[photodawg]

The reporter is like the carbomb driver. The Sulzbergs are the Ayatollahs and Mullahs
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Then what is the leaker? The car bomb? Newspapers are protected by the first amendment on this issue. To convict a publisher you would have to prove direct responsibility.
the publisher doesn't even have to directly approve every piece of information in his publication. The ethical dilemma is not legally enforceable.
There is however, a direct link to illegality in that the leaker had access to classified information which he knowingly gave to an unclassified individual in violation of the law. In this case the NYT is the car bomb, the reporter is the driver and the leaker is the mullah.

[Jameison]

"Newspapers are protected by the first amendment on this issue"

Newspapers are not above the law. They are not protected from from the consequences of committing treason, or passing on classified national security date to our sworn enemies, just because they pass said information througfh their front pages.
Powerline did a series of pieces on this a few months back, and those guys at Powerline sure know their law.