"Court allows review of NY Times phone records" This is a SUPREME COURT ruling.

[in_cog_ni_to]

Even though this is to go after Judith Miller, THIS IS SCARY SHIT. Now the government can find out who a reporter's informant is by going through the Newspaper's PHONE RECORDS!!!.:scared:


Court allows review of NY Times phone records
Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:42pm ET

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.<snip>

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-11-27T204202Z_01_N27281041_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-COURT-NEWYORKTIMES.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-2

[11 Bravo]

1. 5-4?

Reuters doesn't say.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. I don't know what the vote was. The article doesn't say.

I did a Google search and didn't find it either.

[AngryAmish]

3. They declined cert

Votes generally are not disclosed (I think). The appellate court ruling stands because the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Nobody was expecting them to review the case.

[William769]

4. What law is a reporter's informant protected under?

I am ignorant in this.