noteworthy wrote:
How is it acceptable for the paper to keep certain information secret, especially if obtained illegally, to protect sources and methods, but for the government to do so is somehow un-American?

This is too easy. The paper got that information with their money. The gov't gets their information with my money and one of the "rules of the game" is that they don't get to rewrite those rules at will to suit their whims without oversight and accountability...

Oversight and accountability is rather obviously what Bush was attempting to avoid by refusing to comply with the very relaxed rules that FISA puts on warrantless searches. The claim that getting approval for the searches would slow them down is a lie. All they had to do was go to one of their secret judges up to 72 hours after doing the search and tell them it was done, which provides at least a little oversight and accountability.

Arguments that any of these 12 secret judges would in some way be considered compromised and a leak risk to terrorists is downright laughable.

RE: How The Times Handled the Surveillance Story