[68skylark]

I hate this column -- Calame is basically criticizing the Times from the left, wondering why they didn't spill our secrets faster.

[LA Conservative]

The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column.

[EagleUSA]

The NYT is a classic example of abuse of the First Amendment --- in this case, our strength of freedom is a weakness that permits subversion.

[Steel Wolf]

This was already posted earlier.

[68skylark]

If the writers and editors of today were working during WWII, they'd gleefully print bomber schedules, convoy routes, submarine deployments, and anything else that would get American killed. They'd warn Japan and Germany that we broke many of their codes. They'd print anything to harm the U.S., our troops and our citizens.

[68skylark]

At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it.

I think most normal, patriotic Americans would wonder if it's right to spill military secrets that help the enemy in wartime. But not Mr. Calame.

[ricks_place]

Damning, New York Times executives take the fifth to their own staff. Byron Calame, the NY Times public editor, serves as the readers' representative and he is being stonewalled by his own executives. Bill Keller, the executive editor, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr, Publisher, declined to respond to queries.

[frankjr]

Of course NYT mgmt will not respond...they know they will be dragged into court shortly regarding this case and want to put minimal information into the public regarding their role in releasing this classified info. Of course, they had no problem releasing the classified info itself.

The year long delay in release is strange. Now it makes them look bad from the standpoint it appears that they knew the info was in national security interests...but then they released it anyway.

[Mike Darancette]

"Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

This is a very frightening statement by the NYT. They are saying that they know more secrets than they wrote about and what they know is even more useful to terrorist (hurtful to the US efforts to stop terrorism on our shores). Does this information consist of agent names, foreign cooperation and methods?

Is this a veiled threat to the Administration to back off any investigation into the leaking of NSA intercepts, "or we will tell all we know and cripple the country's ability to obtain intelligence"?

Whoever disclosed secret information to the NYT should be prosecuted. There is a weak argument that disclosing what was being done is whistle blowing but NOT how we are doing it and by whom.

[oldbrowser]

But when further reporting showed that legal questions loomed larger than The Times first thought and that a story could be written without certain genuinely sensitive technical details,

Legal technicalities and interpretations aside, was there ever any thought that publishing secret surveillance methods might cripple our ability to protect ourselves ?

[Bullitt]

We need a version of "Gitmo" For the NY Times traitors.

[beyond the sea]

For me, however, the most obvious question is still this: If no one at The Times was aware of the eavesdropping prior to the election, why wouldn't the paper have been eager to make that clear to readers in the original explanation and avoid that politically charged issue? The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts.

Now it looks like this editor is going to try to pretend to anyone who is stupid enough to read this (me) that the NYT was perhaps trying to help G.W. before the election by not printing this story.

These people are so Effin bizarrely foolish! What a plan!!

LOL