Keyword: Kristof - FreeRepublic, Cached, Anthrax-Hatfill,
April 26, 1989, New York Times, Op-Ed, Beijing Hints at Crackdown on Students, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
students to mourn Comrade Hu Yaobang. ''They fabricate various rumors to poison people's minds. They make use of posters to libel and slander and attack the leaders of the Communist Party and the Government. They even undisguisedly
November 20, 1991, New York Times, Op-Ed, Beijing Journal; Writer, Scolded, Plays His Ace With a Lawsuit, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
circular to the Central Committee. In October, Mr. Wang went a step further by launching his lawsuit, charging the newspaper with libel and seeking damages and an apology. So far, no court has been willing to take the case. The
March 17, 1995, New York Times, Op-Ed, Unmasking Horror -- A special report.; Japan Confronting Gruesome War Atrocity, by Nicholas D. Kristof,secrets of Japan during and after World War II: a vast project to develop weapons of biological warfare, including plague, anthrax, cholera and a dozen other pathogens. Unit 731 of the Japanese Imperial Army conducted research by
May 4, 1995, New York Times, Op-Ed, Japanese Police Arrest Top Lawyer for Cult Linked to Nerve Gas, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
arrest the lawyer, Yoshinobu Aoyama, on charges related to the subway attack. Instead, he was arrested on suspicion of criminal libel, an area of the law that is very rarely applied. The police have used a variety of arcane and
June 12, 1999, New York Times, World Briefing,
Iran: Accused of Missile Attack, Iraq accused Iran of firing three surface-to-surface missiles at an Iranian opposition base in Iraq, warning of a ''dangerous escalation'' in border hostilities. The attack occurred on the Ashraf camp of the Iraq-based People's Mujahedeen guerrilla group, the official Iraqi news agency said. There was no comment from Iran. (AP)
December 12, 1999, New York Times, Book Review, Apocalypse Now?, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism, by Robert Jay Lifton. [374 pp. New York: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Company, $26] ...weapons are hard to get right, more so than chemical weapons. The cult devoted millions of dollars and many years to developing anthrax and other biological weapons, and though it released them, apparently no one was infected. None
News Summary - December 7, 2001
Daoud Abu Sway, A16,January 4, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Profile Of a Killer, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
a 46-year-old father of eight, who managed to kill only himself in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem on Wednesday, was praised as a hero by his wife and children in his village, near Bethlehem. The militant group Islamic Jihad said Mr. Abu Sway had been acting in its name.
Russians Foil Uranium Sellers, A26,
Russian television said the police had arrested seven men accused of trying to sell more than two pounds of weapons-grade uranium for $30,000 at a roadside cafe in the town of Balashikha, just southeast of Moscow. If confirmed, the seizure would be Russia's first acknowledged case of stolen weapons-grade material. A6
Boston Strangler Doubts, A26,
Forensic experts whose yearlong investigation included DNA samples said that Albert DeSalvo, who confessed to the crimes and died in prison in 1973, probably did not commit at least one of the killings, that of the last victim, Mary Sullivan.
Editorial, A30-31, Editorials: John Ashcroft misses the point; striking back at Hamas; Philip M. Boffey on the anthrax crisis. Columns: Nicholas D. Kristof, Paul Krugman.
I think I know who sent out the anthrax last fall. He is an American insider, a man working in the military bio-weapons field. He's a skilled microbiologist who did not aim to kill anybody or even to disrupt the postal system.
News Summary - January 8, 2002,
Captain of Seized Ship Says Cargo Was for Palestinians, A1,
The captain of a ship seized last week by Israel as it carried tons of weapons said in jail-house interviews that he had taken his orders from a weapons agent of Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority and that his cargo was meant to arm Palestinians.
Wariness on Anthrax Vaccine, A13,
Fewer than 2 percent of the 10,000 people who may have been exposed to anthrax during recent bioterror attacks have taken the anthrax vaccine, reflecting the reluctance of postal workers to enroll in a medical experiment, federal officials said.
Effort on Military Health, A13,
The Defense Department will improve medical monitoring of its personnel to avoid lingering health problems for troops sent overseas.
Lack of Faith in a Witness, B1,
The United States attorney Mary Jo White decided not to seek charges against Senator Robert G. Torricelli after concluding that the chief witness in the campaign finance inquiry had too many credibility problems, people in the inquiry said
January 11, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Greater Danger, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
If you think Iraq is scary, come here to the bleak and snowy border between the two Koreas and look north. True, North Korea may have the skinniest and coldest soldiers in the world, but it is not only the wackiest country around (a few years ago,...
News Summary - January 11, 2002,
Israel Bulldozes Camp In Reprisal for Raid, A3The army retaliated for the killing of four soldiers by bulldozing dozens of dwellings in a Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, leaving hundreds of people homeless. Washington condemned the action.News Summary - January 15, 2002
Moscow Faults U.S. Arms Plan, A8Russia strongly criticized Bush administration plans to store rather than destroy decommissioned nuclear warheads, suggesting that they would undermine the credibility of any new arms control accord.
Possible Anthrax Infection,A11A 37-year-old postal inspector who cleaned equipment tainted by anthrax spores at a postal center in Washington has been ill for weeks with symptoms resembling inhalation anthrax, but X-rays and blood analysis show no evidence of anthrax.
Palestinian Militia Leader Killed, A1Raed al-Karmi, the leader of a local Palestinian militia, was killed by a bomb hidden near his house. Within hours, Palestinian gunmen ambushed Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, killing one soldier.
Drawing criticism at home and abroad, the
Israeli authorities demolished nine Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, A10Search for Anthrax Clues, A13Federal agents have examined copying machines at Rutgers for possible links to the anthrax mailer, a scientist at the New Jersey campus said.
Easing Emergency Measures, A13Many police departments are ready to scale back changes made right after the Sept. 11 attacks.
News Summary - January 22, 2002
News Summary - February 1, 2002
consequences of 9/11 is a surge in gun sales around the country. So while we don't know whether more Americans will be killed by anthrax, we can be quite confident that plenty of us will be killed by these additional handguns. The
News Summary - May 7, 2002
May 10, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, The War On Terror Flounders,
not making this up) at a Navy base here. This is the brand-new homeland defense center from which America will respond to anthrax, smallpox, nuclear attack, multiple hijackings or other shoes still to drop. Tom Ridge, his chest
- By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF - Opinion -
News Summary - May 10, 2002
May 24, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Connecting Deadly Dots, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Laden's fervent efforts to obtain bio-weapons, reflected in the lab he was building near Kandahar, Afghanistan, to produce anthrax. Another dot is Iraq. Hazem Ali, a senior Iraqi virologist involved in his country's bio-weapons
July 2, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Anthrax? The F.B.I. Yawns, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
ineptitude in pursuing the anthrax killer continues to threaten America's national security by permitting him to strike again or, more likely, to flee to Iran or North Korea. Almost everyone who has encountered the F.B.I.
July 3, 2002, New York Times, Letters, Anthrax Lethargy,
Inside the Times: August 17, 2008
My Thursday column looks back at my 2002 columns about the anthrax cases, in which I cited a Mr. Z -- Dr. Steven Hatfill, as he later acknowledged -- as an example of the way the F.B.I. was muffing the investigation. The F.B.I. this
August 28, 2008, New York Times, Media's Balancing Act, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
United States government was muffing the anthrax investigation. Microbiologists interviewed by the F.B.I. reported that the bureau didn't fully understand the science involved and had allowed the destruction of
December 15, 2008, New York Times, Justices Reject Appeal in Anthrax Libel Suit, by David Stout,
against The New York Times by a former government scientist who contended that he was defamed by a series of columns about the anthrax mailings of 2001. Without comment, the justices refused to accept an appeal by the scientist,
December 15, 2008, New York Times, End of the libel road, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
against me and The Times that has been kicking around for years. It was brought for columns I wrote back in 2002 about the anthrax cases after 9/11: Dr. Steve Hatfill sued me and the Times for defamation and the case wound its way
February 18, 2009, New York Times, Op-Ed, Trailing George Clooney, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
June 2, 2009, 911Blogger, New York Times,
News Analysis - March 24, 2011
Inside The Times - October 30, 2011
October 11, 2011, PBS Frontline, The Anthrax Files,
July 23, 2014 (1st web capture) Medill National Security Zone, Understanding Reporters' Privilege and Shield Laws.
________________________________________________________________________________
November 30, 2004, New York Times, Times Wins Libel-Suit Dismissal, by Nat Ives,
A federal judge in Virginia has dismissed a libel suit brought by a former Army bioterrorism expert who accused The New York Times and its Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof of implicating him in the unsolved anthrax attacks of October 2001.
The suit, filed last July by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, contended that some of Mr. Kristof's columns in 2002 implied that Dr. Hatfill was responsible for the anthrax attacks, which killed five people and heightened terrorism worries after Sept. 11. Federal investigators have identified Dr. Hatfill as a ''person of interest'' in the case but have not brought any charges against him.
In an opinion made public yesterday, the judge, Claude M. Hilton of the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., ruled that Mr. Kristof had directed his columns primarily at the handling of the investigation by the F.B.I. and had not accused Dr. Hatfill of responsibility for the attacks. Judge Hilton wrote that ''it is evident that the Op-Ed pieces highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the F.B.I. are not reasonably read as accusing Hatfill of actually being the anthrax mailer.''
Some of the columns did not even include Dr. Hatfill's name, instead referring to him as Mr. Z, the judge added. Mr. Kristof did not identify him until Dr. Hatfill, in August 2002, held a news conference related to the case.
The judge wrote that while some columns raised questions about Dr. Hatfill to support the argument that the F.B.I. needed to be more thorough and swift in its investigation, ''none of these accuse him of guilt, and the columns specifically caution that there may be no connection, that his friends consider him a patriot, and that a thorough F.B.I. investigation may well exculpate him of any wrongdoing.''
Victor M. Glasberg, a lawyer for Dr. Hatfill, said it was too early to tell whether there would be an appeal. The decision does not affect a separate suit Dr. Hatfill has filed against the government over release of a variety of information that, the plaintiff says, suggested his guilt.
Responding to the dismissal, Mr. Kristof described himself as ''delighted,'' and added, ''This is a real victory for the rights of journalists aggressively to cover these kinds of investigations.''
___________________________________________________________
January 15, 2005, New York Times, From Grand Jury Leaks Comes a Clash of Rights, by John M. Broder, Archived.
LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14 - Twice in the past month, sensitive grand jury material from high-profile investigations has found its way into the hands of the news media, setting off a collision between the rights of the accused and the First Amendment.
In the past week, extensive excerpts from grand jury material in the Michael Jackson child molesting case were posted on thesmokinggun.com Web site and broadcast on ABC News. Mr. Jackson was indicted by a Santa Barbara County grand jury last April on charges of sexually molesting a 13-year-old boy, administering alcohol to a minor and conspiracy.
And in December, The San Francisco Chronicle published parts of federal grand jury testimony that implicated the baseball players Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi in the use of illegal steroids.
Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, and people who divulge material from them are subject to sanctions or prosecution, although witnesses are free to reveal what went on in the closed jury room.
Lawyers and legal scholars say that news organizations are on firm ground in publishing material from a grand jury, as long they obtained it legally. Unless there is a court order already in place barring publication of such information, and there was not in either case here, the press is free to disseminate the material as long as it was not acquired by theft or bribery, scholars said.
But defense lawyers say pre-trial publication of such material violates the rights of their clients and taints potential jurors.
"The witnesses who testified before the grand jury were never subjected to cross-examination or impeachment by the defense," said Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., Mr. Jackson's lead lawyer. "By law, no judge or defense lawyer was allowed to be present in the grand jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to refute or criticize this one-sided proceeding."
Mr. Mesereau did not question the authenticity of the grand jury transcripts.
Prosecutors, too, say they abhor such leaks and have become much bolder in leaning on journalists to reveal the sources of the grand jury material.
Kevin V. Ryan, the United States attorney in San Francisco overseeing the sports doping case, has asked The Chronicle to reveal its sources and requested a Justice Department investigation of the leak.
Phil Bronstein, The Chronicle's editor, said that the paper had no intention of giving up the source or sources of its information and that this week's announcement of new measures by Major League Baseball to curb steroid use was a vindication of the value of the paper's reporting.
As for helping the government find out who leaked the grand jury transcripts, Mr. Bronstein said: "The press has certain responsibilities in society, but one of them is not to enforce the provisions of the federal grand jury system. Obviously, there are people who disagree with that, including the Justice Department. But that's not the view from here."
Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar at Duke Law School, said that at times the rights of defendants and the media collided, but that courts had almost always sided with the media. All high-profile cases generate extensive pretrial publicity, some true, some false, some potentially harmful to the defendant, Mr. Chemerinsky said.
But there are mechanisms in place to assure the impartiality of the jury, he said, including aggressive questioning during jury selection, strict instructions from the judge to ignore anything jurors might have read or heard and the presentation of a vigorous defense.
"The one thing that's clear is you can't stop the press from publishing because of that concern," Mr. Chemerinsky said. "There are many ways of dealing with potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity, but a gag order on the press isn't one of them."
ABC officials would not disclose how the network obtained transcripts from the Jackson grand jury. They said the testimony ran to 1,900 pages and contained explicit accounts of Mr. Jackson's purported molesting of a young cancer patient in 2003. Much of the same material, but without the verbatim quotations that ABC used, appeared last week on thesmokinggun.com, which is owned by Court TV, the cable channel that follows high-profile criminal cases.
Jury selection in the case is set to begin Jan. 31.
Under California law, grand jury transcripts are generally made public before the start of a trial. But the judge in the Jackson case, Rodney S. Melville of Santa Barbara Superior Court, has kept the transcript sealed as part of a broad blackout because of the intense international scrutiny the case has spawned. Lawyers and investigators on all sides of the case are barred from speaking to the media. Mr. Jackson's lawyer, Mr. Mesereau, did so only with the permission of Judge Melville.
A senior ABC News official said the network carefully vetted the grand jury material before it was broadcast and posted on the network's Web site.
"We reviewed and reported on this testimony because of its inherent news value," Jeffrey W. Schneider, vice president of ABC News, said in an e-mail response to written questions. "Our job is to report the facts, in a balanced manner and in proper context."
The Santa Barbara County prosecutor, Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., did not return a call seeking comment on the latest disclosures.
Although Mr. Ryan, the federal prosecutor in San Francisco, has not followed up on his demand that The Chronicle reveal its sources and Mr. Sneddon and Judge Melville have made no such threat, judges and prosecutors have been increasingly bold in punishing reporters for refusing to divulge sources of sensitive information.
Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times have been found in contempt of court for refusing to testify about their sources in the case of the exposure of the identity of Valerie Plame, an undercover C.I.A. officer.
Jim Taricani, a television reporter in Rhode Island, was convicted last fall of contempt of court and sentenced to six months of home confinement for refusing to reveal who gave him an F.B.I. videotape that was evidence in an investigation of government corruption in Providence.
Eve Burton, the general counsel of the Hearst Corporation, which owns The Chronicle, said grand jury leaks had been going on for a long time without serious harm to American justice.
"There is a natural tension," Ms. Burton said. "The government has its job to do, and the press has another job to do."
She added, "What is new about this is that reporters are now being targeted in leak investigations."
Ms. Burton said she knew of 18 cases around the country in which reporters were being asked to reveal where they obtained information about continuing investigations.
David Carr contributed reporting from New York for this article.
_____________________________________________________________________________
July 28, 2005, Reuters, Appeals court reinstates anthrax libel lawsuit,
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court reinstated on Thursday a libel lawsuit by former U.S. Army scientist Steven Hatfill against The New York Times Co. over a series of columns that he said implicated him in the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001.
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal judge's dismissal of the lawsuit that claimed that columns by Nicholas Kristof published in 2002 defamed Hatfill and caused him emotional distress.
"At this stage of litigation, our sole concern is whether Hatfill's allegations, taken as true, describe intentional and outrageous misconduct. We conclude that they do," the panel said in a 24-page opinion written by Judge Dennis Shedd.
Hatfill, a bioterrorism expert who formerly worked at the Army Medical Institute of Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick in Maryland, has denied any involvement in the mailings of the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks.
In 2002, law enforcement officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, called Hatfill a "person of interest" in connection with the anthrax attacks.
Judge Paul Niemeyer dissented from the ruling. He said none of the columns accused Hatfill of committing the anthrax murders.
He said the columns sent the message that the FBI's investigation was lackadaisical and unimaginative, that the FBI should pursue obvious leads pointing to Hatfill and that Hatfill should be the leading suspect, based on circumstantial, but not any physical, evidence.
If the newspaper does not appeal, the case would go back to U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton in Alexandria, Virginia. In New York, Toby Usnik, a spokesman for The New York Times, said no decision has been made on the next step in the case.
"We are disappointed in the court's decision, but we remain confident in our case. Mr. Kristof's columns were fair and accurate and we continue to believe that newspapers need to be able to comment on how investigations -- especially one as important as this -- are being conducted," he said.
_______________________________________________________________________________
July 29, 2005, New York Times, Appeal Restores Libel Case Against Times, by Timothy L. O'Brien,
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that a libel suit filed against The New York Times Company by a former Army bioterrorism expert could proceed, reversing a Federal District Court decision last November that dismissed the case.
The suit, filed two years ago by the bioterrorism expert, Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a Times Op-Ed columnist, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks in October 2001.
Dr. Hatfill asserted that a series of Mr. Kristof's columns, which criticized the pace of an F.B.I. investigation into Dr. Hatfill's background and activities and many of which referred to him as an anonymous "Mr. Z," suggested that Dr. Hatfill was responsible for the attacks. The suit charged that the columns defamed Dr. Hatfill and caused him emotional distress.
Five people died in the attacks, which heightened national anxieties after the Sept 11 attacks. Although the federal authorities have identified Dr. Hatfill as a ''person of interest'' in the case they have not charged him with any crimes.
When Claude M. Hilton, a federal district judge in Alexandria, Va., dismissed the case, he ruled that Mr. Kristof's columns were directed primarily at the F.B.I. and did not accuse Dr. Hatfill of being responsible for the attacks.
But a three-member appellate panel in Richmond, Va., overturned that decision yesterday in a 2-to-1 ruling, noting that a "reasonable reader" of Mr. Kristof's columns would have concluded that Dr. Hatfill was responsible for the anthrax attacks and that the columns intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him.
The Times has the right to appeal yesterday's decision to the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The newspaper said yesterday that it had not decided whether to appeal. If The Times does not appeal, the case will be sent back to Judge Hilton's court, where it will be permitted to proceed.
"We are disappointed in the court's decision, but we remain confident in our case," The Times said in a statement. "Mr. Kristof's columns were fair and accurate, and we continue to believe that newspapers need to be able to comment on how investigations -- especially one as important as this -- are being conducted."
Mr. Kristof, who was dismissed as a defendant in the case and bears no personal liability in the matter, said he had nothing to add.
Dr. Hatfill's lawyer, Victor M. Glasberg, said he found yesterday's ruling encouraging.
"The Fourth Circuit did the right thing," Mr. Glasberg said. "I'm pleased."
________________________________________________________________________________
October 19, 2005, New York Times, Court Rebuffs The Times Co. Over Lawsuit, by David Cay Johnson,
A federal appeals court yesterday declined to reconsider a ruling that allowed a former Army bioterrorism expert to proceed with a defamation suit against The New York Times Company.
Six judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., voted to consider the case, and six opposed doing so; one judge did not vote. To grant a rehearing, a majority was required.
The suit, filed two years ago by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the anthrax attacks of October 2001.
Dr. Hatfill asserted that a series of Mr. Kristof's columns, which criticized the pace of an F.B.I. investigation into Dr. Hatfill's background and activities, suggested that he was responsible for the attacks.
In July, a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that the case could proceed to trial, reversing a lower court decision that had dismissed the suit. The Times then asked the full appeals court to reconsider the panel's ruling.
The order yesterday in which the court declined to do so was issued without comment. But in a lengthy dissent, three of the judges declared that allowing the case to proceed would chill robust public commentary, especially in small newspapers, on matters of vital public concern.
The dissent, written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and joined by Judges M. Blane Michael and Robert Bruce King, said that ''viewed as a whole, the columns do not pin guilt'' on Dr. Hatfill ''but instead urge the investigation of an undeniable public threat.'' It added that the columns were a valuable critique containing ''pointed criticism of the executive branch,'' and in particular the F.B.I., for what Mr. Kristof characterized as ''lackadaisical ineptitude in pursuing the anthrax killer.''
The dissent expressed doubt that Dr. Hatfill would prevail at trial.
David E. McCraw, a lawyer for the Times Company, said that ''we are obviously disappointed,'' but also ''very pleased by Judge Wilkinson's dissent.'' Mr. McCraw said that there would be no further appeals and that the company would proceed to trial.
Thomas G. Connolly, Dr. Hatfill's lawyer, expressed his pleasure at the decision but declined detailed comment.
_______________________________________________________________________________
October 18, 2005, AP - NBC News, Appeals court allows anthrax libel lawsuit; Scientist, 'person of interest' Hatfill may proceed in case against N.Y. Times,
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed a former Army scientist to proceed with a libel lawsuit against The New York Times that claims one of the paper’s columnists unfairly linked him to the 2001 anthrax killings.
Steven Hatfill sued the Times for a series of columns written in 2002 by Nicholas Kristof that faulted the FBI for failing to thoroughly investigate Hatfill for anthrax mailings that left five people dead.
The initial columns identified Hatfill only as “Mr. Z,” but subsequent columns named him after Hatfill stepped forward to deny any role in the killings. Federal authorities labeled Hatfill “a person of interest” in their investigation.
In a 6-6 decision, with one judge not participating, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals failed to produce a majority of judges needed to grant a rehearing and affirmed an earlier decision to reinstate the case.
Hatfill, a physician and bioterrorism expert, worked in the late 1990s at the Army’s infectious disease laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md.
Were columns defamatory?
In July, a three-judge panel of the court overturned a federal judge’s ruling to toss out the case, saying that Kristof’s columns, taken as a whole, might be considered defamatory. The Times had asked the court to reconsider.
The case will go to the back to federal court in Alexandria, unless the Times files a motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote for the dissenting jurists: “The panel’s decision in this case will restrict speech on a matter of vital public concern. The columns at issue urged government action on a question of grave national import and life-or-death consequences.”
Wilkinson, joined by Judges M. Blane Michael and Robert B. King, added that when viewed as a whole, the columns “do not pin guilt” on the plaintiff but rather urge the investigation of an “undeniable public threat.”
The dissenting judges also wrote that they believed the Times was only doing its job, emphasizing the public’s right to know as more than a “matter of voyeurism, titillation, or idle curiosity.”
“The bioterrorism presaged by these anthrax mailings was no small matter, and it may one day pose a threat on a very large scale.”
Times disappointed
David McCraw, counsel for the Times, said the paper was disappointed the court declined to rehear the case and noted that the dissenting justices addressed important issues relating to free speech and defamation.
Journalists “shouldn’t have to worry about where the line is going to be drawn,” he said. “If those lines are drawn too tightly, there won’t be adequate public commentary.”
Hatfill’s attorney, Tom Connolly, said his client was pleased with the ruling. “The press is entitled to report on important issues,” Connolly said. “But it has the obligation to get it right.”
Last month, a federal judge dismissed two claims in Hatfill’s lawsuit against the Justice Department but left open the possibility that he could hold officials accountable for comments made about him during the anthrax investigation.
Hatfill sued the Justice Department, the FBI, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other officials in 2003, claiming that his civil rights were violated when he was labeled a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.
___________________________________________________________________________
March 16, 2006, New York Times, 2 Times Reporters Win Prize for Articles on Spying, by Michael Janofsky,
James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times have won the Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting for their coverage of the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.
The award, worth $25,000, is given annually by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The prize was created in 1991 to honor journalism that discloses excessive secrecy, impropriety and mismanagement. The awards were officially presented Tuesday night in Cambridge, Mass. The center also presented a special award to Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times, for his reporting on genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Mr. Kristof was cited for reporting that led to "saving many thousands of lives."
The Times eavesdropping articles revealed that government agents were secretly monitoring telephone calls and e-mail messages inside the United States without court approval. The articles touched off a national debate focused on the intersection of national security and civil liberties.
"The judges felt that, in a field of hugely important investigations, the revelation of systemic domestic spying by the government was the most important," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center."They wanted to send a message that this kind of reporting is essential to our democracy."
Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said: ''Jim and Eric performed an extraordinary feat of reporting that has provoked an important national debate about the balance between security and liberty. But their work has also set off an intensive leak investigation carrying the threat of legal reprisals. So besides being a gratifying acknowledgment of professional achievement, this award also constitutes a welcome vote of moral support."
The judges considered five other finalists. They included Joshua Boak, James Drew, Steve Eder, Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, Jim Tankersley and Mike Wilkinson of The Blade in Toledo, Ohio, whose articles on the state's investment into rare coins led to convictions of Gov. Bob Taft and others on ethics charges.
Three Washington Post reporters -- Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith -- were nominated for articles that revealed the political activities of Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist. Another Post reporter, Dana Priest, was nominated for articles that revealed a network of secret prisons outside the United States where the American authorities held terror suspects.
Three reporters from The Los Angeles Times -- Evelyn Larrubia, Robin Fields and Jack Leonard -- were nominated for a series that examined guardians of the elderly who preyed on them.
Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer of Copley News Service were nominated for articles about former Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California, who was sentenced to prison for taking bribes.
____________________________________________________________________________
March 28, 2006, New York Times, Court Rebuffs Times On Libel Suit Appeal, The United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from The New York Times on Monday, allowing a libel suit by a former Army bioterrorism expert to go forward The suit, filed in 2003 by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001.
The suit was dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia in 2004. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., reinstated the case in July, and the full court, by a 6-to-6 vote, declined to rehear it in October.
The decisions to date have been preliminary, centering on whether Mr. Kristof's statements could be considered defamatory.
Judge Dennis W. Shedd, writing for the majority in the July decision, said ''a reasonable reader of Kristof's columns likely would conclude that Hatfill was responsible for the anthrax mailings in 2001."
But Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, dissenting from the October decision, said "the columns do not pin guilt on plaintiff, but instead urge the investigation of an undeniable public threat."
The trial court will now consider whether the statements were false and whether The Times was at fault for publishing them.
______________________________________________________________________________
October 24, 2006, New York Times, Times Is Ordered to Reveal Columnist's Sources, by Neil A. Lewis, A federal magistrate judge has ordered The New York Times to disclose the identities of three confidential sources used by one of its columnists, Nicholas Kristof, for columns he wrote about the investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.
The order, issued Friday by Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady, requires the newspaper to disclose the identities of the three sources to lawyers for Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, who has brought a defamation suit against The Times. The order was disclosed Monday.
Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the newspaper would appeal the ruling.
Dr. Hatfill, a germ warfare specialist who formerly worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has asserted that a series of columns by Mr. Kristof about the slow pace of the anthrax investigation defamed him because they suggested he was responsible for the attacks. Five people died in the attacks. Although the federal authorities identified Dr. Hatfill as a "person of interest" in the case, they have not charged him with any crimes.
At a deposition on July 13, Mr. Kristof declined to name five of his sources for the columns, but two have subsequently agreed to release him from his pledge of confidentiality. Judge O'Grady's ruling identifies the remaining unnamed sources as two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and a former colleague or friend of Dr. Hatfill at Fort Detrick.
The judge ruled that the laws of Virginia applied and that under that state's law, reporters have only a qualified privilege to decline to name their sources that may be outweighed by other factors.
He wrote that for Mr. Hatfill to have a chance of meeting his burden of demonstrating that he was defamed by the columns, he "needs an opportunity to question the confidential sources and determine if Mr. Kristof accurately reported information the sources provided."
Mr. Kristof wrote about a government scientist he initially referred to as Mr. Z, saying he had become the overwhelming focus of the investigation. In August 2002, he wrote that Dr. Hatfill had acknowledged he was Mr. Z. at a news conference in which he said he had been mistreated by the news media.
The lawsuit was originally dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia in 2004. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond reinstated the case and the full appeals court, by a 6-to-6 vote, declined to overturn that ruling. The Supreme Court declined to intervene last March.
Judge O'Grady wrote: "The court understands the need for a reporter to be able to credibly pledge confidentiality to his sources. Confidential sources have been an important part of journalism, which is presumably why Virginia recognizes a qualified reporter's privilege in the first place." He said Virginia law required the use of a three-part balancing test as to whether there is a compelling need for the information, whether the information is relevant and whether it may not be obtained any other way.
______________________________________________________________________________
October 26, 2006, The New York Sun, New York Times Gets Two Extra Days To Disclose Confidential Sources, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, diigo,
A federal judge gave the New York Times a brief reprieve from an order forcing it to identify confidential sources for columns about the 2001 anthrax attacks, but the paper could still face the possibility of being held in contempt of court as soon as tomorrow.
