why no attempt to get an injunction?

[Bezanson, Randall P]

One possible answer to Sandy's question is that the Times has more
information than has been published, and has agreed to hold that
additional and more particularized information from publication.   Thus
no need to go after the Times by the Bush administration, yet what was
published could be claimed to have compromised security even though in
fact it hasn't.  This would also explain, perhaps, why the publisher and
editor have been unwilling to talk on the record, even to the
ombudsperson at the Times.
 
I believe I have read a thing or two that would support this
explanation, though I frankly can't remember when or where -- e.g., in
law or journalism conversations.
 
Randy Bezanson

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:55 AM
To: VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: why no attempt to get an injunction?



The Bush Administration claims that the NSA story gravely threatened US
security.  They knew in advance that the Times had the goods and was
considering publication.  So why didn't they seek a prior restraint?
Surely it's not because they thought that the Pentagon Papers case has
settked the issue. 

One thought that comes to mind is that, as Frank Rich argues in today's
NYTimes, the disclosures in no serious sense affected national security,
unless, of course, any public outcry against a Scmittian presidency is
thought to be a threat.

Sandy
- Sanford Levinson
(Sent from a Blackberry) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060109/46c87d0a/attachment.html