejects N.Y. Times on Leak Probe
Nov 27 7:03 PM US/Eastern
   
By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

          
 
 


The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing 
to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times 
reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe. 
The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves 
stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip 
Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets 
of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief 
Foundation. 

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to track down the reporters' 
confidential sources for the stories. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall 
Samborn, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's order. 

The case marks the second refusal by the court in as many years to sort 
out a clash between the federal government and the Times over press 
freedom. 

In June 2005, the Supreme Court refused to take up the Times' request to 
hear an appeal in the CIA leak investigation involving the outing of 
Valerie Plame. In that case, Miller, who retired from the Times a year 
ago, spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify to a federal grand 
jury. Fitzgerald, in a role as a special counsel, conducted that leak 
investigation as well. 

Monday's rejection "is just further indication that we're getting 
absolutely nowhere with the court when it comes to protecting 
confidential sources," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the 
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 

The case points out a growing problem of reporters trying to protect 
their sources in the information age, press advocates say. Rather than 
threatening reporters with jail if they don't testify, the government 
can go through the back door to hunt down confidential sources by 
amassing phone records and credit card receipts. 

"It's impossible to operate on cash only and face-to-face and do your 
job as journalists," said University of Minnesota media ethics and law 
professor Jane E. Kirtley. 

Dalglish said that protection of phone record confidentiality is among 
the issues that should be addressed in federal shield law legislation 
she and other press advocates are urging Congress to consider. 

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for the Times, said the current case is part of a 
larger dispute over the public's right to information. 

"We remain hopeful that in the end, whether in the courts or in 
Congress, that right will be vindicated," Abrams said. 

The current dispute stems from Shenon and Miller calling the two 
charities for comment after learning of the planned freeze on their 
assets from confidential sources. 

The Justice Department says the reporters' calls tipped off the 
charities of upcoming government raids. A federal judge who ruled in the 
Times' favor said there is no evidence in the case even suggesting that 
the reporters tipped off the charities about the raids or that the 
reporters even knew the government would raid either charity. 

In August, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that federal 
prosecutors could see the two reporters' phone records. 

The government says the fact that the reporters relayed disclosures from 
a government source to "targets of an imminent law enforcement action 
substantially weakens any claim of freedom of the press." 

At issue are 11 days of phone records the government plans to review 
from 2001 _ for the dates Sept. 27-30, Dec. 1-3 and Dec. 10-13. In a 
declaration this month, Fitzgerald said the statute of limitations "on 
certain substantive offenses that the grand jury is investigating" will 
expire on Dec. 3 and Dec. 13 of this year. 

The current leak probe is in Fitzgerald's capacity as U.S. attorney in 
Chicago. The Libby prosecution is in Fitzgerald's role as a special 
counsel who was selected by a Justice Department superior to conduct 
that investigation. 

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