Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Rep. Charles Rangel: Perpetuating Anti-Military Myths
American Legion Demands Apology From Rep. Charles Rangel »

Supreme Court Rejects N.Y. Times Request

For much background info (for those not paying attention) on the al Qaeda Times of New York’s attempts to hide the source of their terror-tip-offs , read this post from Michelle Malkin (The Terrorist-Tipping Times — June 06) and then this one (Court Orders NYTimes: Cough it up — August 06).

And now today, from News Max:

The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of 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.

Good. Hopefully now we’ll finally be able to find out who helped the aQ Times of NY to aid terrorists/endanger American citizens just to sate their instituional BDS.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Monday, November 27th, 2006 | Trackback |

5 Responses to “Supreme Court Rejects N.Y. Times Request”

Is the the SAME Judith Miller from Plamegate?

Left by The Holywriter on November 27th, 2006 at 9:08 pm

The same Judith Miller who funneled false information from Ahmed Chalabi and the neocons about Saddams WMD capabilites.

I wouldn’t shed any tears about her going up the river but do you really want journalists to become the investigative branch of the government where anything said to them goes straight to a court of law? So much for an open society…

Left by Preston on November 27th, 2006 at 9:44 pm

Preston, this is not an open society (despite what Soros wants).
This is a society of laws.

The journalists’ information didn’t go straight to a court of law. It went straight to a suspected terrorist organization.

Left by dianne on November 28th, 2006 at 8:20 am

Of course you need to be a nation of laws if you hope to have anopen society. I don’t know how you come to the understanding that they are opposed.

Dianne, if the principles you are supporting are upheld any whistle blower, informant, citizen, public employee, or anybody who speaks to a journalist- on or off the record- could be brought into a court.

It doesn’t take a lot of thought to see that the result will be a reduction in the amount of information that Americans have about the government, business, the church, NGO’s, or anything. That is a sad foundation for a democracy.

Left by Preston on November 28th, 2006 at 10:44 am

Preston,

You bet they are the principles I support and I guess the courts are in agreement with me. But, to put it in simple terms, I think whoever leaked the information should go to jail and I think the reporters should go to jail. This is a matter of national security.

Left by dianne on November 28th, 2006 at 1:40 pm

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.