Someone had the huevos to say it on National TV.  It's been obvious for quite some time that the NYT would like nothing better than seeing America lose and GWB shamed.   

I'm all ears as to why the reference in question (I couldn't even find a "quote" from the classified order in the article) might be problematic for the war on terror, but simply parroting Fox News' point that it hurts our effort and thus the NYT must hate America without anything to back it up doesn't do anything but serve as a message force multiplier to Fox.

My general problem with things like this is as follows: people seem to freak out when newspapers mention ways we could attack Al Qaeda. However, the tactics described always seem vague, like "use unmanned drones" and "launch ground raids." Aside from being mostly unhelpful to strategize against, do we not think that Al Qaeda, who's been at this for a while now, can't come up with these vague ideas on their own? What have the newspapers given away that the terrorists really couldn't come up with after 15 minutes of brainstormin?

Pinkerton is 100% correct.

I have waited patiently to see justice done to the NYTs and their treasonous behaviour...

Not gonna' happen either...

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

How about the 20 or so straight days of headline about Abu Grahib?  No question about what was done was wrong, but I suggest a bit was intentional overkill on the part of the NYT.  Aside from new photos on subsequent days little changed in the storyline and they milked it for all they could.  If there was any intent it was to make the POTUS and SecDef look bad.

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

The NYT publishes our national secrets because they can, and they consider themselves as a fourth branch of government. I remember when the SCOTUS gave us the decision on the Pentagon Papers. Without getting into the whole thing, just a couple of points.

The decision effectively resulted in permission for the press to publish secrets unless the government knew they were about to do so and could prove almost insurmountable reasons why they should have "prior restraint" imposed.

What made those reasons so hard to prove was the part of the decision that gave the press an almost official duty to restrain the Executive in ways our founders chose not to do. From Wikipedia: "Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White
agreed that it is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure
national security through the protection of its information. However,
in areas of national defense and international affairs, the President
of United States possesses great constitutional independence that is
virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branch. "In absence
of governmental checks and balances," per Justice Stewart, "the only
effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two
areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and
critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of
democratic government." So it evolves on the Times and the WaPo to decide, in areas of national security no less, what information the public needs to protect our democratic values. I found it hard to swallow then and, in light of their conduct since, even harder now. I do not understand why one of our Presidents since then has not revisited this in the courts. When men are dying on the battlefield the conditions exacted for prior restraint certainly should be lower than historical papers on the origins of a war.

The courts have ruled a "free press" does not have the right to outright slander or libel, to incite civil riot or to encourage criminal acts, and it cannot violate private citizens' privacy (if material is obtained illegally, such as trespassing on private property to obtain it), and a slew of other things. So how hard it is to believe a "free press" does not have the right to reveal national security secrets?

You see, while inviduals and organizations have the right to a free press, that right does not empower them to destroy the rights of others. In short, all rights have limits, especially limits that are imposed when said rights violate others' rights.

Therefore, freedom of religion does not entitle one to grab a human off of the street for the purpose of human sacrifice, since that would violate the rights of that human. Likewise, free speech does not entitle one to threaten another person's life. And free press does not entitle the press to print stories that threaten the lives of all Americans, such as revealing national security or military secrets to our sworn enemies !!!!

YES, the NYT is threatening my life when it prints stories that aid my sworn enemies by giving them facts that they may read that then may help them kill more Americans. This is because my enemy may learn from the NYT where they are geographically hunted by operatives, and then theis may help them escape and live another day to try kill me, say while on board an aircraft or whatever. This is not slander, this is not libel, this is fact.

Personally, if I were Atorney General, I would find a way to get indictments against the "SOBs" at the NYT for treason.

What happene with that PBS show that was supposed to air (this weekend?) that claimed the USA shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII?

I meant to look for it, but am just remembring it now.

• LYDSEXICS UNTIE