Saturday, October 01, 2005
I wrote you about this several months ago. In a published decision, U.S.D.J. Robert Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) denied Fitzpatrick's motion to compel Miller to testify before a grand jury relating to a leak to Miller about a warrant issued to the FBI for a search of a New York Muslim charity's offices. A source leaked this information to Miller, who, incredibly, promptly contacted the Muslim charity and revealed the warrant prior to the search. Fortunately, no FBI agents were injured when they searched the offices the next day, in what clearly could have developed into a very dangerous situation.Hinderaker's contact states that the judge's decision was published in the New York Law Journal, for those who have ready access to it.
District Judge Sweet (I will resist reiterating my comments regarding him included in my other email to you) denied the prosecutor's motion to compel Miller's testimony about this incident, finding, if you can believe it, that Miller's conduct was permissible because it was merely in keeping with the Times' editorial policy of contacting subjects of upcoming articles for comment prior to publication. In opposing the motion Miller stated that she was contacting the charity to get its comments about an article she planned to write after the search had been conducted. In doing so, of course, she divulged the existence of the warrant and created a situation where the office could have been booby-trapped, or at a minimum crucial evidence destroyed or removed. As an attorney, I found the facts of this case and Judge Sweet's reasoning so disturbing that I continue to be shocked, months later, that this incident hasn't received more public comment.
If there is any substance to this story, Miller should have been charged with either conspiracy or obstruction of justice and given an acvtual sentence for which she could serve real time in jail.
She tips off a potential terrorist front group or sympathizers, could have set up law enforcement for an ambush, and certainly gave the investigative target sufficient time to remove any evidence of wrong doing, if any was there.
Sheesh. Can journalists be any more reckless and partial in their coverage of the war on terror? Can even these, who used to live in the shadow of the World Trade Towers, be so oblivious in their dealings with both law enforcement and suspected or possible terrorist front organizations?
And yet, the media was all over this non-story about the "outing" of a well known CIA employee, the public identification of same was clearly instigated by her publicity hungry husband. All because it allows them to score some points against the Bush administration. Pathetic, stupid, and arrogant. Is this what they teach in Journalism School these days?
Not just against the war, but on the other side.
Links: Basil's Blog, Wizbang, Mudville Gazette, Fat Steve's Blatherings, Wizbang
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]