The New York Times Sues The Pentagon

NEW YORK (Reuters) – 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 in December broke the story that the NSA had begun intercepting domestic communications believed linked to al Qaeda following the September 11 attacks. That provoked renewed criticism of the way U.S.
President George W. Bush is handling his declared war on terrorism.
Bush called the disclosure of the program to the Times a “shameful act” and the U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into who leaked it.

Here’s the thing, the Times isn’t suing because the Pentagon has refused to comply with their request, they’re suing because they aren’t getting the records fast enough.

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,” a provision of the law that would grant the Pentagon extra time to respond.

Obviously, the Pentagon needs to comply with the law. That being said, this request was made not quite three months ago and we are talking about a highly classified program that was the subject of much debate within the administration. There are no doubt reams of pages of documents that must not only be dredged up and copied but also reviewed so that classified information can be redacted.
After all, its not like the Times can be trusted to, you know, obey the law and keep classified government information secret.
This lawsuit, to me, sounds more like an excuse to get the NSA story back in the headlines than anything else.

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array 2Hotel9

    Christ, ain’t these idiots heard of the Freedom of Information Act of 1974?  I use it several times a year. Don’t take no lawyer or nothing. Idiots.

  • http://vodradio.blogspot.com/ Dakota

    This is fairly standard in FOI requests. So a public entity cannot stonewall, they must provide a quick response and if there is a delay must detail the reasons for the delay and give some concept of when it will end.

    The lawyer is correct, they must show some circumstances.

    North Dakota is much handier for these sunshine things–if the agency stonewalls or doesn’t provide an adequate reason for the delay, the media can go to the AG for correction.

  • Anh

    If its classified, what is there to give out?  The Pentagon have lawyers, drag it out, and countersue till the Time goes under, they are losing money anyway. 

  • http://vodradio.blogspot.com/ Dakota

    http://www.rcfp.org/foiact/guide_k.html

    I’d have to look at what the Pentagon gave the NYT as a response but the lawyer is correct, they must show due diligence and unusual circumstances.

    Based on past experience with FOI requests, I’m open to the conspiracy theory–but tend to think this is fairly standard stuff and is perhaps drawing more attention due to the riff between the NYT and Pentagon.  

     

  • 2Hotel9

    Oh! They are asking for current operational data. Now I see. NYT is the focus of a currently operational investigation by FBI and NY Prosecutors office. Nice way to deflect without appearing guilty in the eyes of the public. SSWWEEEETT!!!

  • 2Hotel9

    I never have a problem getting documents from USG agencies. Did it 3 times last year, got docs from DoD,DoS, and National Archives. Perhaps it is HOW individuals request information. As I said up the thread, NYT is the subject of a National Security investigation, this is a handy tactic to make them appear the victim instead of the defendant. Making a habit of publishing sensitive and classifed information is just not a good policy.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    2H9, they did file their request under FOIA, but now they’re complaining that the process is taking too long.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Conspiracy theory?  I think that’s a little unfair.

    Look at what the Times is asking for here: The names of people who were the target of this program.  The government can’t give that it.  It would undoubtedly compromise on-going terror investigations.  But the as long as they don’t comply with that part the Times can bellyache about not getting all of the information.

    It is all a tactic, and a timely one given that the investigation into the leak that started this mess is targeting the Times.

    Can we say…diversion? 

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Fair enough, Dakota, though I wonder who gets to define what a "quick response" is when we’re talking about reams of documents from a myriad of government officials all about a covert intelligence operation?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development