The Right State

For years, the New York Times has claimed its First Amendment right under the Constitution to print whatever it wanted.  They leaked secret military planning for Afghanistan, selective leaking of the NIE, and the leaking of the financial data mining  of terrorists.  All of these were highly classified secrets the New York Times felt the world had a right to know.  The defense the Times has been using may be starting to come unraveled as the courts see a ‘compelling interest’ on the part of federal prosecutors to know who leaked a planned raid on two Muslim charities.

The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the New York Times and two of its reporters from a prosecutor’s probe into who leaked word of planned raids on two Muslim charities five years ago.

The decision clears the way for federal prosecutors to review the phone records of the two reporters for several weeks in the fall of 2001. The prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago, says the records will help point to the source of the leak.

The New York Times maintains it has a 1st Amendment right to protect the confidentiality of its sources. Floyd Abrams, the newspaper’s lawyer, said, “There has been no claim of wrongdoing against the Times reporters. The only thing at issue here is a leak investigation in which the government seeks to obtain information on who spoke to the journalists.”

Two years ago, lawyers for the newspaper went before a federal judge in New York and won an order that barred the prosecutor from examining the phone records.

But in August, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order in a 2-1 decision. The prosecutor has a “compelling interest” in learning who tipped off the reporters to the planned raids, thereby “endangering federal agents” and permitting the “targets to spirit away incriminating information,” said Judge Ralph K. Winter in the appeals court opinion.

“We see no danger to the free press in so holding,” he added. “Learning of imminent law enforcement asset freezes or searches and informing targets of them is not an activity essential … to journalism.”

The Supreme Court has never squarely ruled that the news media has a 1st Amendment right to protect its confidential sources. On Monday, the justices turned down an emergency plea from the Times in a one-line order.

The question is, do the investigations stop here?  The Times have been involved in so many leaks which have harmed America’s war on terror. These leaks were not done because of the people’s right to know or the First Amendment rights, but they were leaked to harm a sitting president they did not like.

Now, its time to pay the piper.   Hopefully, the indictment of Judith Miller will be but the first of many who have knowingly printed classified documents. This should be the first of many salvos across the bow of the MSM who feel it is their duty to determine what needs to be classified and what does not, who is an enemy and who is not, who is a terrorist and who is not.

And while I am involved in wishful thinking, it would be nice if the media were on the side of America and her troops, at least every once in a while.  Unfortunately this may never take place.  This is going to be a long war against people who want to kill us and our way of life.  The New York Times seems to have chosen sides and now they are paying for it.

Tags: Terrorism, Bias, War //