N.Y. Times Blows Cover of Key Counterterror Agent

Talon News ^ | August 9, 2004 | Steve Roeder

[Lexinom]

Say something that meets the aforementioned critera and hurts a prominent demonrat would be my guess...

[conservative in nyc]

We also have the transcript of the background briefing from Drudge posted here. I don't see anywhere where the computer hacker was named.

[Nita Nupress]

This is a long article worth reading.  http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040816/story.html

Time Magazine
August 16, 2004

Target: America; An exclusive look at what investigators have discovered about al-Qaeda's plans for its next big attack

BYLINE: Bill Powell, Reported by Melissa August, Brian Bennett, Timothy J. Burger, Michael Duffy, Viveca Novak, Douglas Waller, Michael Weisskopf and Adam Zagorin/Washington; Helen Gibson/London; Ghulam Hasnain/Gujrat; Syed Talat Hussain/Islamabad and Tim McGirk/Karachi; Barbara Maddux

(snip)

In early July, according to a Pakistani intelligence official, Khan made plans to leave Pakistan, perhaps aware that investigators were onto him. But he never got the chance. On July 13, he was arrested in Lahore. Under the supervision of Pakistani authorities, Khan sent e-mails to other al-Qaeda members, who were unaware he had been arrested, allowing investigators to pinpoint the coordinates of key operatives. Khan's cover was blown when press reports last week revealed he was in custody. "We would have preferred it if his name had remained undisclosed by the Americans," says a Pakistani official in Karachi who was involved in monitoring Khan.

(snip)

[counterpunch]

Freedom of speech should and does have limitations.

This isn't "freedom of speech", which is not actually a Constitutionally protected right. It is freedom of the press which is.
While we all may agree that it was not in our nation's best interest, and while we may all hate the NYT -- in no small part because they do not and never have cared about the nation's best interest -- we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement. The first two amendments are the most important for securing a lasting freedom, and I wouldn't go trying to disregard either selectively.

[conservative in nyc]

This isn't "freedom of speech", which is not actually a Constitutionally protected right. It is freedom of the press which is.

Huh? Freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Its difficult to understand the relevance of the man's name to the story. How many New York Times readers will recognize it or draw something from it? Zero.

[Leatherneck_MT]

That stinking rag should be shut down, all the reporters shot for treason and the entire building burned to the ground.

This was unforgiveable