Judge Claude Hilton of Alexandria, Va., issued a two-day stay of a magistrate's order that would have required the Times to name the sources by yesterday. The order came in a libel suit filed by a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, who claims he was defamed by five columns written by Nicholas Kristof in 2002.
According to a lawyer involved in the dispute, Judge Hilton said yesterday that he was still reviewing whether the Times should be compelled to identify the sources. He told attorneys that he planned to rule on the issue by Friday.
But the Times suffered a setback yesterday when Judge Hilton upheld a magistrate's ruling denying its request to suspend action on the libel suit until the government completes its investigation into the anthrax mailings, which killed at least five people. While investigators searched a home and storage locker belonging to Mr. Hatfill, no criminal charges were brought.
The newspaper wanted to defend against the libel suit by gaining access to the records of the government probe, but the Justice Department has refused to cooperate. The magistrate assigned to the suit, Liam O'Grady, declined to force the disclosure of details of the investigation, which the FBI contends is ongoing.
_______________________________________________________________________________
November 3, 2006, New York Times, Setback for Times in Anthrax Suit, by Neil A. Lewis,
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — A federal judge in Virginia on Thursday upheld a ruling by a magistrate judge that The New York Times must disclose the identities of three sources used by Nicholas D. Kristof for columns he wrote on the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001. The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal District Court, ruled that last month’s opinion was “not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
The order is part of a case of defamation brought against The Times by Stephen J. Hatfill, who asserts that columns by Mr. Kristof suggested he was responsible for the attacks.
The ruling is likely to make it more difficult for The Times to defend the lawsuit when the case goes to trial because a judge may instruct the jury to give less credibility to assertions that the columns had been based on legitimate and knowledgeable sources. Because it is a civil case rather than a criminal one, there is little chance of anyone from The Times facing the possibility of being jailed over contempt charges.
George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel for The Times, said Thursday’s ruling was disappointing, “given that the court recognized that confidential sources play an important role in good journalism, and that the court of appeals came very close to dismissing this case on a preliminary motion on the basis that the columns weren’t defamatory."
"Though it may make defending the case tougher," Mr. Freeman added, "we are confident that in the end, the columns will be vindicated."
Five people died in the attacks. The authorities called Dr. Hatfill, who worked on germ warfare issues, a "person of interest" but have not charged him with any crimes.
______________________________________________________________________________
November 18, 2006, New York Times, Judges Ruling Bars The Times From Using Sources’ Information in Defense Against Suit, by Neil A. Lewis,
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — A federal magistrate judge ruled on Friday that The New York Times may not rely in any way on information its columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, may have received from two Federal Bureau of Investigation officials in its defense of a defamation suit brought by a former government scientist.
The judge, Liam O'Grady, issued the ruling as a sanction against The Times for refusing to disclose or force Mr. Kristof to disclose the identities of the two confidential F.B.I. sources he used in writing a series of columns about the investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.
Dr. Stephen J. Hatfill, a germ warfare specialist who once worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has asserted in a lawsuit that the columns defamed him because they suggested he was responsible for the attacks. In its filings, The Times has suggested that Mr. Kristof had numerous sources for the columns. Of those, Mr. Kristof initially refused to identify five, saying he had promised them confidentiality. He has since disclosed the identities of three, saying those sources recently released him from his pledge.
In issuing the ruling, Judge O'Grady rejected a series of harsher sanctions sought by Mr. Hatfill's lawyers, including a request that the court impose a $25,000-a-day fine on The Times until it named the two F.B.I. officials.
Judge O'Grady issued his ruling from the bench in Alexandria, Va., where he sits and where the trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 29. The ruling means that when Mr. Kristof testifies during the trial on behalf of The Times, he may not cite any information he may have received from the two confidential sources as substantiation for the columns.
How much of a setback the ruling is for The Times is unclear and probably depends on how much other substantiation Mr. Kristof and the newspaper may present to counter Dr. Hatfill’s assertions. Five people died in the anthrax attacks. Although federal authorities identified Dr. Hatfill as "a person of interest" in the case, they have not charged him with any crimes.
Mr. Kristof's columns were about a government scientist he initially referred to as Mr. Z, someone he said had become the overwhelming focus of the investigation. In August 2002, he wrote that Dr. Hatfill had acknowledged he was Mr. Z at a news conference in which he said he had been mistreated by the news media.
Because the lawsuit is a civil action, not a criminal one, there was no consideration of anyone being ordered to jail as has happened in some recent criminal investigations. Instead, the judge said he fashioned the remedy to ensure that Dr. Hatfill was not disadvantaged by the use of information obtained by The Times from sources it would not identify and thus subject to examination.
Judge O'Grady had written earlier that for Dr. Hatfill to meet his burden of demonstrating he was defamed, he needed "an opportunity to question the confidential sources and determine if Mr. Kristof accurately reported information the sources provided."
The lawsuit was originally dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia in 2004, who ruled that the columns were not defamatory and only reported on the existence of an investigation. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., reinstated the case, and the full appeals court, by a 6-to-6 vote, declined to overturn that ruling. The Supreme Court declined to intervene last March.
________________________________________________________________________________
January 5, 2007, AP - U-T San Diego, Hatfill lawyer: Times editor warned columnist on anthrax piece, by Matthew Barakat,
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Lawyers for a former Army scientist suing The New York Times for libel said Friday that an editor at the paper warned columnist Nicholas Kristof to remove incriminating passages from a column that raised suspicions that Steven Hatfill was involved in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
Kristof left the passages in the May 2002 column despite the warning, said lawyers for Hatfill, who claims that a series of Kristof columns that year falsely implicated him as the culprit in the anthrax mailings that left five people dead.
The editor's warning to Kristof was voiced in an e-mail uncovered during the extensive pretrial discovery process, said Mark Grannis, one of Hatfill's lawyers. Grannis did not give specifics on the passages at issue outside court; he said some details of the case have been sealed.
The accusation came as a federal judge again heard arguments on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. The newspaper's lawyers argued that under federal libel law, Hatfill should be considered a public figure. The law makes it more difficult for public figures to prevail in libel cases.
Hatfill's lawyers dispute that their client should be classified as a public figure. But even if he were, they said, they have uncovered flaws in Kristof's reporting that are so flagrant that Hatfill would still win his case.
Grannis said that in addition to the editor's warning, several of Kristof's sources testified in pretrial depositions that they did not provide the information Kristof has said they did.
"Mr. Kristof made things up," Grannis said. "What Mr. Kristof reported was not just false, it was embarrassingly false. It was outrageously false."
Five people were killed and 17 sickened by anthrax that had been mailed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and members of the news media in New York and Florida just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The case remains unsolved.
Kristof's columns initially referred to Hatfill only as "Mr. Z"; Hatfill was identified by name only after he held a news conference in August 2002 to denounce rumors that had been swirling around him.
Kristof has said his purpose in writing the columns was to prod a dawdling FBI investigation and that he said in several columns that Mr. Z enjoys a legal presumption of innocence.
Hatfill claims that Kristof's columns revealed enough details for people to figure out who he was despite withholding his name.
Times lawyer Lee Levine said Hatfill is being hypocritical when he argues that he is not a public figure. On the one hand, Hatfill contends he was so well known that people could piece together his identity from the clues in Kristof's "Mr. Z" columns. On the other hand, they argue that he was essentially an unknown when it comes to his status as a public figure under libel law.
"You can't have it both ways," Levine said.
Levine said Hatfill qualifies as a public figure because he had injected himself into the national debate about bioterrorism years before the anthrax attacks. He had occasionally been quoted as an expert in the media, and even once donned a chemical suit for a magazine photo.
U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton said he will rule on the newspaper's motion soon. The trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 29.
Hilton previously ordered Kristof to disclose his confidential FBI sources so Hatfill could pursue his claim. Kristof refused, and in response Hilton barred Kristof from relying on any information provided by those sources in his defense.
Hatfill's lawsuit was dismissed by Hilton in 2004 but reinstated by a federal appeals court. Hatfill is also suing former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Justice Department and others in U.S. District Court in Washington claiming they violated Hatfill's civil rights.
March 13 2007, Village Voice, The Times' Nicholas Kristof—A Rudy Giuliani White House Adviser?, by Keach Hagey, diigo,
Poor David Brooks. By all rights, the moment should have been his.
It was last Wednesday night, the first big hometown fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani, and the Sheraton New York ballroom was resplendent in faux-folksy glory. A thousand Republicans had come to toast (and fund) the candidate whom the New York Times columnist has compared to Teddy Roosevelt, lauded as a "courage politician," and crowned with his very own "ism."
Women in pearls tipped back longnecks of Bud and men in crisp suits munched Cracker Jack and hot dogs, the ballpark fare serving as props for the baseball-themed, $2,300-a-head event. The urban elite was trying its best to look all-American. If they were not quite pulling it off, they were at least epitomizing the pragmatic, purple-tinted brand of Republicanism that Brooks fantasizes about in his columns.
And yet, when Giuliani got to the section of his speech that cited a New York Times columnist, the honor went to . . . Nicholas Kristof? The guy whose most recent word on the presidential race was a giddy love-up of Barack Obama? Who swoons for the senator's antipoverty crusades and worldly ability to appreciate the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the most beautiful sounds on earth at sunset"?
Yep. Giuliani told a roomful of Republicans that, when it came to the crisis in Darfur, President Bush"should pay attention to the advice of Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. Not exactly a commentator that I agree with all the time, or I imagine agrees with me. But he wrote a column the other day . . . that displays something that we all have to embrace." Kristof had suggested that Bush lead an international summit on Darfur, and Giuliani rhapsodized about what a nifty idea he thought that was.
After the speech, Times reporter Richard Pérez-Peña, the paper's main man on the Giuliani beat, could only stammer that he was "surprised" by the bizarre shout-out. He later blogged about it with even more befuddlement.
Kristof was as shocked as anybody, he said the next day. But it turns out the Giuliani-Kristof love does not flow only one way. In the summer of 2004, Kristof suggested that Bush would have a better chance at re-election if he dumped Dick Cheney for someone like Colin Powell, or, if Powell wouldn't do it, then Rudy Giuliani. "He's strong on national security and crime, but soft on abortion, which is what you need with swing voters," Kristof wrote.
He concluded by telling his regular readers not to worry that his advice might help bring on four more years of W, since Bush always did the exact opposite of whatever he suggested. But now, with Giuliani leading in the polls, Kristof suddenly faces the possibility of having a guy in the Oval Office cribbing policy from his columns.
"It would be very unsettling for any pundit to find officials who actually listened and followed one's advice," Kristof said, unconvincingly.
________________________________________________________________________________
Israelis Occupy City, A4The Israeli Army seized control of the Palestinian city of Tulkarm and also began moving into another West Bank city, Nablus. In Tulkarm the army imposed a 24-hour curfew and sent troops door to door in a hunt for militants and weapons.January 22, 2002, New York Times, page A1, Scientists Report Genetic Finding That Could Aid Anthrax Inquiry, by William J. Broad and Nicholas Wade, Archived, Scientists say they have discovered genetic fingerprints that may help determine which of many laboratories is the likely source of the virulent microbe used in the attacks.
Tracking the Anthrax Source, A1,
Scientists say they have discovered genetic fingerprints that may help determine which of many laboratories is the likely source of the virulent microbe used in the attacks.
Editorial A18-19
Editorials: A new rallying cry for reform; the prisoners at Guantánamo; restoring Yosemite.
Columns: Nicholas D. Kristof.
News Summary - February 1, 2002
Claim Kremlin Faked Attacks, A8The Russian oligarch Boris A. Berezovsky said he had evidence that Russia's security services were involved in apartment building blasts blamed on Chechen separatists.News Summary - February 12, 2002
Bin Laden Talked of Anthrax, A10Osama bin Laden, in an interview last fall that was brought to light only last night, said the anthrax attacks were ''a punishment from God'' and, in vague language, seemed to hint at having a hand in them.
F.B.I. Issues Warning On Possible Terror Attack, A1The F.B.I., citing information from detainees at Guantánamo Bay, issued a security threat alert more specific than any before, warning of the possibility of an attack as early as today in the United States or Yemen. It included information on more than a dozen people thought to be involved.News Summary - February 22, 2002
Preparing for Bioterror, A11A consortium of medical institutions in New York State set up a center to support regional public health agencies in their response to attacks of anthrax, smallpox, plague and other biological weapons.
C.D.C. Chief Resigns, A22Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, who led the first faltering response to anthrax infections and bioterror threats, said he would step down as director of the federal Centers for Disease Control.News Summary - February 26, 2002
'Short List' on Anthrax, A1The F.B.I. has identified 18 to 20 people who had the means, opportunity and possible motive to have sent the anthrax-laden letters that killed five people last fall.News Summary - March 1, 2002,
Limits on Public Information, B1The Pataki administration, citing concern about terrorism, has told state agencies to limit information like maps of power grids and reservoirs available online and through Freedom of Information requests.
Anthrax Expert to Be Fined, A16Michael L. Vickers, the veterinarian who discovered the Ames strain of anthrax, is being fined by Texas for burning carcasses infected with anthrax and other diseases -- the only safe method, he says, to protect against the health danger.News Summary - March 8, 2002,
Antibiotics Deterred Anthrax, A12Widespread use of antibiotics after the October bioterror attacks spared at least nine people from being infected with inhalation anthrax, the deadliest form, a study concluded.March 8, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, 'Chicks With Guns', by Nicholas D. Kristof,
consequences of 9/11 is a surge in gun sales around the country. So while we don't know whether more Americans will be killed by anthrax, we can be quite confident that plenty of us will be killed by these additional handguns. The
News Summary - May 7, 2002
Anthrax Got More Potent With Each Letter Sent, A1Federal investigators have discovered that the anthrax sent through the mail, in general grew more potent from one letter to the next, with the deadliest spores in the final letter, to Senator Patrick J. Leahy.
Cuba Accused of Germ Research, A6The Bush administration accused Cuba of producing small quantities of germs that could be used in biological warfare and said Libya and Syria were also violating treaties by making unconventional weapons.
More Pipe Bombs Discovered, A22Two pipe bombs were found in mailboxes in Nebraska and Colorado, bringing to 17 the total of bombs that have been found since Friday.
Dispute Over F.B.I. Turncoat, A25A feud has erupted among counterintelligence officials over whether the former F.B.I. agent Robert P. Hanssen told the whole truth about his spying for Moscow.
