Regarding That NY Times Article...

(1) If I were editor of the New York Times, I probably (barely likely) would have published it. But that's just me. I can easily see why people think they shouldn't have published: It's a nonpublic, ongoing and — most importantly — legitimate and legal counterrorism program.

That having been said...

(2) The information that the article talked about, the information that the White House is so upset was released to the public, was actually released to the public on several occasions prior by congress and even the White House... just not in the New York Times.

(3) If the White House doesn't like the press reporting on stuff that is leaked to them, blame the people who are doing the leaking, not the people who are doing the reporting. The press is like a giant microphone: You know damn well that anything you whisper into the ear of a reporter is supposed to come out in big bold black shouted headlines.

(4) Is anybody on this planet (including terrorists) silly enough not to figure out on their own what the New York Times reported: That the US government is monitoring financial transactions worldwide for suspicious activity? Was it really secret, sensitive information that has tipped off terrorists to change the way they do business? It may have nothing to do with the decision of whether publishing this information was right or wrong, but... c'mon.

(5) If this really was such a big national security breach, and not just political posturing, why don't we hear the same calls of treason and arrest against the (conservative) Wall Street Journal, who also reported the same information on the same day? Instead of just saying it about the (liberal) New York Times?