For starters, Dale, I think it's a good thing that neither you nor I have the decision making authority here. <GGG>
Publishing classified or sensitive info when it is political in nature is one thing; operationally classified info is a horse of another color in my mind. To use an extreme example, if the Times knew during WWII that a troop ship would be at a specific location at a specific time, I don't think they should have published the info in time for a German U-boat to intercept the troop ship. If they find out that a specific person has infiltrated Al Qaeda, I don't think they should publish that, either. But, if they find something classified that is classified only for the purpose of preventing embarrassment to an administration official, that's a different thing entirely, and I'm sure you'd agree. The fact that the administration specifically asked the Times to not publish the story, for operational reasons, not political ones, makes it pretty clear where the Times stands on the issue.
When they publish operationally sensitive information that has to do with the means and methods of intelligence gathering, I think they've gone beyond their charter. And I think that's the case regardless of who's in the Big Chair, Hillary or Bush. I doubt Either Jefferson or Madison would have wanted the Times to turn Nathan Hale over to the British, even if it would have caused discomfort to the Times' political opponents.
What you call "partisan" depends on where you stand, don't you think? I've read a lot of posts that have gone unchallenged here that are much farther left than I am right. |
