The New York Times breaks silence

Powerline ^ | 02/12/2006 | John Hinderaker

[JennysCool]

Sends a message, too.

Oh, they're getting a message, all right. It's just a matter of how long the shareholders want to keep ignoring it.

[McGavin999]

Let's see now. The Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and the highest elected official in the land tells them it will endanger US national security, but Bill Keller, editor decides he know more about national security than the president. What an arrogant a$$.

[SandRat]

Ooooooooo,.....I do so want to see the FBI make Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times do the cuffed perp walk to kick this off.

[Crawdad]

I concur with this question: "Where are the grown-ups?"

[SE Mom]

I was not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that the NYT's has the ability to distinguish between patriotism and sedition.

[river rat]

Perhaps the survivors of the next attack, will decide to hold the NY Slimes responsible -- and take personal revenge.....

That would be 100% justified in my world...
Hell, even the Muslims would support that type "justice"..

Actions have consequences....
Murderous actions should have murderous consequences....

Semper Fi

[festus]

But from my observation the only ones concerned about the law is the conservatives ergo .....

[Balding_Eagle]

Not just Pinch, but selected executives who manage institutional funds that have New York Times stock in their portfolios.

Good point. Institutions ownership of NYT is nearly 75%.

[muawiyah]

This should grab their attention regarding the responsibilities of ownership much better than the Enron trials.

[UnklMike]

I'm not so sure the NYTIMES is really in that much legal jeapordy here. What they did was morally wrong, but (since they aren't an authorized recipient of classified information) I don't think the law covering unauthorized disclosure applies. If the press can learn about it, then they can report it. Of course that doesn't make it "right" for them to do it, but I don't think it is necessary illegal for them too.

The person who divulged the info to the NYTIMES, however, signed an oath and is subject to the law. That person is toast if they catch him.

[HamiltonJay]

"We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

Well unfortunately for you Mr. Keller, the law doesn't revolve around whether you are convinced or not.. you broke the law, you have placed American lives at risk, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent for your complicite involvement in sedition.