WASHINGTON, Nov. 27, 2006
High Court Rules Against New York Times
Supreme Court Turns Down Paper In Leak Investigation, Refuses To Block Government's Review Of Records
-
New York Times reporter Judith Miller, right, leaves U. S. District Court in Washington with her attorney, Robert Bennett, on Oct. 12, 2005. The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Nov. 27, 2006, refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of Miller and another Times reporter in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe. (AP)
-
Interactive The Supreme Court History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
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 before 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 protection of phone record confidentiality is among the issues that should be addressed in federal shield law legislation she and other media advocates are urging Congress to consider.
In other cases:
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Supreme Court
Add a Comment See all 22 Comments
- "George W Bush's Personal Vendetta Against
Saddam Hussein,For Alledgedly Trying To "Kill
My Daddy George H W Bush" since after all,it is
what is! Or can't the American people handled
the Truth when they hear it?
Posted by sandy5274 at 07:03 PM : Nov 27, 2006"
That is the truth, Sandy; but few Americans can handle the truth.
Our vengeful 'leader' use the US military as HIS PERSONAL ARMY (and got many Americans murdered and maimed) just so that he could avenge a mere alleged attempt upon his dad. - Reply to this comment
- If you find bushrocks1 constant spamming of these boards disruptive, just click on "report this comment" below his post and report it.
- Reply to this comment
- Since the founding of the republic, the Supreme Court has recognized the stature of the lone publisher and distributor of the humble pamphlet as as worthy of First Amendment protection as any paid employee of a newspaper. It should follow from this that anyone who "publishes" material on an Internet web page should also receive the same protection.
Thus, any member of the population at large with a web site could legitimately claim to be a member of the "press" and entitled to that consitutional protection. And thereby, should the advocates of press freedom from court subpoenas and testimony have their way, it would be trivially easy to avoid any prosecutorial attempt to gain testimony, in any criminal case.
Absurd, no? - Reply to this comment
- Since the founding of the republic, the Supreme Court has recognized the stature of the lone publisher and distributor of the humble pamphlet as as worthy of First Amendment protection as any paid employee of a newspaper. It should follow from this that anyone who "publishes" material on an Internet web page should also receive the same protection.
Thus, any member of the population at large with a web site could legitimately claim to be a member of the "press" and entitled to that consitutional protection. And thereby, should the advocates of press freedom from court subpoenas and testimony have their way, it would be trivially easy to avoid any prosecutorial attempt to gain testimony, in any criminal case. Freedom for anyone. Any blogger!
Absurd, no? - Reply to this comment
- Et tu, Judith? She looks to the cameras, thinking it is all about her. All about the drama queen of the Tigris. She was going to be Queen of the new Iraq, just ask Ahmed Chalabi.
Things will be rolling fast now, this leads directly to the Veep and Secretary of State, then NSA. Rumsfeld is not bound by executive privlege and announced his resignation before he can be held to oath in committee for other malfaesances.
The grand jury may get an extension for that very fact before it's all said and done.
Zelikow may fall under the same scrutiny and it might be why he also resigned... - Reply to this comment
- Personally, I think CBS will continue to let Bushrocks post his weird "Jacobite" post as long as he wants. I've been reporting this strange cut and paste drivel for at least a week....It's a post about as enlightening as an infomercial...." my past life as a Jacobite" Hmmmmmm...Maybe Bushrocks is really Shirley Maclaine.
- Reply to this comment
- You're good!
- Reply to this comment
- Tinker3478
I think you've overestimated him. I think he's young because what he's doing is imature. He's not intelligent because he can't defend his ideas. He spends most of his time looking at porn and posting the same message over and over on this forum. Both of these are very ************ activities as they involve no real exchange. Which brings me to my next point: he's lonely, pathetic, powerless and paranoid. - Reply to this comment
- If you find the posting and re-posting of the same message by Bushrocks1 pointless and counterproductive, just click on "report this comment" below his post and report it.