May 10, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, The War On Terror Flounders,
not making this up) at a Navy base here. This is the brand-new homeland defense center from which America will respond to anthrax, smallpox, nuclear attack, multiple hijackings or other shoes still to drop. Tom Ridge, his chest
- By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF - Opinion -
News Summary - May 10, 2002
Terror Bombing in Russia, A1A bomb packed with bolts and nails exploded at a military parade in Kaspiisk, a town on the western Caspian shore, killing 34 people, including 12 children, and leaving at least 130 people hospitalized.
Caution on Smallpox Vaccine, A32Doctors and the public poorly understand the dangers of the smallpox vaccine and need to be better informed if vaccinations are to be renewed, experts said.
May 24, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Connecting Deadly Dots, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Laden's fervent efforts to obtain bio-weapons, reflected in the lab he was building near Kandahar, Afghanistan, to produce anthrax. Another dot is Iraq. Hazem Ali, a senior Iraqi virologist involved in his country's bio-weapons
July 2, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Anthrax? The F.B.I. Yawns, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
ineptitude in pursuing the anthrax killer continues to threaten America's national security by permitting him to strike again or, more likely, to flee to Iran or North Korea. Almost everyone who has encountered the F.B.I.
July 3, 2002, New York Times, Letters, Anthrax Lethargy,
To the Editor:
Nicholas D. Kristof raises serious questions about the F.B.I.'s investigation of the post-Sept. 11 anthrax attacks (''Anthrax? The F.B.I. Yawns,'' column, July 2). He identifies a likely motivation of the lead suspect as wanting ''to help America by raising preparedness against biological attacks in the future.''
Given that this suspect is a member of our biodefense establishment, what Mr. Kristof considers the F.B.I.'s ''lackadaisical ineptitude'' appears more like the old boys' network protecting itself.
The appearance of a cover-up of one government employee's crimes by the agency charged with investigating those crimes should be investigated. Congress should also pursue legislation that would nurture a citizenry more capable of assuming responsibility as a watchdog against such threats.
ROBERT JERESKI
New York, July 3, 2002
The writer is director of the New York Coalition for Public Safety.
July 12, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Anthrax Files, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
When someone expert in bio-warfare mailed anthrax last fall, it may not have been the first time he had struck. So while the F.B.I. has been unbelievably lethargic in its investigation so far, any year now it will re-examine the
July 19, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Case of the Missing Anthrax, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
It's bad enough that we can't find anthrax hidden in the Iraqi desert. But it turns out that we also misplaced anthrax and Ebola kept in a lab outside Washington D.C. Internal Army documents about the U.S.
News Summary - July 23, 2002
August 13, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Anthrax Files, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
former U.S. Army scientist who, authorities say privately, has become the overwhelming focus of the investigation into the anthrax attacks last fall. I didn't name him. But over the weekend, Mr. Z named himself: He is Steven J.
News Summary - August 16, 2002
August 26, 2002, New York Times, Weapons Expert Attacks F.B.I. And Ashcroft on Anthrax Inquiry, by Diana Jean Schemo,
Steven J. Hatfill, a germ weapons expert under scrutiny in the government's investigation into last year's anthrax deaths, bitterly denounced the F.B.I. inquiry today and the reporting on it by the news media. Dr. Hatfill said he
News Summary - August 27, 2002
August 27, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Wimps On Iraq, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
chemical attacks instead of preventing them? It's hard to see why Saddam, if left in power, would risk his future by using anthrax or smallpox for terrorism. But if we invade, he has every incentive to use 'em or lose 'em. In
September 17, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, No Headline, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
there's a three-volume set of books, ''Scientific Principles of Improvised Warfare,'' which offers details on where to find anthrax spores and how to cultivate them and turn them into an aerosol. ''If you can make Jell-O,'' the book
September 17, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Recipes For Death, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
there's a three-volume set of books, ''Scientific Principles of Improvised Warfare,'' which offers details on where to find anthrax spores and how to cultivate them and turn them into an aerosol. ''If you can make Jell-O,'' the book
October 11, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Revolving- Door Monsters, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
and mustard gas against Kurds in 1988, the Reagan administration initially tried to blame Iran. We shipped seven strains of anthrax to Iraq between 1978 and 1988. These days, we see Iraq as an imminent threat to our way of life,
News Summary - October 25, 2002
troops spray machine-gun fire across the DMZ. South Korean and Japanese stock markets fall 7 percent. Aug. 1: A sealed vial of anthrax is found in an Osaka subway car. No one is hurt, but some commentators suggest it is a message
February 14, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Flirting With Disaster, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
nuclear ''bunker busters.'' So suppose we discover that Saddam is cowering in a bunker in Baghdad, or we learn of a cache of anthrax in Tikrit. I asked Richard Garwin, a veteran nuclear scientist who helped design ''Mike,'' the
February 18, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Mr. Bush's Liberal Problem, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
go wrong. It seems equally possible that invading Iraq will trigger precisely the scenario we fear -- Saddam handing out anthrax or even smallpox to terrorists -- and that our invasion will lead thousands of young Arabs to join Al
February 25, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Hitler On the Nile, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
particularly in the 1980's when Don Rumsfeld was cozying up to him in Baghdad and the U.S. was shipping him seven strains of anthrax. The last 10 years have been the best behaved of Saddam's career (not saying much), and he's now
February 28, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Secret, Scary Plans, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
North has 13,000 artillery pieces and could fire some 400,000 shells in the first hour of an attack, many with sarin and anthrax, on the 21 million people in the ''kill box'' -- as some in the U.S. military describe the Seoul
March 7, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Losses, Before Bullets Fly, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
from Iran; Turks and Kurds fighting over the Kirkuk oil wells in northern Iraq; Iraqi military officers trying to peddle anthrax and VX gas; and radical Islamists trying to take control of nuclear-armed Pakistan. As one savvy
News Summary - April 11, 2003
April 22, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, I Said That?, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Iraqi weapons program and talked about several mobile labs, 30,000 munitions, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. These weapons were supposedly deployed in the war and
May 6, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Missing In Action: Truth, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical
News Summary - June 10, 2003,
June 13, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, White House In Denial, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
every photo of a trailer truck would be a 'mobile bioweapons lab' and every tanker truck would be 'filled with weaponized anthrax,' '' a former military intelligence officer said. ''None of the analysts in military uniform had the
July 6, 2003, Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye LLP, Jailed & subpoenaed journalists — a historical timeline, by Gordon T. Belt, First Amendment Center library manager,
October 15, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Holding Our Noses, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
January, when the White House was conjuring enough Iraqi anthrax ''to kill several million people,'' as well as hordes of cheering Iraqis casting flowers on our soldiers. These days, with that anthrax as elusive as
News Summary - December 24, 2003
''cookbooks'' to make anthrax, sarin and other chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Over the last few years, I've collected a horrifying set of booklets, typically sold at gun shows or on the Internet, detailing how to make
October 22, 2004, New York Times, Op-Ed, Anthrax Figure Wins A Round on News Sources, by Scott Shane,
confidential information, Justice Department officials agreed Thursday to distribute to dozens of federal investigators in the 2001 anthrax case a document they can sign to release journalists from pledges of confidentiality.
November 30, 2004, New York Times, Times Wins Libel-Suit Dismissal, by Nat Ives,
brought by a former Army bioterrorism expert who accused The New York Times and its Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof of implicating him in the unsolved anthrax attacks of October 2001. The suit, filed last July
News Summary - December 11, 2004
March 15, 2005, New York Times, page A1, US Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide, by Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt,
July 28, 2005, Reuters, Appeals court reinstates anthrax libel lawsuit,
July 29, 2005 New York Times, Appeal Restores Libel Case Against Times. by Timothy L. O'Brien,
A suit, filed two years ago by the bioterrorism expert, Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a Times Op-Ed columnist, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks in October 2001. Dr. Hatfill
September 17, 2005, New York Times, In 4-Year Anthrax Hunt, F.B.I. Finds Itself Stymied, and Sued. by Scott Shane, David Johnson contributed reporting.
Richard L. Lambert, the F.B.I. inspector in charge of the investigation of the deadly anthrax letters of 2001, testified under oath for five hours last month about the case. But Mr. Lambert was not testifying in a criminal trial.
October 18, 2005, AP - NBC News, Appeals court allows anthrax libel lawsuit; Scientist, 'person of interest' Hatfill may proceed in case against N.Y. Times,
October 19, 2005, New York Times, Court Rebuffs The Times Co. Over Lawsuit, by David Cay Johnston, ...a majority was required. The suit, filed two years ago by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the anthrax attacks of October 2001. Dr. Hatfill
March 28, 2006 , New York Times, Court Rebuffs Times On Libel Suit Appeal,
expert to go forward. The suit, filed in 2003 by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001. The suit was
May 24, 2006, Ad Week, On Anthrax And In Defense of American Media, by Dylan, Archived, diigo, "...the photographer is really just trying to get his $2 million piece of the $250 million pie that AMI claimed in insurance over the attacks."
The anthrax attack on American Media’s Florida offices in 2001 was a puzzling event; sure, it makes sense to send some spores to prominent politicians, to the networks and even to the New York Post. But why would terrorists care enough to shut down the National Enquirer? AMI photo editor Robert Stevens later died from his exposure to the anthrax, so the issue’s no laughing matter, but it makes you wonder what article about Oprah or Chandra Levy made the company a target.
No suspects have been charged in the attack, but the New York Sun reported that an AMI freelance photographer is suing the company for “stealing” his anthrax-contaminated photo archive — by not securely protecting them.
The suit is not totally without merit; the photographer is really just trying to get his $2 million piece of the $250 million pie that AMI claimed in insurance over the attacks. But it’s a stretch to believe that anyone could have predicted the attacks and secured their archives accordingly.
July 11, 2006, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Dear Leader's Boiling Cauldron, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
send a few spy submarines to torpedo Asian stock markets, or trigger a financial panic by leaving a (sealed) suitcase of anthrax in the Tokyo subway. The only option we have is to negotiate seriously, both in the six-party talks and
July 23, 2006, New York Times, Op-Ed, Spanish Lessons for Israel, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or “dirty bombs” that render areas uninhabitable for years. All this suggests that the only way
News Summary - September 26, 2006
October 24, 2006, First Amendment Center, N.Y. Times ordered to reveal sources for anthrax stories,
October 24, 2006, The New York Sun, Federal Judge Orders New York Times To Identify Confidential Sources, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, Archived,
October 24, 2006, Washington Post, Columnist Must Reveal Sources, Judge Rules, by Jerry Markon, Staff Writer, diigo,
October 26, 2006, The New York Sun, New York Times Gets Two Extra Days To Disclose Confidential Sources, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, diigo,
November 2, 2006, The New York Sun, N.Y. Times Must Disclose Sources for Anthrax Columns, Judge Rules, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, Archived,
November 3, 2006, Adweek, Judge: Times Must Give Up Anthrax Sources,
November 3, 2006, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Judge Upholds Order to NY Times To Reveal Anthrax Column Sources,
November 3, 2006, Fox News Channel, N.Y. Times Must Disclose Anthrax Sources,
November 3, 2006, New York Times, Setback for Times in Anthrax Suit,, by Neil A. Lewis,
November 3, 2006, Decided, Filed, Hatfill v. N.Y. Times Co., 242 F.R.D. 353,
November 3, 2006, New York Times, Setback for Times in Anthrax Suit, by Neil A Lewis,
...magistrate judge that The New York Times must disclose the identities of three sources used by Nicholas D. Kristof for columns he wrote on the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001. The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal Court...
November 18, 2006, New York Times, Judges Ruling Bars The Times From Using Sources’ Information in Defense Against Suit, by Neil A Lewis,
...federal magistrate judge ruled on Friday that The New York Times may not rely in any way on information its columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, may have received from two Federal Bureau of Investigation officials in its defense of a....
December 2, 2006, New York Times, Times Asks End to Suit on Anthrax Inquiry, by Neil A Lewis, and David Johnston, ... columns by Nicholas D. Kristof about the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001 defamed him. The scientist, Stephen J. Hatfill, who formerly worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has said Mr. Kristof’s...
January 6, 2007, New York Times, Editor's E-Mail May Be Used in Suit Against The Times, by Neil A. Lewis, ,,for a former government scientist who is suing The New York Times for defamation over a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001 said Friday in court that he was prepared to introduce an internal e-mail message,,,,
News Summary - December 2, 2006
January 5, 2007, AP - U-T San Diego, Hatfill lawyer: Times editor warned columnist on anthrax piece, by Matthew Barakat,
January 12, 2007, New York Times, Op-Ed, We Win a Case!, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
S. District Court has in effect tossed out the libel case against the New York Times for articles that I wrote about the anthrax case. The case was brought by Dr. Steve Hatfill, the person that the Justice Department described as a
January 13, 2007, New York Times, Judge Rejects Defamation Suit Against The Times, by Neil A. Lewis,
against The New York Times by a former government scientist who said he was defamed by a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001. The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., granted
February 2, 2007, New York Times, Judge Explains His Dismissal of Scientist’s Suit Against Times, by Stephen Labaton,
York Times acted after concluding that the scientist who brought the case, a bioterrorism expert investigated over deadly anthrax mailings in 2001, was a public official and could not show that the newspaper had knowingly published
March 13 2007, Village Voice, The Times' Nicholas Kristof—A Rudy Giuliani White House Adviser?, by Keach Hagey, diigo,
March 20, 2007, New York Times, Am I Really a Neo-Cossack?, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
both blasts and praise. At one end of the spectrum, The New York Sun published an extraordinary editorial, "The New Blood Libel," which began:"Since at least the Middle Ages, the approach of Easter has been marked by anti- Semites
March 29, 2007, New York Times, More on the Middle East, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Since I quoted the New York Sun editorial a couple of weeks ago denouncing me for spreading a new "blood libel" in my column about Israel, I should also note that there are plenty of other commentaries that are much more measured.
April 22, 2007, William Mitchell College of Law, How Rule 501 Could Solve the Journalist’s Privilege Problem, by Anthony L. Fargo and Paul McAdoo,
August 13, 2007, D.C. District Court, Anthrax-Hatfill - Judge's order on disclosure of sources, Archived,
August 14, 2007, New York Times, 5 Reporters Ordered to Testify About Government Sources, by Adam Liptak,
violated the federal Privacy Act by providing journalists with information about him in the F.B.I.’s investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001. The reporters — Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek; Allan
Given that this suspect is a member of our biodefense establishment, what Mr. Kristof considers the F.B.I.'s ''lackadaisical ineptitude'' appears more like the old boys' network protecting itself.
The appearance of a cover-up of one government employee's crimes by the agency charged with investigating those crimes should be investigated. Congress should also pursue legislation that would nurture a citizenry more capable of assuming responsibility as a watchdog against such threats.
