City of Roses
Judging by the way you describe the situation, I do believe it was wrong and disrespectful for them to rush to publish the story if the White House did ask them not to release it at this time.
I absolutely believe the threat of terrorism is real and anyone who doesn't recognize that is naive to say the least, and we do need this NSA program and like efforts, for I absolutely agree there is a legal way to perform eavesdroppings and monitorings. In fact, I believe some of the most at-risk sites are not being taken seriously, especially nuclear power plants and our nation's ports, and if anything that should be a top priority in my mind.
I must say that I do believe, like Karen, that our rights are weakening and eroding in some ways under this "long war" in which we are bogging ourselves down in. I don't trust the President in some of his decisions, especially in failing to either seek a warrant for post-911 wiretaps or cooperating with Congress to see to it the FISA law was democratically changed in understanding we're living in a more dangerous world and the current FISA law was out-dated. Instead, he walked around that law, and if we allow ourselves to continue letting our elected officials, who are sworn to defend the Constitution and the law, then we are just setting ourselves up for inevitable further erosions of our law and liberties, and that to me is also appeasing those who threaten our way of life, for they want to see us sacrifice what we hold dear.
I don't trust the New York Times to a great extent in that I do believe, as you say Alicat, that their disclosure of these many details can inspire these terrorist networks to shift tactics and provide hints to eluding our security strongholds. I also don't trust our government to a great extent either, in that I do believe it really does mean well overall in trying to secure and protect this nation in a genuine manner, but often I just don't think they take the time to think their policies over and act irrationally and recklessly ever too much, and if we continue to get stuck in the quicksand of this "long war" in the Middle East, I believe we're only going to get stuck in a greater conflict that'll take generations to amend.
For the record, I'm not a radical pacifist, I'm a "pragmatist pacifist". I believe war should ALWAYS be a last resort and all aggressive wars are immoral. However, I DO believe some coercion is justified, in going after the key figures directly responsible for civil harm, without resorting to widespread war where the innocent are in harms way. I believe facilities which obviously are strongholds of terrorism activity or weapons that can harm large populaces should be taken down and dismantled. I don't believe in total disarmament, but just some arms reductions in which the money can go back to providing for our children's education, health care, higher mimimum wages and other basic needs. I just believe there are always better ways to resolve conflicts and that the benefits of war are outweighed by the curses.
I hope that others can understand that here, and you have every right to question my beliefs if you wish, but that's just the way I feel.
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"