Supremes to NYTimes: Gov't should be allowed to review your phone records

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

TedintheShed says:

November 27, 2006 at 10:14 pm

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.

Marshall Art says:

November 28, 2006 at 1:33 am

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.

Dana says:

November 28, 2006 at 7:29 am

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

Webloggin says:

November 28, 2006 at 8:19 am

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.

…

Steve Skubinna says:

November 28, 2006 at 3:33 pm

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?