ROBERT JERESKI
New York, July 3, 2002
The writer is director of the New York Coalition for Public Safety.
July 12, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Anthrax Files, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
When someone expert in bio-warfare mailed anthrax last fall, it may not have been the first time he had struck. So while the F.B.I. has been unbelievably lethargic in its investigation so far, any year now it will re-examine the
July 19, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Case of the Missing Anthrax, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
It's bad enough that we can't find anthrax hidden in the Iraqi desert. But it turns out that we also misplaced anthrax and Ebola kept in a lab outside Washington D.C. Internal Army documents about the U.S.
News Summary - July 23, 2002
August 13, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Anthrax Files, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
former U.S. Army scientist who, authorities say privately, has become the overwhelming focus of the investigation into the anthrax attacks last fall. I didn't name him. But over the weekend, Mr. Z named himself: He is Steven J.
News Summary - August 16, 2002
August 16, 2002, New York Times, Antiterror Chief Quits F.B.I., Which Gets New Deputy, by Philip Shenon, The F.B.I.'s counterterrorism chief, who has overseen the investigations of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and last year's deadly anthrax mailings, has decided to retire, with no replacement yet chosen.
August 26, 2002, New York Times, Weapons Expert Attacks F.B.I. And Ashcroft on Anthrax Inquiry, by Diana Jean Schemo,
Steven J. Hatfill, a germ weapons expert under scrutiny in the government's investigation into last year's anthrax deaths, bitterly denounced the F.B.I. inquiry today and the reporting on it by the news media. Dr. Hatfill said he
News Summary - August 27, 2002
Cheney Says Nuclear Peril Justifies Attack on IraqU.S. Appeals Court Rules Secret Hearings Are Illegal, A1 New Tools in Anthrax Inquiry, A13The F.B.I. will re-enter a quarantined tabloid newspaper office in Boca Raton, Fla., where last year's anthrax attacks were first discovered, using fresh techniques to search for new clues. The anthrax is thought to have entered the building in a letter, but the letter was never found
Blood Test for Weapons Expert, A13
An offer by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a biological weapons expert, to provide a blood sample to the F.B.I. could bear strongly on his guilt or innocence in the anthrax attacks last year, but any results would probably not be conclusive.
August 27, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Wimps On Iraq, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
chemical attacks instead of preventing them? It's hard to see why Saddam, if left in power, would risk his future by using anthrax or smallpox for terrorism. But if we invade, he has every incentive to use 'em or lose 'em. In
September 17, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, No Headline, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
there's a three-volume set of books, ''Scientific Principles of Improvised Warfare,'' which offers details on where to find anthrax spores and how to cultivate them and turn them into an aerosol. ''If you can make Jell-O,'' the book
September 17, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Recipes For Death, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
there's a three-volume set of books, ''Scientific Principles of Improvised Warfare,'' which offers details on where to find anthrax spores and how to cultivate them and turn them into an aerosol. ''If you can make Jell-O,'' the book
October 11, 2002, New York Times, Op-Ed, Revolving- Door Monsters, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
and mustard gas against Kurds in 1988, the Reagan administration initially tried to blame Iran. We shipped seven strains of anthrax to Iraq between 1978 and 1988. These days, we see Iraq as an imminent threat to our way of life,
News Summary - October 25, 2002
Gore Warns of Biological Threat, A20Former Vice President Al Gore said that a ''dangerous weakness in our health care system'' made the United States vulnerable to terrorist attacks using anthrax, smallpox and other biological weapons.February 4, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, 'A Sea of Fire,' or Worse?, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
troops spray machine-gun fire across the DMZ. South Korean and Japanese stock markets fall 7 percent. Aug. 1: A sealed vial of anthrax is found in an Osaka subway car. No one is hurt, but some commentators suggest it is a message
February 14, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Flirting With Disaster, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
nuclear ''bunker busters.'' So suppose we discover that Saddam is cowering in a bunker in Baghdad, or we learn of a cache of anthrax in Tikrit. I asked Richard Garwin, a veteran nuclear scientist who helped design ''Mike,'' the
February 18, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Mr. Bush's Liberal Problem, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
go wrong. It seems equally possible that invading Iraq will trigger precisely the scenario we fear -- Saddam handing out anthrax or even smallpox to terrorists -- and that our invasion will lead thousands of young Arabs to join Al
February 25, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Hitler On the Nile, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
particularly in the 1980's when Don Rumsfeld was cozying up to him in Baghdad and the U.S. was shipping him seven strains of anthrax. The last 10 years have been the best behaved of Saddam's career (not saying much), and he's now
February 28, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Secret, Scary Plans, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
North has 13,000 artillery pieces and could fire some 400,000 shells in the first hour of an attack, many with sarin and anthrax, on the 21 million people in the ''kill box'' -- as some in the U.S. military describe the Seoul
March 7, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Losses, Before Bullets Fly, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
from Iran; Turks and Kurds fighting over the Kirkuk oil wells in northern Iraq; Iraqi military officers trying to peddle anthrax and VX gas; and radical Islamists trying to take control of nuclear-armed Pakistan. As one savvy
News Summary - April 11, 2003
F.B.I. Investigates Agent In Chinese Spying Case, A14A former F.B.I. agent arrested this week in Los Angeles in an espionage case had not been given a polygraph test in his nearly 30 years with the bureau, and the F.B.I.'s lax oversight of his relationship with an informer now accused of being a Chinese double-agent appears to have violated many internal policies.
April 22, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, I Said That?, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Iraqi weapons program and talked about several mobile labs, 30,000 munitions, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. These weapons were supposedly deployed in the war and
May 6, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Missing In Action: Truth, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical
News Summary - June 10, 2003,
Monkeypox Scares Midwest, A20As the number of suspected monkeypox cases rose to at least 33 in three Midwestern states, hundreds of nervous people contacted doctors and public health hotlines, veterinarians and pet shops, full of questions about a viral disease never before seen in this part of the world.
Anthrax Search Leads to Pond, A19The F.B.I. said the authorities began draining a small pond in a municipal park near Frederick, Md., searching for evidence in the unsolved anthrax mailings that killed five people 2001.
Reports Detail Fraud, C1Bernard J. Ebbers, the former chairman and chief executive of WorldCom, ran the company in a manner that fostered fraud, according to court documents.
Columns: Nicholas D. Kristof.
June 13, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, White House In Denial, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
every photo of a trailer truck would be a 'mobile bioweapons lab' and every tanker truck would be 'filled with weaponized anthrax,' '' a former military intelligence officer said. ''None of the analysts in military uniform had the
July 6, 2003, Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye LLP, Jailed & subpoenaed journalists — a historical timeline, by Gordon T. Belt, First Amendment Center library manager,
October 15, 2003, New York Times, Op-Ed, Holding Our Noses, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
January, when the White House was conjuring enough Iraqi anthrax ''to kill several million people,'' as well as hordes of cheering Iraqis casting flowers on our soldiers. These days, with that anthrax as elusive as
News Summary - December 24, 2003
Anthrax Vaccinations Halted, A18The Department of Defense announced that it was canceling its program of administering the anthrax vaccine until a legal situation was resolved after a Federal District Court's ruling that military personnel cannot be forced to take the vaccine.News Summary - February 4, 2004
Kerry Puts House on Line, A16Senator John Kerry has borrowed $6.4 million against his home in Boston in an effort to finance his presidential campaign in next year's primaries, according to mortgage documents and a campaign official.
Ricin Found in Senate Offices, A1The Senate shut down its three office buildings, disrupting the work of lawmakers and thousands of their aides, after a powder identified as the deadly poison ricin was found in the office suite of the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist.March 17, 2004, New York Times, Op-Ed, May I See Your ID?, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Blair Starts Intelligence Inquiry, A11Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he had set up an inquiry into Britain's prewar intelligence on Iraq's illicit weapons.
'Passion' Scene to Be Cut, E1Mel Gibson has decided to delete a controversial scene about Jews from his film, ''The Passion of the Christ,'' a close associate said.
Editorials: Ricin as a weapon,
Columns: Nicholas D. Kristof,
''cookbooks'' to make anthrax, sarin and other chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Over the last few years, I've collected a horrifying set of booklets, typically sold at gun shows or on the Internet, detailing how to make
October 22, 2004, New York Times, Op-Ed, Anthrax Figure Wins A Round on News Sources, by Scott Shane,
confidential information, Justice Department officials agreed Thursday to distribute to dozens of federal investigators in the 2001 anthrax case a document they can sign to release journalists from pledges of confidentiality.
November 30, 2004, New York Times, Times Wins Libel-Suit Dismissal, by Nat Ives,
brought by a former Army bioterrorism expert who accused The New York Times and its Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof of implicating him in the unsolved anthrax attacks of October 2001. The suit, filed last July
News Summary - December 11, 2004
Kerik Withdraws Name for Homeland Security Chief, A1Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, abruptly withdrew his name from consideration to be President Bush's secretary of homeland security late Friday night with little public explanation.News Summary- March 16, 2005
Setbacks for Anthrax Program, A1The government's $877 million project to create an anthrax vaccine to protect Americans from germ warfare is undergoing significant setbacks. For one thing, the vaccine is unproven in humans.
Deaths of 26 Detainees Suspected as Criminal, A1 At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials. The number of confirmed or suspected cases is much higher than any accounting the military has previously reported.
March 15, 2005, New York Times, page A1, US Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide, by Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt,
July 28, 2005, Reuters, Appeals court reinstates anthrax libel lawsuit,
July 29, 2005 New York Times, Appeal Restores Libel Case Against Times. by Timothy L. O'Brien,
A suit, filed two years ago by the bioterrorism expert, Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a Times Op-Ed columnist, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks in October 2001. Dr. Hatfill
September 17, 2005, New York Times, In 4-Year Anthrax Hunt, F.B.I. Finds Itself Stymied, and Sued. by Scott Shane, David Johnson contributed reporting.
Richard L. Lambert, the F.B.I. inspector in charge of the investigation of the deadly anthrax letters of 2001, testified under oath for five hours last month about the case. But Mr. Lambert was not testifying in a criminal trial.
October 18, 2005, AP - NBC News, Appeals court allows anthrax libel lawsuit; Scientist, 'person of interest' Hatfill may proceed in case against N.Y. Times,
October 19, 2005, New York Times, Court Rebuffs The Times Co. Over Lawsuit, by David Cay Johnston, ...a majority was required. The suit, filed two years ago by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the anthrax attacks of October 2001. Dr. Hatfill
March 28, 2006 , New York Times, Court Rebuffs Times On Libel Suit Appeal,
expert to go forward. The suit, filed in 2003 by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001. The suit was
May 24, 2006, Ad Week, On Anthrax And In Defense of American Media, by Dylan, Archived, diigo, "...the photographer is really just trying to get his $2 million piece of the $250 million pie that AMI claimed in insurance over the attacks."
The anthrax attack on American Media’s Florida offices in 2001 was a puzzling event; sure, it makes sense to send some spores to prominent politicians, to the networks and even to the New York Post. But why would terrorists care enough to shut down the National Enquirer? AMI photo editor Robert Stevens later died from his exposure to the anthrax, so the issue’s no laughing matter, but it makes you wonder what article about Oprah or Chandra Levy made the company a target.
No suspects have been charged in the attack, but the New York Sun reported that an AMI freelance photographer is suing the company for “stealing” his anthrax-contaminated photo archive — by not securely protecting them.
The suit is not totally without merit; the photographer is really just trying to get his $2 million piece of the $250 million pie that AMI claimed in insurance over the attacks. But it’s a stretch to believe that anyone could have predicted the attacks and secured their archives accordingly.
July 11, 2006, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Dear Leader's Boiling Cauldron, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
send a few spy submarines to torpedo Asian stock markets, or trigger a financial panic by leaving a (sealed) suitcase of anthrax in the Tokyo subway. The only option we have is to negotiate seriously, both in the six-party talks and
July 23, 2006, New York Times, Op-Ed, Spanish Lessons for Israel, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or “dirty bombs” that render areas uninhabitable for years. All this suggests that the only way
News Summary - September 26, 2006
Top Israeli Is Said to Meet Saudi, A11News Summary- October 24, 2006
An Israeli newspaper reported that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held a secret meeting with a senior Saudi Arabian official to discuss issues that included Iran's nuclear program and prospects for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Anthrax Not Weapon-Grade, A18
Seeking to clear up public confusion, an F.B.I. official has reiterated the bureau's judgment that the anthrax in the letter attacks five years ago bore no special coatings to increase its deadliness and had no hallmarks of a military weapon.
Calls for Report on Terrorism, A16
The top Republican and Democratic members of the Senate intelligence committee called for the White House to declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism that was produced in April, but Bush administration officials do not intend to make the document public.
Lieberman's Plan for Iraq, B1
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, in his first major speech on Iraq since his loss in the Democratic primary, called for the number of Americans embedded with Iraqi troops to be doubled or tripled, as a way to speed up the training of Iraqis and hasten the withdrawal of Americans.
Gibson's Image Clouds Film, E1
Mel Gibson, fiercely criticized for his anti-Semitic outburst after being arrested for drunk driving in July, held screenings of his still-unfinished new film, ''Apocalypto,'' in Oklahoma, where he wore a wig and disguise, and in Texas. In Texas, he compared the American troop deployment in Iraq to the kind of human sacrifice depicted in his film, about ancient Mayans.
Columns: Nicholas D. Kristof, John Tierney.
Italy to Replace Its Top Spy, A3 Italy's top spy is expected to be replaced, with prosecutors saying they intend to seek his indictment on charges connected to the abduction of an Egyptian cleric in Milan in 2003 by American intelligence agents.
Sources Sought From Times, A21
A federal magistrate judge has ordered The New York Times to disclose the identities of confidential sources used by one of its columnists, Nicholas D. Kristof, for articles he wrote about the investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.
Columns: John Tierney, Nicholas D. Kristof.
October 24, 2006, First Amendment Center, N.Y. Times ordered to reveal sources for anthrax stories,
October 24, 2006, The New York Sun, Federal Judge Orders New York Times To Identify Confidential Sources, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, Archived,
October 24, 2006, Washington Post, Columnist Must Reveal Sources, Judge Rules, by Jerry Markon, Staff Writer, diigo,
October 26, 2006, The New York Sun, New York Times Gets Two Extra Days To Disclose Confidential Sources, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, diigo,
November 2, 2006, The New York Sun, N.Y. Times Must Disclose Sources for Anthrax Columns, Judge Rules, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, Archived,
November 3, 2006, Adweek, Judge: Times Must Give Up Anthrax Sources,
November 3, 2006, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Judge Upholds Order to NY Times To Reveal Anthrax Column Sources,
November 3, 2006, Fox News Channel, N.Y. Times Must Disclose Anthrax Sources,
November 3, 2006, New York Times, Setback for Times in Anthrax Suit,, by Neil A. Lewis,
November 3, 2006, Decided, Filed, Hatfill v. N.Y. Times Co., 242 F.R.D. 353,
November 3, 2006, New York Times, Setback for Times in Anthrax Suit, by Neil A Lewis,
...magistrate judge that The New York Times must disclose the identities of three sources used by Nicholas D. Kristof for columns he wrote on the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001. The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal Court...
