NY Times Seeks Help From Ruth Bader Ginsburg Against Feds’ Investigation Into Tipping Off Terror Funding Charities
Posted on November 25, 2006
Michelle Malkin provides the background on this:
As the New York Post reported last September, the Justice Department charged that “a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.” Times reporter Philip Shenon was accused of blowing the cover on a Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation.
“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.
Now the NY Times fights the Feds on investigating these illegal leaks.
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.
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.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Illegal Activities, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “NY Times Seeks Help From Ruth Bader Ginsburg Against Feds’ Investigation Into Tipping Off Terror Funding Charities”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I run a gas station with a news stand. This summer, I stopped buying the NYT and its local puppet, the Boston Globe, because I’m convinced they’re an agent of the enemy (whomever the enemy happens to be at the time). It’s what I can do.
Before your blood boils too much, you should remember two things.
1. This story is long on allegations and short on convictions.
2. Our federal government has been operating behind a huge curtain of secrecy for some time now. In order for us to have any clue what they are doing, it is important for classified information to be leaked on occasion.
I’m not saying that the GRF, Shenon, or the NYT are innocent or justified in their various roles, but I’m not convinced they’re guilty either. We simply don’t have enough information to draw any conclusions.
The only thing I am certain of is that the principle the NYT is defending is every bit as important as they say it is.
“In order for us to have any clue what they are doing, it is important for classified information to be leaked on occasion.” Jeff Molby
The Freedom of Information Act can be used. That means a judge gets to decide whether the item is classified for a good reason or not. Handing classified information to the enemy is considered treason and publishing it in the Media is certainly giving it to the enemy as well as everyone else.
No, subsections (b)(1) and (b)(7) of the FOIA specifically rule out classified documents and other documents related to investigations.
“In order for us to have any clue what they are doing, it is important for classified information to be leaked on occasion.” -Jeff Molby
“No, subsections (b)(1) and (b)(7) of the FOIA specifically rule out classified documents and other documents related to investigations.” -Jeff Molby
“All information or material considered vital to the safety of the United States is given a security classification level.”- U.S. Navy publication disclaimer.
By the above definition of why information is classified, leaking sounds like a bad thing. The FOIA subsections you list, are there for a reason.
Indeed. I don’t have a problem with the FOIA.
Sure, it usually would be a bad thing. There are colossal volumes of classified text that the public doesn’t need to know anything about.
BUT, the entire classification process is run by a lot of fallible human beings who work for the same branch of the government. It is not uncommon of for a classified program to be illegal or contrary to public’s interest. When this is the case, I don’t consider it treasonous to leak the information.
BUT, the entire classification process is run by a lot of fallible human beings who work for the same branch of the government.
Whom are kept inline by Congressional Oversight Committees.
It is not uncommon of for a classified program to be illegal or contrary to public’s interest. When this is the case, I don’t consider it treasonous to leak the information.
Fortunately the law doesn’t see it your way. It’s illegal for the one passing the info and for the one receiving it.
And it IS treasonous for both.
That’s the theory, at least. The truth of the matter is that those committees rarely have the authority to do much, even if they are motivated.
And they are restricted from discussing classified information, so can’t inform the public either. If an administration is engaging in programs that are illegal or contrary to the public’s interest, these committees are of no use to us.
I know it’s illegal, but that doesn’t mean it’s ignoble in every case. Our early history is chock-full of examples of illegal activities justified by the oppressiveness of the government.
I don’t mean to imply that this case rises to that level; I’m just explaining my reasoning.
This is just my opinion, but I disagree. The word “treason” gets tossed around a lot these days just because the whole world gets CNN. I don’t know about you, but I see a clear difference between someone who secretly divulges information to the enemy and someone who divulges information to the public, assuming of course, that the information is something that a reasonable person might think the public should know.
“U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. “
The question is whether the Times gave our enemies aid and comfort by running the story. If the answer is yes the question of whether the information would inform the public also is irrelevant. It is not that complicated of an issue.
Congress is not as helpless as you propose. They have the power of the purse. They can also harass people by calling them into committee meeting after committee meeting. From what I heart the last will probably be done quite frequently in the next two years.
That is not accurate. The burden of proof is much higher. The prosecution has to demonstrate the defendant was either:
1. “levying war against them”
or
2. “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”
The verb “adhere” is very important to the phrase and requires an element of intent. Incidental “aid and comfort” does not amount to “adhering”.