You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Fifth Column
NYT: Now openly on the other side
2006-02-28
Hat tip Lucianne.com EFL
NYT sues Pentagon over domestic spying
The New York Times sued the U.S. Defense Department on Monday demanding that it hand over documents about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program. The Times wants a list of documents including all internal memos and e-mails about the program of monitoring phone calls without court approval. It also seeks the names of the people or groups identified by it.

The Times had requested the documents in December under the Freedom of Information Act but sued upon being unsatisfied with the Pentagon's response that the request was "being processed as quickly as possible," according to the six-page suit filed at federal court in New York.
Posted by:trailing wife

#15  ...which was already in Left field...
Posted by: .com   2006-02-28 20:15  

#14  Pinchy the acorn did not fall far from the tree - and it was to the Left of the tree.
Posted by: .com   2006-02-28 20:13  

#13  The New York Times: All the news we print in a fit.
Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827   2006-02-28 20:12  

#12  Key word in that phrase is openly, Barbara. I wouldn't know when to put the start of on the other side with regard to the NYTimes, perhaps sometime not long after the end of WWII, perhaps during that war. But they've never been so blatant about it before. Suing to get all the details, including names of analysts and suspected bad guys? Someone's BDS has taken him over the cliff, and is now beyond syndrome and deep in psychosis territory.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-02-28 20:06  

#11  about the program of monitoring phone calls without court approval.

we're at war, W has the power and authority. They ARE on the other side.
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-28 17:44  

#10  "NYT: Now openly on the other side"

Waddaya mean "now"?

As opposed to the last 50 years?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-02-28 16:54  

#9  NYT could easily reinstate reporter Jayson Blair. Jayson could safe them a great deal of legal expense by simply writing the documents in question for them.
Posted by: Visitor   2006-02-28 14:38  

#8  Read James Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace", one of the only books ever written about the NSA. Even the NSA's original charter from 1952 remains classified to this day. Someone I knew worked at Cray Supercomputer and maintained that Tom Clancy's scribbling about "rooms full of Crays" was essentially truthful.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-02-28 12:49  

#7  Yeah, and they're keeping the door open in case the Moslems gain power . . . follow the money.
Posted by: ex-lib   2006-02-28 11:28  

#6  New York City is at or certainly near the very top of the target list
But it would sell a lot of papers. So that's one in the NYT win column.
Posted by: ed   2006-02-28 10:29  

#5  Is the New York Times inclined toward suicide? Has it ever occurred to them that New York City is at or certainly near the very top of the target list for a future Jihadi terror squad armed, G-d forbid, one day with a WMD? And should that WMD be a low-yield nuke, and if it is delivered say within a mile of the Grey Lady's building, don't these clowns realize they too will be vaporized along with potentially tens of thousands of New Yorkers? Do they give rat's ass?
Posted by: Happy 88mm   2006-02-28 10:21  

#4  A couple of minutes of googling would have told the applicants the following -

Because of the sensitivity of NSA's functions and activities, the most often cited exemptions are (b)(1) (national security information) and (b)(3) (exemption by statute). The statutes most often applied to the protection of information are the following:

-- Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-36, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 402 note), which provides that no law shall be construed to require the disclosure of, inter alia, the functions or activities of NSA;

-- the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 403-3(c)(6), which protects information pertaining to intelligence sources and methods; and

-- 18 U.S.C. Sec. 798, which prohibits the release of classified information concerning communications intelligence and communications security information to unauthorized persons.
http://www.nsa.gov/foia/foia00002.cfm

So by the language of FOIA, the information is not accessible. Of course the printed word means nothing to judges anymore. They just make it up as they go along.
Posted by: Glaising Jinter9531   2006-02-28 09:27  

#3  Okay, the two NY Slimes reporters divulged the NSA program in its 12-16-2005 article.

The Justice Dept is investigating the leak of sensitive information about the program and plans to quiry the "press" (i.e., the Slimes reporters).

It more likely that the Slimes will get more discovery information for their own defense through the Freedom of Information Act than through mounting its own defense of its reporters (particularly since Judith Miller spent some cell time).

Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-28 01:13  

#2  Huh?
Posted by: Sherry   2006-02-28 01:00  

#1  They seem quite defensive. I wonder why? (he-he)
Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-28 00:28  

00:00