1 If you want to read the Gray Lady's article for free, you can click right here. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that anything in this article damages national security. The existence and use of this capability was widely known prior to 9/11; the only thing in this article that is really new is the fact that warrants aren't being issued prior to surveillance. Unless terrorists have somehow comprormised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, (or Gawd forbid, the National Security Agency) it's very hard to see anything in here that actually compromises national security. Someone should explain this argument -- in some detail -- if it's going to hold up to scrutiny.

2 Bluto He's got a point. NYT is many things but stupid isn't one of them. They had their lawyers all over this for a year prior so they could find the gray areas and cover their asses. They probably expected (and wanted) a legal confrontation on this from the start. This type of case by nature is very difficult to pursue. They would then use the proceedings as a rally point for their overall agenda - and as a massive high profile PR generator. I believe this is what they want - and I don't want to give it to them! There are other options - continue the program - don't back down - hammer on the key facts ... 1) FISA overwhelming adhered to - these are necessary exceptions. 2) target specific - AQ and possible associates within US all reference War On Terror 3) not issue of Law - issue of ongoing pursuit of War to disrupt/prevent enemy actions within US 4) begun in ernest immediately following 9/11 and very important ... 5) No further attacks - and program key element to that SUCCESS! At this point, we can afford some degree of release of info on successful ops which are currently classified - I'm hoping Congressional Hearings will "see to that". Just a taste is all that is required. This is not a battle for the courts (advantage them)- it is a battle for public opinion! (advantage us) NYT and the Lib/Left have an agenda - so do I! While politizing National Security is generally not an overall good thing - its happening anyway - so - play the game. We got a strong hand here, and they're the ones who have to push, pull, twist, and exaggerate this to sell their fears to the American public. We already know what they are gonna sell - Their fears and visions of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE - but they have been playing that song for 40 years and it doesn't work outside a leftist dance club. (some might hate my following terminology, but so what! - I'm being blunt - deal with it) We will sell them a Raghead! - with a desire to kill, the capability, and a PROVEN track record. Let the public decide - its all politics in the end - and all numbers. What's that Karl? Did I forget something? ...

3 I think it's the intent that matters, and the intent was to damage the war effort. If the NYT is so worried about civil rights, where were they after Vicky Weaver was murdered by an FBI sniper, or Janet Reno's BATF Nazi's were using a freaking Abrams tank on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, where dozens of innocent people, including women and children, were burned to death, then both cases blatantly covered up? Slimy liberal traitors and the bastards in government that are in collusion with them should all be shot.

4 Hondo is right. The NYT's wants nothing better than to get in a court fight with the Administration looking like the victim of the police state. We are winning in the court of public opinion and we need to stay there. This thing would drag out in a court of law for years, with the Times getting the free publicity for their side. This could turn the tide against us.

5 I think it should take years in court, and hopefully draw lots of attention, so as to spotlight the leftards' treasonous ways. Remember that the light of day is the best weapon against this scum.

6 Maxie How can you shine the light of day on something that's been out in the open glowin' like the sun for nearly 40 years? Technically, it ain't treason unless your working for the other side - and they are not - they are working for themselves - their agenda - its a whole nuther ballgame. Maxie - you seem obsessed telling all that the sky is blue and the world is round.

7 If I am, it's because everyone seems to have forgotten.

8 In fact, I believe that the NYT will not be called on this because of the obvious 'graymail' issue. I thought I stated that pretty clearly. IO ERROR, you are in error. Surveillance was widely suspected prior to the NYT story. The NYT put terrorists on notice that their chances of being monitored were much greater than they had thought.

9 Bluto, whatever do you mean? Your blog's already a star. Just for the record, I'm not at all convinced that this program is in any way illegal. A few aspects of it, and things that have come out since, give me reason for concern, but I suspect the program will be vindicated in the end. That doesn't mean the NYT compromised national security by reporting on the legal questions surrounding the program -- which was, after all, the thrust of their reporting. Merely knowing it exists hardly jeopardizes anything, except perhaps a few highly placed people's political careers. Of course the terrorists had reason to believe that they would be under surveillance. Remember Clinton launching a cruise missile at Osama bin Laden in 1998? He stopped using his satellite phone because of that. In any case, what seems to have happened is that since then, they got sloppy. Michael Hayden in his Jan. 23 press conference said that "they don't always act like they know they're being monitored." So essentially at this point we're catching terrorists because they've gotten slow and stupid. I fear for what might happen if the terrorists become smart and fast again.