More Tippin’ Off the Terrorists from the New York Times
From the Angry Clam comes this link to a case involving those zany terrorist-alertin’ folks at the New York Times:
After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the federal government launched or intensified investigations into the funding of terrorist activities by organizations raising money in the United States. In the course of those investigations, the government developed a plan to freeze the assets and/or search the premises of two foundations. Two New York Times reporters learned of these plans, and, on the eve of each of the government’s actions, called each foundation for comment on the upcoming government freeze and/or searches.
“Mr. Terrorist: what is your comment on the impending freezing of your assets and search of your premises? Oh, you didn’t know? Well, let me fill you in . . . so I can get your reaction, of course.”
Remember: Bill Keller told us that the Times is not neutral or agnostic in this war on terror.
UPDATE: This is not news, as Army Lawyer points out (though the decision is new). If you already knew the story, consider it a reminder.
UPDATE x2: Michelle Malkin has more on the significance of today’s ruling: it means the paper will have to cough up their phone records relevant to this investigation.
Not sure if this qualifies as “more” tipping off so much as the “first” instance. This story (IIRC) has been out for a while…
[I’m not claiming it’s new, though the decision is. But it’s “more” in the sense that it’s in addition to the FISA and Swift disclosures. If you already knew about it, consider it a reminder. — P]
Army Lawyer (6853dd) — 8/1/2006 @ 6:00 pmThat’s wrong, to tip someone off that they’re being investigated. Journalists are supposed to collect information from sources, not act as informants for them.
Having said that, what about the people who gave them the information? For newspapers to publish this stuff, someone has to reveal it to them first.
Steve M. (9e46e5) — 8/1/2006 @ 8:35 pmAnybody that doesn’t know that the NYT is on the other side hasn’t been reading the news.
It’s just like the Hezboz’s. They both use a thing protected only in the West to hide behind while they do their dirty work – in the Hezbo’s case it is women and kids, in the NYT’s case it is the Constitution.
Someday soon they will both pay… oh yes, oh yes, someday soon. Be seein’ you then Bill and Pinch. Be seein’ you then.
daver (a58e20) — 8/1/2006 @ 9:33 pmNail all germane NYT personnel as accessories.
Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 8/2/2006 @ 3:37 amit means the paper will have to cough up their phone records relevant to this investigation.
Is it really limited to that? The way I read the decision, the reporters in question may well be compelled to testify, since the court refused to create a journalist’s privilege, and also emphasized the legitimacy/importance of the investigation, and that journalists have the same duty as other citizens not to obstruct justice.
Fredrik Nyman (be2f9e) — 8/2/2006 @ 9:23 am[…] UPDATE x3: Good thing the New York Times didn’t find out about the plot before the arrests were made. They might have called the terrorists for their comments. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Allah on the Terror Plot (421107) — 8/10/2006 @ 7:58 pm