February 28, 2006
NY TimesWatch: A Case About Nothing
More evidence that L'Affaire Plame is, as the half-vast editorial staff observed many moons ago, A Case About Nothing:
For months now, Fitzgerald has resisted turning over any documents that might show that Wilson's status was classified, or any assessment of the damage resulting from disclosure. At times, Fitzgerald has argued that he did not have the documents, that the documents were none of Libby's business, that the documents were irrelevant to the charges against Libby, and that he did not have any documents to show that Wilson's status was not classified, so that therefore Libby should assume that it was. Finally, in court Friday, Fitzgerald argued that it just does not matter one way or the other.
"Does the government intend to introduce any evidence of damage or her status?" Walton asked.
"We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage," Fitzgerald responded, adding that he would have more to say on the subject this week in a sealed filing with the court.
Hmm... it must be super secret classified information...unlike the details of the NSA terrorist surveillance program, which the New York Times seeks to FOIA** from the DOD::
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.
David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, acknowledged that the list of documents sought was lengthy but that the Pentagon failed to assert there were "unusual circumstances," [Such as, say, fighting a war] a provision of the law that would grant the Pentagon extra time to respond.
The Defense Department, which was sued as the parent agency of the NSA, did not immediately respond to the suit.
McCraw said there was "no connection" between the Justice Department probe and the Times' lawsuit.
Well gosh... there wouldn't be, would there?
Let's see: would this be the same outfit which broke the law in the first place by publishing information about a classified program rather than taking their concerns to the designated intelligence oversight committee as mandated by law?
The same organization which demanded an investigation into the "outing" of a "covert" agent which the federal government has even never bothered to prove was "covert"?
The same organziation which then supported the "right" of its own reporter to shield the "criminal leaker" from a grand jury investigation it had demanded? A reporter who, by the by, was never indicted by Mr. Fitzpatrick for her own 'misleading' statements or for obstructing said investigation?
Makes perfect sense to me.
Posted by Cassandra at February 28, 2006 08:36 AM
The verb of the day is pronounced "foy-YA."
As in "I got a foy-YA request foy-ya. Where do you want me to stick it?"
Posted by: spd rdr at February 28, 2006 11:57 AM
Oooooh... so hostile :D
One would almost think... oh, nevermind.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 28, 2006 12:11 PM