November 18, 2006, New York Times, Judges Ruling Bars The Times From Using Sources’ Information in Defense Against Suit, by Neil A Lewis,
...federal magistrate judge ruled on Friday that The New York Times may not rely in any way on information its columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, may have received from two Federal Bureau of Investigation officials in its defense of a....
December 2, 2006, New York Times, Times Asks End to Suit on Anthrax Inquiry, by Neil A Lewis, and David Johnston, ... columns by Nicholas D. Kristof about the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001 defamed him. The scientist, Stephen J. Hatfill, who formerly worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has said Mr. Kristof’s...
January 6, 2007, New York Times, Editor's E-Mail May Be Used in Suit Against The Times, by Neil A. Lewis, ,,for a former government scientist who is suing The New York Times for defamation over a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001 said Friday in court that he was prepared to introduce an internal e-mail message,,,,
News Summary - December 2, 2006
Man Who Met Spy Hospitalized, A3
One of three men who last met the former K.G.B. officer Alexander V. Litvinenko before he fell fatally ill with radiation poisoning was himself admitted to a London hospital, the authorities said, after tests showed a significant amount of radioactive material in his body.
War Opponent Is Chosen To Lead Intelligence Panel, A1Representative Nancy Pelosi, the incoming House speaker, sent a strong new signal that Democrats intend to aggressively confront the White House by naming Representative Silvestre Reyes, a Texas congressman who opposed the war in Iraq, as the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Challenging Religion Initiative, A11The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether private citizens are entitled to go to court to challenge activities of the White House office in charge of the Bush administration's religion-based initiative.
Times Asks to Dismiss Lawsuit, A13The New York Times filed a motion with a federal judge asking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a germ-warfare scientist who said that he was defamed by a series of columns written by Nicholas D. Kristof about the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.
Torn by Police Violence, Families Unite in Grief, A1
Members of a circle of unintended friends, made up of the relatives of those killed by New York City police officers, have traveled from as far away as Miami to offer support to the family of Sean Bell, the unarmed man who died in a storm of 50 police bullets last Saturday in Queens.
January 5, 2007, AP - U-T San Diego, Hatfill lawyer: Times editor warned columnist on anthrax piece, by Matthew Barakat,
January 12, 2007, New York Times, Op-Ed, We Win a Case!, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
S. District Court has in effect tossed out the libel case against the New York Times for articles that I wrote about the anthrax case. The case was brought by Dr. Steve Hatfill, the person that the Justice Department described as a
January 13, 2007, New York Times, Judge Rejects Defamation Suit Against The Times, by Neil A. Lewis,
against The New York Times by a former government scientist who said he was defamed by a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001. The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., granted
February 2, 2007, New York Times, Judge Explains His Dismissal of Scientist’s Suit Against Times, by Stephen Labaton,
York Times acted after concluding that the scientist who brought the case, a bioterrorism expert investigated over deadly anthrax mailings in 2001, was a public official and could not show that the newspaper had knowingly published
March 13 2007, Village Voice, The Times' Nicholas Kristof—A Rudy Giuliani White House Adviser?, by Keach Hagey, diigo,
March 20, 2007, New York Times, Am I Really a Neo-Cossack?, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
both blasts and praise. At one end of the spectrum, The New York Sun published an extraordinary editorial, "The New Blood Libel," which began:"Since at least the Middle Ages, the approach of Easter has been marked by anti- Semites
March 29, 2007, New York Times, More on the Middle East, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
Since I quoted the New York Sun editorial a couple of weeks ago denouncing me for spreading a new "blood libel" in my column about Israel, I should also note that there are plenty of other commentaries that are much more measured.
April 22, 2007, William Mitchell College of Law, How Rule 501 Could Solve the Journalist’s Privilege Problem, by Anthony L. Fargo and Paul McAdoo,
August 13, 2007, D.C. District Court, Anthrax-Hatfill - Judge's order on disclosure of sources, Archived,
August 14, 2007, New York Times, 5 Reporters Ordered to Testify About Government Sources, by Adam Liptak,
violated the federal Privacy Act by providing journalists with information about him in the F.B.I.’s investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001. The reporters — Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek; Allan
February 20, 2008, New York Times, Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case, by Eric Lichtblau,
Tuesday for refusing to name her confidential sources who had discussed a former Army scientist’s possible role in the 2001 anthrax attacks. The reporter, Toni Locy, now faces fines of up to $5,000 a day for refusing to comply
March 20, 2008, New York Times, China and Darfur, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
sophisticated and subversive attempts to intercept emails and infect computers with malicious programs. During the meeting with FBI officials, the coalition provided technical information and offered a detailed account of the recent
April 20, 2008, New York Times, Squeezed by the Courts, by Clark Hoyt,
or might not — have given her information about Steven J. Hatfill, a “person of interest” in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, injured 17 and terrorized the nation. It is not clear that
June 28, 2008, New York Times, Scientist Is Paid Millions by U.S. in Anthrax Suit, by Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau,
by Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army biodefense researcher intensively investigated as a “person of interest” in the deadly anthrax letters of 2001. The settlement, consisting of $2.825 million in cash and an annuity paying Dr.
July 6, 2008, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Truth Commission, by Nicholas D. Kristof, diigo,
July 14, 2008, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Hatfill v. New York Times - Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit, Cached,
July 15, 2008, New York Times, Dismissal of Suit Against Times Is Upheld, by Neil A. Lewis,
York Times by a former government scientist who had asserted that he was defamed by a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001. The three-judge panel said that a federal trial court judge had correctly granted The
August 2, 2008, New York Times, A Onetime ‘Person of Interest’ Moves a Step Closer to Public Exoneration, by Charlie Savage,
WASHINGTON — Having been named a “person of interest” in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, the former Army scientist Steven J. Hatfill has tried for six years to clear his name, both inside court and out. Now the
August 4, 2008, USA Today, Officials: Sorority obsession seen in anthrax case,
August 9, 2008, New York Times, Scientist Officially Exonerated in Anthrax Attacks, by Eric Lichtblau,
Steven J. Hatfill a “person of interest” in the anthrax attacks, the Justice Department formally exonerated him on Friday and told his lawyer it had concluded that Dr. Hatfill “was not involved in the anthrax
August 17, 2008, New York Times, Headlines and Exonerations, by Clark Hoyt,
Hatfill, acknowledging six years after labeling him a “person of interest” that he was not the man who killed five people with anthrax attacks on Congress and news organizations in 2001. If the intent was to call as little
Tuesday for refusing to name her confidential sources who had discussed a former Army scientist’s possible role in the 2001 anthrax attacks. The reporter, Toni Locy, now faces fines of up to $5,000 a day for refusing to comply
March 20, 2008, New York Times, China and Darfur, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
sophisticated and subversive attempts to intercept emails and infect computers with malicious programs. During the meeting with FBI officials, the coalition provided technical information and offered a detailed account of the recent
April 20, 2008, New York Times, Squeezed by the Courts, by Clark Hoyt,
or might not — have given her information about Steven J. Hatfill, a “person of interest” in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, injured 17 and terrorized the nation. It is not clear that
June 28, 2008, New York Times, Scientist Is Paid Millions by U.S. in Anthrax Suit, by Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau,
by Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army biodefense researcher intensively investigated as a “person of interest” in the deadly anthrax letters of 2001. The settlement, consisting of $2.825 million in cash and an annuity paying Dr.
July 6, 2008, New York Times, Op-Ed, The Truth Commission, by Nicholas D. Kristof, diigo,
July 14, 2008, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Hatfill v. New York Times - Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit, Cached,
July 15, 2008, New York Times, Dismissal of Suit Against Times Is Upheld, by Neil A. Lewis,
York Times by a former government scientist who had asserted that he was defamed by a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001. The three-judge panel said that a federal trial court judge had correctly granted The
August 2, 2008, New York Times, A Onetime ‘Person of Interest’ Moves a Step Closer to Public Exoneration, by Charlie Savage,
WASHINGTON — Having been named a “person of interest” in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, the former Army scientist Steven J. Hatfill has tried for six years to clear his name, both inside court and out. Now the
August 4, 2008, USA Today, Officials: Sorority obsession seen in anthrax case,
August 9, 2008, New York Times, Scientist Officially Exonerated in Anthrax Attacks, by Eric Lichtblau,
Steven J. Hatfill a “person of interest” in the anthrax attacks, the Justice Department formally exonerated him on Friday and told his lawyer it had concluded that Dr. Hatfill “was not involved in the anthrax
August 17, 2008, New York Times, Headlines and Exonerations, by Clark Hoyt,
Hatfill, acknowledging six years after labeling him a “person of interest” that he was not the man who killed five people with anthrax attacks on Congress and news organizations in 2001. If the intent was to call as little
Inside the Times: August 17, 2008
Nicholas D. Kristof, Week In Review, Page 11,The Chinese government has set aside protest space during the Olympics, with permits given out at police stations. This makes for impressively cost-effective law enforcement. In the old days, the police had to go out and catch protesters in the act; now they can be detained right in the station.August 27, 2008, New York Times, Your comments on my journalism column, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
My Thursday column looks back at my 2002 columns about the anthrax cases, in which I cited a Mr. Z -- Dr. Steven Hatfill, as he later acknowledged -- as an example of the way the F.B.I. was muffing the investigation. The F.B.I. this
August 28, 2008, New York Times, Media's Balancing Act, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
United States government was muffing the anthrax investigation. Microbiologists interviewed by the F.B.I. reported that the bureau didn't fully understand the science involved and had allowed the destruction of
December 15, 2008, New York Times, Justices Reject Appeal in Anthrax Libel Suit, by David Stout,
against The New York Times by a former government scientist who contended that he was defamed by a series of columns about the anthrax mailings of 2001. Without comment, the justices refused to accept an appeal by the scientist,
December 15, 2008, New York Times, End of the libel road, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
against me and The Times that has been kicking around for years. It was brought for columns I wrote back in 2002 about the anthrax cases after 9/11: Dr. Steve Hatfill sued me and the Times for defamation and the case wound its way
February 18, 2009, New York Times, Op-Ed, Trailing George Clooney, by Nicholas D. Kristof,
June 2, 2009, 911Blogger, New York Times,
News Analysis - March 24, 2011
Anthrax Case Persuasive, Psychiatrists Say, A19A panel of psychiatrists who studied the medical records of Bruce E. Ivins said the F.B.I.'s case that he mailed the anthrax letters in 2001 was persuasive, and that Dr. Ivins's history of mental problems should have disqualified him from working with dangerous pathogens. Dr. Ivins killed himself in 2008 as prosecutors prepared to charge him.
Bringing the Iraq War To Broadway, C1Broadway is taking its first major look at Iraq eight years after the invasion with Rajiv Joseph's ''Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo,'' a $3 million play that starts with a behanding, descends into brutality and murder, and features Uday Hussein clutching the severed head of his brother, Qusay.
Op-ed, Nicholas D. Kristof, A29
Inside The Times - October 30, 2011
A Foreclosure Settlement That Wouldn't Sting, A1As things stand in a deal that is supposed to punish large financial institutions for foreclosure misconduct, banks would pay relatively little cash in a foreclosure settlement with the federal government and state attorneys general. Fair Game, Gretchen Morgenson.
Magazine
There's Not Enough Vaccine To Go Around, page 26The specter of a biological attack is difficult for almost anybody to imagine. Ten years after the anthrax attacks, biodefense still has some worrisome realities.
Nicholas D. Kristof, page 11Research suggests that altruism can light up the brain's pleasure circuitry in the same way that sugar, sex and cocaine do. Sunday Review,
October 11, 2011, PBS Frontline, The Anthrax Files,
July 23, 2014 (1st web capture) Medill National Security Zone, Understanding Reporters' Privilege and Shield Laws.
________________________________________________________________________________
November 30, 2004, New York Times, Times Wins Libel-Suit Dismissal, by Nat Ives,
A federal judge in Virginia has dismissed a libel suit brought by a former Army bioterrorism expert who accused The New York Times and its Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof of implicating him in the unsolved anthrax attacks of October 2001.
The suit, filed last July by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, contended that some of Mr. Kristof's columns in 2002 implied that Dr. Hatfill was responsible for the anthrax attacks, which killed five people and heightened terrorism worries after Sept. 11. Federal investigators have identified Dr. Hatfill as a ''person of interest'' in the case but have not brought any charges against him.
In an opinion made public yesterday, the judge, Claude M. Hilton of the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., ruled that Mr. Kristof had directed his columns primarily at the handling of the investigation by the F.B.I. and had not accused Dr. Hatfill of responsibility for the attacks. Judge Hilton wrote that ''it is evident that the Op-Ed pieces highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the F.B.I. are not reasonably read as accusing Hatfill of actually being the anthrax mailer.''
Some of the columns did not even include Dr. Hatfill's name, instead referring to him as Mr. Z, the judge added. Mr. Kristof did not identify him until Dr. Hatfill, in August 2002, held a news conference related to the case.
The judge wrote that while some columns raised questions about Dr. Hatfill to support the argument that the F.B.I. needed to be more thorough and swift in its investigation, ''none of these accuse him of guilt, and the columns specifically caution that there may be no connection, that his friends consider him a patriot, and that a thorough F.B.I. investigation may well exculpate him of any wrongdoing.''
Victor M. Glasberg, a lawyer for Dr. Hatfill, said it was too early to tell whether there would be an appeal. The decision does not affect a separate suit Dr. Hatfill has filed against the government over release of a variety of information that, the plaintiff says, suggested his guilt.
Responding to the dismissal, Mr. Kristof described himself as ''delighted,'' and added, ''This is a real victory for the rights of journalists aggressively to cover these kinds of investigations.''
___________________________________________________________
January 15, 2005, New York Times, From Grand Jury Leaks Comes a Clash of Rights, by John M. Broder, Archived.
LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14 - Twice in the past month, sensitive grand jury material from high-profile investigations has found its way into the hands of the news media, setting off a collision between the rights of the accused and the First Amendment.
