Yes, because 1) the program isn't illegal and 2) the program was top secret. In order for the Times to print the story, they had to encourage people who had sworn a secrecy oath to break the law. Then, knowing that what they were publishing would tip off the terrorists to what the government was doing to capture them, they published it anyway.The security directives are secret because you don't show your hand to the enemy (except if you work for the New York Times.)
Uh huh .. so the newspaper informing the public about an illegal government program (after holding the article for a year at the government's request) is "helping the enemy"
Yes, they have. Especially the anti-war bozos who think they can tame a Zarqawi by giving in to his demands. And apparently many more who think terrorism is no menace at all.It seems so many have forgotten who the true enemy is.
Note the modifiers "essential" and "temporary". You give up liberties all the time for the better of society. Or have you forgotten that you can get a ticket for speeding, be arrested for getting drunk or go to jail for burning down your own house?"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Jefferson, 1759).
Paul Schmehl (pauls@xxxxxxxxxxxx) Adjunct Information Security Officer University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/