Sister Toldjah!
11/27/2006 - 9:32 pm

A victory for national security:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the U.S. government to review the phone records of two New York Times reporters as part of an effort to discover who leaked information about a terrorism-funding probe involving Islamic charities.

The justices rejected a request from the newspaper to put on hold a ruling from a U.S. appeals court in New York while it prepares an appeal asking the high court to hear the case involving constitutional rights of freedom of the press.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wants to know the identity of government sources who might have given information to the two New York Times reporters, including former reporter Judith Miller.

Fitzgerald is investigating how Miller and fellow reporter Philip Shenon learned of government plans to search the premises of the two Islamic charities about three months after the September 11 attacks and to freeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

Guess what? Not one of the Supremes dissented on this decision. I guess this means that those liberals on the USSC are in league with BUSH-CO!

Seriously, now that Fitz is actually going to be able to get his hands on those phone records, I wonder how the liberal mediots and their co-horts on the left will view him now? He was the darling of the press and the left during pLamegate, but now?

Others blogging about this: Atlas Shrugs, SCOTUSBlog, Stop The ACLU, Michelle Malkin, Iowa Voice

Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Law/Judiciary, Media Watch, US Supreme Court
| Email This Post | Print This |   

Trackback URI for this post:
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/11/27/supremes-to-nytimes-govt-should-be-allowed-to-review-your-phone-records/trackback/
Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The New York Times Fails In Effort To Block Justice Department Investigation

    Where is the line drawn between informing the public and causing them harm? Thankfully we are about to learn the answer to that question courtesy of the man who was going to bring the New York Times “Fitzmas” just a short while back.

    …

    Trackback by Webloggin — 11/28/2006 @ 11/28/2006 - 8:19 am


Comments

  1. Now that they got a hold of the phone records, I sure hope that if there are any indicators as to who leaked this information those that did get prosecuted for high treason.

    The abundance of leaks, especially those for political conveneience, is out of control.

    Comment by TedintheShed @ 11/27/2006 - 10:14 pm

  2. This is great news, particularly the unanimous decision by the Supremes. If all that comes of this is that there will be no more leaks, I’d be fairly happy. But it would be nice to find and punish the perpetrators of these seditious acts.

    Comment by Marshall Art @ 11/28/2006 - 1:33 am

  3. Sis, it’s spelled Bu$hCo; you’ve got to include the dollar sign. Didn’t you get the memo?

    Comment by Dana @ 11/28/2006 - 7:29 am

  4. Does this mean that journalists are covered by the same Constitution the rest of us live under? Say it ain’t so! What’s next, dismantling their pedestals?

    Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 11/28/2006 - 3:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice. If you are new to this site please make sure to read my policy on comments and trackbacks before submitting your comment/trackback.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.