In the past week, extensive excerpts from grand jury material in the Michael Jackson child molesting case were posted on thesmokinggun.com Web site and broadcast on ABC News. Mr. Jackson was indicted by a Santa Barbara County grand jury last April on charges of sexually molesting a 13-year-old boy, administering alcohol to a minor and conspiracy.
And in December, The San Francisco Chronicle published parts of federal grand jury testimony that implicated the baseball players Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi in the use of illegal steroids.
Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, and people who divulge material from them are subject to sanctions or prosecution, although witnesses are free to reveal what went on in the closed jury room.
Lawyers and legal scholars say that news organizations are on firm ground in publishing material from a grand jury, as long they obtained it legally. Unless there is a court order already in place barring publication of such information, and there was not in either case here, the press is free to disseminate the material as long as it was not acquired by theft or bribery, scholars said.
But defense lawyers say pre-trial publication of such material violates the rights of their clients and taints potential jurors.
"The witnesses who testified before the grand jury were never subjected to cross-examination or impeachment by the defense," said Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., Mr. Jackson's lead lawyer. "By law, no judge or defense lawyer was allowed to be present in the grand jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to refute or criticize this one-sided proceeding."
Mr. Mesereau did not question the authenticity of the grand jury transcripts.
Prosecutors, too, say they abhor such leaks and have become much bolder in leaning on journalists to reveal the sources of the grand jury material.
Kevin V. Ryan, the United States attorney in San Francisco overseeing the sports doping case, has asked The Chronicle to reveal its sources and requested a Justice Department investigation of the leak.
Phil Bronstein, The Chronicle's editor, said that the paper had no intention of giving up the source or sources of its information and that this week's announcement of new measures by Major League Baseball to curb steroid use was a vindication of the value of the paper's reporting.
As for helping the government find out who leaked the grand jury transcripts, Mr. Bronstein said: "The press has certain responsibilities in society, but one of them is not to enforce the provisions of the federal grand jury system. Obviously, there are people who disagree with that, including the Justice Department. But that's not the view from here."
Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar at Duke Law School, said that at times the rights of defendants and the media collided, but that courts had almost always sided with the media. All high-profile cases generate extensive pretrial publicity, some true, some false, some potentially harmful to the defendant, Mr. Chemerinsky said.
But there are mechanisms in place to assure the impartiality of the jury, he said, including aggressive questioning during jury selection, strict instructions from the judge to ignore anything jurors might have read or heard and the presentation of a vigorous defense.
"The one thing that's clear is you can't stop the press from publishing because of that concern," Mr. Chemerinsky said. "There are many ways of dealing with potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity, but a gag order on the press isn't one of them."
ABC officials would not disclose how the network obtained transcripts from the Jackson grand jury. They said the testimony ran to 1,900 pages and contained explicit accounts of Mr. Jackson's purported molesting of a young cancer patient in 2003. Much of the same material, but without the verbatim quotations that ABC used, appeared last week on thesmokinggun.com, which is owned by Court TV, the cable channel that follows high-profile criminal cases.
Jury selection in the case is set to begin Jan. 31.
Under California law, grand jury transcripts are generally made public before the start of a trial. But the judge in the Jackson case, Rodney S. Melville of Santa Barbara Superior Court, has kept the transcript sealed as part of a broad blackout because of the intense international scrutiny the case has spawned. Lawyers and investigators on all sides of the case are barred from speaking to the media. Mr. Jackson's lawyer, Mr. Mesereau, did so only with the permission of Judge Melville.
A senior ABC News official said the network carefully vetted the grand jury material before it was broadcast and posted on the network's Web site.
"We reviewed and reported on this testimony because of its inherent news value," Jeffrey W. Schneider, vice president of ABC News, said in an e-mail response to written questions. "Our job is to report the facts, in a balanced manner and in proper context."
The Santa Barbara County prosecutor, Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., did not return a call seeking comment on the latest disclosures.
Although Mr. Ryan, the federal prosecutor in San Francisco, has not followed up on his demand that The Chronicle reveal its sources and Mr. Sneddon and Judge Melville have made no such threat, judges and prosecutors have been increasingly bold in punishing reporters for refusing to divulge sources of sensitive information.
Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times have been found in contempt of court for refusing to testify about their sources in the case of the exposure of the identity of Valerie Plame, an undercover C.I.A. officer.
Jim Taricani, a television reporter in Rhode Island, was convicted last fall of contempt of court and sentenced to six months of home confinement for refusing to reveal who gave him an F.B.I. videotape that was evidence in an investigation of government corruption in Providence.
Eve Burton, the general counsel of the Hearst Corporation, which owns The Chronicle, said grand jury leaks had been going on for a long time without serious harm to American justice.
"There is a natural tension," Ms. Burton said. "The government has its job to do, and the press has another job to do."
She added, "What is new about this is that reporters are now being targeted in leak investigations."
Ms. Burton said she knew of 18 cases around the country in which reporters were being asked to reveal where they obtained information about continuing investigations.
David Carr contributed reporting from New York for this article.
_____________________________________________________________________________
July 28, 2005, Reuters, Appeals court reinstates anthrax libel lawsuit,
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court reinstated on Thursday a libel lawsuit by former U.S. Army scientist Steven Hatfill against The New York Times Co. over a series of columns that he said implicated him in the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001.
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal judge's dismissal of the lawsuit that claimed that columns by Nicholas Kristof published in 2002 defamed Hatfill and caused him emotional distress.
"At this stage of litigation, our sole concern is whether Hatfill's allegations, taken as true, describe intentional and outrageous misconduct. We conclude that they do," the panel said in a 24-page opinion written by Judge Dennis Shedd.
Hatfill, a bioterrorism expert who formerly worked at the Army Medical Institute of Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick in Maryland, has denied any involvement in the mailings of the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks.
In 2002, law enforcement officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, called Hatfill a "person of interest" in connection with the anthrax attacks.
Judge Paul Niemeyer dissented from the ruling. He said none of the columns accused Hatfill of committing the anthrax murders.
He said the columns sent the message that the FBI's investigation was lackadaisical and unimaginative, that the FBI should pursue obvious leads pointing to Hatfill and that Hatfill should be the leading suspect, based on circumstantial, but not any physical, evidence.
If the newspaper does not appeal, the case would go back to U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton in Alexandria, Virginia. In New York, Toby Usnik, a spokesman for The New York Times, said no decision has been made on the next step in the case.
"We are disappointed in the court's decision, but we remain confident in our case. Mr. Kristof's columns were fair and accurate and we continue to believe that newspapers need to be able to comment on how investigations -- especially one as important as this -- are being conducted," he said.
_______________________________________________________________________________
July 29, 2005, New York Times, Appeal Restores Libel Case Against Times, by Timothy L. O'Brien,
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that a libel suit filed against The New York Times Company by a former Army bioterrorism expert could proceed, reversing a Federal District Court decision last November that dismissed the case.
The suit, filed two years ago by the bioterrorism expert, Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a Times Op-Ed columnist, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks in October 2001.
Dr. Hatfill asserted that a series of Mr. Kristof's columns, which criticized the pace of an F.B.I. investigation into Dr. Hatfill's background and activities and many of which referred to him as an anonymous "Mr. Z," suggested that Dr. Hatfill was responsible for the attacks. The suit charged that the columns defamed Dr. Hatfill and caused him emotional distress.
Five people died in the attacks, which heightened national anxieties after the Sept 11 attacks. Although the federal authorities have identified Dr. Hatfill as a ''person of interest'' in the case they have not charged him with any crimes.
When Claude M. Hilton, a federal district judge in Alexandria, Va., dismissed the case, he ruled that Mr. Kristof's columns were directed primarily at the F.B.I. and did not accuse Dr. Hatfill of being responsible for the attacks.
But a three-member appellate panel in Richmond, Va., overturned that decision yesterday in a 2-to-1 ruling, noting that a "reasonable reader" of Mr. Kristof's columns would have concluded that Dr. Hatfill was responsible for the anthrax attacks and that the columns intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him.
The Times has the right to appeal yesterday's decision to the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The newspaper said yesterday that it had not decided whether to appeal. If The Times does not appeal, the case will be sent back to Judge Hilton's court, where it will be permitted to proceed.
"We are disappointed in the court's decision, but we remain confident in our case," The Times said in a statement. "Mr. Kristof's columns were fair and accurate, and we continue to believe that newspapers need to be able to comment on how investigations -- especially one as important as this -- are being conducted."
Mr. Kristof, who was dismissed as a defendant in the case and bears no personal liability in the matter, said he had nothing to add.
Dr. Hatfill's lawyer, Victor M. Glasberg, said he found yesterday's ruling encouraging.
"The Fourth Circuit did the right thing," Mr. Glasberg said. "I'm pleased."
________________________________________________________________________________
October 19, 2005, New York Times, Court Rebuffs The Times Co. Over Lawsuit, by David Cay Johnson,
A federal appeals court yesterday declined to reconsider a ruling that allowed a former Army bioterrorism expert to proceed with a defamation suit against The New York Times Company.
Six judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., voted to consider the case, and six opposed doing so; one judge did not vote. To grant a rehearing, a majority was required.
The suit, filed two years ago by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the anthrax attacks of October 2001.
Dr. Hatfill asserted that a series of Mr. Kristof's columns, which criticized the pace of an F.B.I. investigation into Dr. Hatfill's background and activities, suggested that he was responsible for the attacks.
In July, a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that the case could proceed to trial, reversing a lower court decision that had dismissed the suit. The Times then asked the full appeals court to reconsider the panel's ruling.
The order yesterday in which the court declined to do so was issued without comment. But in a lengthy dissent, three of the judges declared that allowing the case to proceed would chill robust public commentary, especially in small newspapers, on matters of vital public concern.
The dissent, written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and joined by Judges M. Blane Michael and Robert Bruce King, said that ''viewed as a whole, the columns do not pin guilt'' on Dr. Hatfill ''but instead urge the investigation of an undeniable public threat.'' It added that the columns were a valuable critique containing ''pointed criticism of the executive branch,'' and in particular the F.B.I., for what Mr. Kristof characterized as ''lackadaisical ineptitude in pursuing the anthrax killer.''
The dissent expressed doubt that Dr. Hatfill would prevail at trial.
David E. McCraw, a lawyer for the Times Company, said that ''we are obviously disappointed,'' but also ''very pleased by Judge Wilkinson's dissent.'' Mr. McCraw said that there would be no further appeals and that the company would proceed to trial.
Thomas G. Connolly, Dr. Hatfill's lawyer, expressed his pleasure at the decision but declined detailed comment.
_______________________________________________________________________________
October 18, 2005, AP - NBC News, Appeals court allows anthrax libel lawsuit; Scientist, 'person of interest' Hatfill may proceed in case against N.Y. Times,
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed a former Army scientist to proceed with a libel lawsuit against The New York Times that claims one of the paper’s columnists unfairly linked him to the 2001 anthrax killings.
Steven Hatfill sued the Times for a series of columns written in 2002 by Nicholas Kristof that faulted the FBI for failing to thoroughly investigate Hatfill for anthrax mailings that left five people dead.
The initial columns identified Hatfill only as “Mr. Z,” but subsequent columns named him after Hatfill stepped forward to deny any role in the killings. Federal authorities labeled Hatfill “a person of interest” in their investigation.
In a 6-6 decision, with one judge not participating, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals failed to produce a majority of judges needed to grant a rehearing and affirmed an earlier decision to reinstate the case.
Hatfill, a physician and bioterrorism expert, worked in the late 1990s at the Army’s infectious disease laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md.
Were columns defamatory?
In July, a three-judge panel of the court overturned a federal judge’s ruling to toss out the case, saying that Kristof’s columns, taken as a whole, might be considered defamatory. The Times had asked the court to reconsider.
The case will go to the back to federal court in Alexandria, unless the Times files a motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote for the dissenting jurists: “The panel’s decision in this case will restrict speech on a matter of vital public concern. The columns at issue urged government action on a question of grave national import and life-or-death consequences.”
Wilkinson, joined by Judges M. Blane Michael and Robert B. King, added that when viewed as a whole, the columns “do not pin guilt” on the plaintiff but rather urge the investigation of an “undeniable public threat.”
The dissenting judges also wrote that they believed the Times was only doing its job, emphasizing the public’s right to know as more than a “matter of voyeurism, titillation, or idle curiosity.”
“The bioterrorism presaged by these anthrax mailings was no small matter, and it may one day pose a threat on a very large scale.”
Times disappointed
David McCraw, counsel for the Times, said the paper was disappointed the court declined to rehear the case and noted that the dissenting justices addressed important issues relating to free speech and defamation.
Journalists “shouldn’t have to worry about where the line is going to be drawn,” he said. “If those lines are drawn too tightly, there won’t be adequate public commentary.”
Hatfill’s attorney, Tom Connolly, said his client was pleased with the ruling. “The press is entitled to report on important issues,” Connolly said. “But it has the obligation to get it right.”
Last month, a federal judge dismissed two claims in Hatfill’s lawsuit against the Justice Department but left open the possibility that he could hold officials accountable for comments made about him during the anthrax investigation.
Hatfill sued the Justice Department, the FBI, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other officials in 2003, claiming that his civil rights were violated when he was labeled a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.
March 16, 2006, New York Times, 2 Times Reporters Win Prize for Articles on Spying, by Michael Janofsky,
James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times have won the Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting for their coverage of the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.
The award, worth $25,000, is given annually by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The prize was created in 1991 to honor journalism that discloses excessive secrecy, impropriety and mismanagement. The awards were officially presented Tuesday night in Cambridge, Mass. The center also presented a special award to Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times, for his reporting on genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Mr. Kristof was cited for reporting that led to "saving many thousands of lives."
The Times eavesdropping articles revealed that government agents were secretly monitoring telephone calls and e-mail messages inside the United States without court approval. The articles touched off a national debate focused on the intersection of national security and civil liberties.
"The judges felt that, in a field of hugely important investigations, the revelation of systemic domestic spying by the government was the most important," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center."They wanted to send a message that this kind of reporting is essential to our democracy."
Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said: ''Jim and Eric performed an extraordinary feat of reporting that has provoked an important national debate about the balance between security and liberty. But their work has also set off an intensive leak investigation carrying the threat of legal reprisals. So besides being a gratifying acknowledgment of professional achievement, this award also constitutes a welcome vote of moral support."
The judges considered five other finalists. They included Joshua Boak, James Drew, Steve Eder, Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, Jim Tankersley and Mike Wilkinson of The Blade in Toledo, Ohio, whose articles on the state's investment into rare coins led to convictions of Gov. Bob Taft and others on ethics charges.