- Reply to this comment
- Let's see if we can profile ****rocks, shall we? He is a white male between the ages of 45 and 60. Obviously, he is educated as obnoxious as he may seem. He possibly has a high IQ; it's hard to tell. He probably doesn't have a son since he is so eager for the war to continue. He is disabled and/or unemployed because he can be on these sites any hour of the day or night. Because he has a computer with internet service, someone in the household works-either a wife or girlfriend. He is evidently impotent and feels the need to vent his frustration on the rest of the world.
How am I doing so far? - Reply to this comment
- Since NBC is calling that Idiot in the White
House George W Bush & Vice Idiot *** Cheney
Mess in Iraq,A "Civil War" and so why tip toe
around about this and call it exactly what it
is,"George W Bush's Personal Vendetta Against
Saddam Hussein,For Alledgedly Trying To "Kill
My Daddy George H W Bush" since after all,it is
what is! Or can't the American people handled
the Truth when they hear it?
Posted by sandy5274 at 07:03 PM : Nov 27, 2006 - Reply to this comment
- Good for you. Some of the bloggers only log on to spew their hate for everyone and everything. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation because of people like bushie. If CBS doesn't act, one thing we can do to bushie and people like him is to act as if they never posted and go on with our conversation without responding to ANYTHING they post.
- Reply to this comment
- To All: I have contacted CBSNEWS.COM via phone and email regarding bushrocks1 with the following message: For the past couple weeks now we (the bloggers) have complained about an individual that constantly cuts and pastes the very same very lengthy line, a very very long line, it can be found in every subject area of CBSnews.com whether it pertains to the subject or not, his post starts with: "Would I send my son to this war" This is called spamming or text flooding, clearly against your very own terms of service/rules for engagement. His user name is bushrocks1 if you allow this to continue I will urge my fellow bloggers to boycott CBS altogether. Thanks in advance....I have also asked for a ban on his IP address or the entire sub net in his area
- Reply to this comment
- If you find the pointless posting and re-posting of the same message by Bushrocks1 annoying, just click on report this comment below his post and report it.
- Reply to this comment
- Ummm... what's a hoax?
That we as a species could be the complete undoing of our environment?
Don't underestimate us. Like Agent Smith said in the Matrix:
"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague..."
Unless we turn away from fossil fuels, we will destroy everything we work for.
New Yorkers will have to visit Ground Zero underwater. The Bay Area of San Francisco will be a marine sanctuary. Walt Disney World will have to expand the 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea ride to encompass the entire park. The red light district in Amsterdam will have mermaid hookers.
This is no hoax. This is reality. - Reply to this comment
- yes, as zeekylord said, we SHOULD panic. This is a serious situation nothing short of global suicide and being the mother of 2 little baby girls my heart just BREAKS to think of what they will have to face. And our fearless leader, George Bush? How many ways can he help to destroy our planet???? Are we really going to stand around while the very last shreds of our planet get destroyed?? It is truly pathetic especially since there are alternative, sustainable and clean energy solutions out there if only our politicians would commit. I mean, don't they love their children, too???? And I'll tell you why can't we use the sun, water and wind for energy...because no one owns them so no one can make money from them. so so so sad. And he calls himself a Christian?? I really don't think God wants us to destroy his beautiful creation, which, of course, would mean destroying ourselves.
- Reply to this comment
- yes, as zeekylord said, we SHOULD panic. This is a serious situation nothing short of global suicide and being the mother of 2 little baby girls my heart just BREAKS to think of what they will have to face. And our fearless leader, George Bush? How many ways can he help to destroy our planet???? Are we really going to stand around while the very last shreds of our planet get destroyed?? It is truly pathetic especially since there are alternative, sustainable and clean energy solutions out there if only our politicians would commit. I mean, don't they love their children, too???? And I'll tell you why can't we use the sun, water and wind for energy...because no one owns them so no one can make money from them. so so so sad. And he calls himself a Christian?? I really don't think God wants us to destroy his beautiful creation, which, of course, would mean destroying ourselves.
- Reply to this comment
- It is just good policy to use as little finite fossil fuel as we can, while keeping a good standard of living. If hybrids, E10, wind, solar, biomass and other alternatives can help us do this, great!
- Reply to this comment
- About time!
- Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