Three Washington Post reporters -- Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith -- were nominated for articles that revealed the political activities of Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist. Another Post reporter, Dana Priest, was nominated for articles that revealed a network of secret prisons outside the United States where the American authorities held terror suspects.
Three reporters from The Los Angeles Times -- Evelyn Larrubia, Robin Fields and Jack Leonard -- were nominated for a series that examined guardians of the elderly who preyed on them.
Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer of Copley News Service were nominated for articles about former Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California, who was sentenced to prison for taking bribes.
____________________________________________________________________________
March 28, 2006, New York Times, Court Rebuffs Times On Libel Suit Appeal, The United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from The New York Times on Monday, allowing a libel suit by a former Army bioterrorism expert to go forward The suit, filed in 2003 by Steven J. Hatfill, accused Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times, of implicating Dr. Hatfill in the unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001.
The suit was dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia in 2004. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., reinstated the case in July, and the full court, by a 6-to-6 vote, declined to rehear it in October.
The decisions to date have been preliminary, centering on whether Mr. Kristof's statements could be considered defamatory.
Judge Dennis W. Shedd, writing for the majority in the July decision, said ''a reasonable reader of Kristof's columns likely would conclude that Hatfill was responsible for the anthrax mailings in 2001."
But Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, dissenting from the October decision, said "the columns do not pin guilt on plaintiff, but instead urge the investigation of an undeniable public threat."
The trial court will now consider whether the statements were false and whether The Times was at fault for publishing them.
______________________________________________________________________________
October 24, 2006, New York Times, Times Is Ordered to Reveal Columnist's Sources, by Neil A. Lewis, A federal magistrate judge has ordered The New York Times to disclose the identities of three confidential sources used by one of its columnists, Nicholas Kristof, for columns he wrote about the investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.
The order, issued Friday by Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady, requires the newspaper to disclose the identities of the three sources to lawyers for Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, who has brought a defamation suit against The Times. The order was disclosed Monday.
Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the newspaper would appeal the ruling.
Dr. Hatfill, a germ warfare specialist who formerly worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has asserted that a series of columns by Mr. Kristof about the slow pace of the anthrax investigation defamed him because they suggested he was responsible for the attacks. Five people died in the attacks. Although the federal authorities identified Dr. Hatfill as a "person of interest" in the case, they have not charged him with any crimes.
At a deposition on July 13, Mr. Kristof declined to name five of his sources for the columns, but two have subsequently agreed to release him from his pledge of confidentiality. Judge O'Grady's ruling identifies the remaining unnamed sources as two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and a former colleague or friend of Dr. Hatfill at Fort Detrick.
The judge ruled that the laws of Virginia applied and that under that state's law, reporters have only a qualified privilege to decline to name their sources that may be outweighed by other factors.
He wrote that for Mr. Hatfill to have a chance of meeting his burden of demonstrating that he was defamed by the columns, he "needs an opportunity to question the confidential sources and determine if Mr. Kristof accurately reported information the sources provided."
Mr. Kristof wrote about a government scientist he initially referred to as Mr. Z, saying he had become the overwhelming focus of the investigation. In August 2002, he wrote that Dr. Hatfill had acknowledged he was Mr. Z. at a news conference in which he said he had been mistreated by the news media.
The lawsuit was originally dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia in 2004. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond reinstated the case and the full appeals court, by a 6-to-6 vote, declined to overturn that ruling. The Supreme Court declined to intervene last March.
Judge O'Grady wrote: "The court understands the need for a reporter to be able to credibly pledge confidentiality to his sources. Confidential sources have been an important part of journalism, which is presumably why Virginia recognizes a qualified reporter's privilege in the first place." He said Virginia law required the use of a three-part balancing test as to whether there is a compelling need for the information, whether the information is relevant and whether it may not be obtained any other way.
______________________________________________________________________________
October 26, 2006, The New York Sun, New York Times Gets Two Extra Days To Disclose Confidential Sources, by Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, diigo,
A federal judge gave the New York Times a brief reprieve from an order forcing it to identify confidential sources for columns about the 2001 anthrax attacks, but the paper could still face the possibility of being held in contempt of court as soon as tomorrow.
Judge Claude Hilton of Alexandria, Va., issued a two-day stay of a magistrate's order that would have required the Times to name the sources by yesterday. The order came in a libel suit filed by a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, who claims he was defamed by five columns written by Nicholas Kristof in 2002.
According to a lawyer involved in the dispute, Judge Hilton said yesterday that he was still reviewing whether the Times should be compelled to identify the sources. He told attorneys that he planned to rule on the issue by Friday.
But the Times suffered a setback yesterday when Judge Hilton upheld a magistrate's ruling denying its request to suspend action on the libel suit until the government completes its investigation into the anthrax mailings, which killed at least five people. While investigators searched a home and storage locker belonging to Mr. Hatfill, no criminal charges were brought.
The newspaper wanted to defend against the libel suit by gaining access to the records of the government probe, but the Justice Department has refused to cooperate. The magistrate assigned to the suit, Liam O'Grady, declined to force the disclosure of details of the investigation, which the FBI contends is ongoing.
_______________________________________________________________________________
November 3, 2006, New York Times, Setback for Times in Anthrax Suit, by Neil A. Lewis,
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — A federal judge in Virginia on Thursday upheld a ruling by a magistrate judge that The New York Times must disclose the identities of three sources used by Nicholas D. Kristof for columns he wrote on the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001. The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal District Court, ruled that last month’s opinion was “not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
The order is part of a case of defamation brought against The Times by Stephen J. Hatfill, who asserts that columns by Mr. Kristof suggested he was responsible for the attacks.
The ruling is likely to make it more difficult for The Times to defend the lawsuit when the case goes to trial because a judge may instruct the jury to give less credibility to assertions that the columns had been based on legitimate and knowledgeable sources. Because it is a civil case rather than a criminal one, there is little chance of anyone from The Times facing the possibility of being jailed over contempt charges.
George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel for The Times, said Thursday’s ruling was disappointing, “given that the court recognized that confidential sources play an important role in good journalism, and that the court of appeals came very close to dismissing this case on a preliminary motion on the basis that the columns weren’t defamatory."
"Though it may make defending the case tougher," Mr. Freeman added, "we are confident that in the end, the columns will be vindicated."
Five people died in the attacks. The authorities called Dr. Hatfill, who worked on germ warfare issues, a "person of interest" but have not charged him with any crimes.
______________________________________________________________________________
November 18, 2006, New York Times, Judges Ruling Bars The Times From Using Sources’ Information in Defense Against Suit, by Neil A. Lewis,
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — A federal magistrate judge ruled on Friday that The New York Times may not rely in any way on information its columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, may have received from two Federal Bureau of Investigation officials in its defense of a defamation suit brought by a former government scientist.
The judge, Liam O'Grady, issued the ruling as a sanction against The Times for refusing to disclose or force Mr. Kristof to disclose the identities of the two confidential F.B.I. sources he used in writing a series of columns about the investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.
Dr. Stephen J. Hatfill, a germ warfare specialist who once worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has asserted in a lawsuit that the columns defamed him because they suggested he was responsible for the attacks. In its filings, The Times has suggested that Mr. Kristof had numerous sources for the columns. Of those, Mr. Kristof initially refused to identify five, saying he had promised them confidentiality. He has since disclosed the identities of three, saying those sources recently released him from his pledge.
In issuing the ruling, Judge O'Grady rejected a series of harsher sanctions sought by Mr. Hatfill's lawyers, including a request that the court impose a $25,000-a-day fine on The Times until it named the two F.B.I. officials.
Judge O'Grady issued his ruling from the bench in Alexandria, Va., where he sits and where the trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 29. The ruling means that when Mr. Kristof testifies during the trial on behalf of The Times, he may not cite any information he may have received from the two confidential sources as substantiation for the columns.
How much of a setback the ruling is for The Times is unclear and probably depends on how much other substantiation Mr. Kristof and the newspaper may present to counter Dr. Hatfill’s assertions. Five people died in the anthrax attacks. Although federal authorities identified Dr. Hatfill as "a person of interest" in the case, they have not charged him with any crimes.
Mr. Kristof's columns were about a government scientist he initially referred to as Mr. Z, someone he said had become the overwhelming focus of the investigation. In August 2002, he wrote that Dr. Hatfill had acknowledged he was Mr. Z at a news conference in which he said he had been mistreated by the news media.
Because the lawsuit is a civil action, not a criminal one, there was no consideration of anyone being ordered to jail as has happened in some recent criminal investigations. Instead, the judge said he fashioned the remedy to ensure that Dr. Hatfill was not disadvantaged by the use of information obtained by The Times from sources it would not identify and thus subject to examination.
Judge O'Grady had written earlier that for Dr. Hatfill to meet his burden of demonstrating he was defamed, he needed "an opportunity to question the confidential sources and determine if Mr. Kristof accurately reported information the sources provided."
The lawsuit was originally dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia in 2004, who ruled that the columns were not defamatory and only reported on the existence of an investigation. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., reinstated the case, and the full appeals court, by a 6-to-6 vote, declined to overturn that ruling. The Supreme Court declined to intervene last March.
________________________________________________________________________________
January 5, 2007, AP - U-T San Diego, Hatfill lawyer: Times editor warned columnist on anthrax piece, by Matthew Barakat,
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Lawyers for a former Army scientist suing The New York Times for libel said Friday that an editor at the paper warned columnist Nicholas Kristof to remove incriminating passages from a column that raised suspicions that Steven Hatfill was involved in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
Kristof left the passages in the May 2002 column despite the warning, said lawyers for Hatfill, who claims that a series of Kristof columns that year falsely implicated him as the culprit in the anthrax mailings that left five people dead.
The editor's warning to Kristof was voiced in an e-mail uncovered during the extensive pretrial discovery process, said Mark Grannis, one of Hatfill's lawyers. Grannis did not give specifics on the passages at issue outside court; he said some details of the case have been sealed.
The accusation came as a federal judge again heard arguments on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. The newspaper's lawyers argued that under federal libel law, Hatfill should be considered a public figure. The law makes it more difficult for public figures to prevail in libel cases.
Hatfill's lawyers dispute that their client should be classified as a public figure. But even if he were, they said, they have uncovered flaws in Kristof's reporting that are so flagrant that Hatfill would still win his case.
Grannis said that in addition to the editor's warning, several of Kristof's sources testified in pretrial depositions that they did not provide the information Kristof has said they did.
"Mr. Kristof made things up," Grannis said. "What Mr. Kristof reported was not just false, it was embarrassingly false. It was outrageously false."
Five people were killed and 17 sickened by anthrax that had been mailed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and members of the news media in New York and Florida just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The case remains unsolved.
Kristof's columns initially referred to Hatfill only as "Mr. Z"; Hatfill was identified by name only after he held a news conference in August 2002 to denounce rumors that had been swirling around him.
Kristof has said his purpose in writing the columns was to prod a dawdling FBI investigation and that he said in several columns that Mr. Z enjoys a legal presumption of innocence.
Hatfill claims that Kristof's columns revealed enough details for people to figure out who he was despite withholding his name.
Times lawyer Lee Levine said Hatfill is being hypocritical when he argues that he is not a public figure. On the one hand, Hatfill contends he was so well known that people could piece together his identity from the clues in Kristof's "Mr. Z" columns. On the other hand, they argue that he was essentially an unknown when it comes to his status as a public figure under libel law.
"You can't have it both ways," Levine said.
Levine said Hatfill qualifies as a public figure because he had injected himself into the national debate about bioterrorism years before the anthrax attacks. He had occasionally been quoted as an expert in the media, and even once donned a chemical suit for a magazine photo.
U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton said he will rule on the newspaper's motion soon. The trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 29.
Hilton previously ordered Kristof to disclose his confidential FBI sources so Hatfill could pursue his claim. Kristof refused, and in response Hilton barred Kristof from relying on any information provided by those sources in his defense.
Hatfill's lawsuit was dismissed by Hilton in 2004 but reinstated by a federal appeals court. Hatfill is also suing former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Justice Department and others in U.S. District Court in Washington claiming they violated Hatfill's civil rights.
_________________________________________________________________________________
March 13 2007, Village Voice, The Times' Nicholas Kristof—A Rudy Giuliani White House Adviser?, by Keach Hagey, diigo,
Poor David Brooks. By all rights, the moment should have been his.
It was last Wednesday night, the first big hometown fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani, and the Sheraton New York ballroom was resplendent in faux-folksy glory. A thousand Republicans had come to toast (and fund) the candidate whom the New York Times columnist has compared to Teddy Roosevelt, lauded as a "courage politician," and crowned with his very own "ism."
Women in pearls tipped back longnecks of Bud and men in crisp suits munched Cracker Jack and hot dogs, the ballpark fare serving as props for the baseball-themed, $2,300-a-head event. The urban elite was trying its best to look all-American. If they were not quite pulling it off, they were at least epitomizing the pragmatic, purple-tinted brand of Republicanism that Brooks fantasizes about in his columns.
And yet, when Giuliani got to the section of his speech that cited a New York Times columnist, the honor went to . . . Nicholas Kristof? The guy whose most recent word on the presidential race was a giddy love-up of Barack Obama? Who swoons for the senator's antipoverty crusades and worldly ability to appreciate the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the most beautiful sounds on earth at sunset"?
Yep. Giuliani told a roomful of Republicans that, when it came to the crisis in Darfur, President Bush"should pay attention to the advice of Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. Not exactly a commentator that I agree with all the time, or I imagine agrees with me. But he wrote a column the other day . . . that displays something that we all have to embrace." Kristof had suggested that Bush lead an international summit on Darfur, and Giuliani rhapsodized about what a nifty idea he thought that was.
After the speech, Times reporter Richard Pérez-Peña, the paper's main man on the Giuliani beat, could only stammer that he was "surprised" by the bizarre shout-out. He later blogged about it with even more befuddlement.
Kristof was as shocked as anybody, he said the next day. But it turns out the Giuliani-Kristof love does not flow only one way. In the summer of 2004, Kristof suggested that Bush would have a better chance at re-election if he dumped Dick Cheney for someone like Colin Powell, or, if Powell wouldn't do it, then Rudy Giuliani. "He's strong on national security and crime, but soft on abortion, which is what you need with swing voters," Kristof wrote.
He concluded by telling his regular readers not to worry that his advice might help bring on four more years of W, since Bush always did the exact opposite of whatever he suggested. But now, with Giuliani leading in the polls, Kristof suddenly faces the possibility of having a guy in the Oval Office cribbing policy from his columns.
"It would be very unsettling for any pundit to find officials who actually listened and followed one's advice," Kristof said, unconvincingly.
________________________________________________________________________________
