The New York Times has delighted in revealing confidential information about the methods our security services are using in the war on terror. These disclosures naturally compromise our efforts to fight terrorists by making the terrorists alert as to how we track them, making the terrorist plots harder to discover and increasing the risk that terrorist attacks against the US will be undiscovered. In other words, their disclosures potentially put lives in danger.

But the Times seems to feel that the public's "right to know" outweighs all this. If the public's "right to know" is so strong, I think the public also has a "right to know" more about the New York Times. I think the government should do the following:

o) Tap the phones of all columnists of the New York Times and then print the names of all their sources in their articles (if these sources actually exist). The public has a "right to know" who these anonymous sources are, to better judge the credibility of their statements. This might inhibit people from giving off-the-record information to the times, but hey, the public has a right to know.

o) Print the income, net worth, and credit card and bank account numbers and balances of all editors and reporters for the New York Times. Sure, people could misuse this information, but the public's right to this information is more important.

o) Publish the net worth and distributions from the Sulzberger trust fund. Again, this is private financial information, but the public has a right to know who is funding the Times and where the money is going. And besides, once this disclosure is made, we can find out how much the Sulzberger's are giving to "the poor" every year!

o) Publish the political affiliations and political donations of all reporters and editors of the times, as well as political organizations they belong to. A small invasion of privacy, but that still doesn't trump our "right to know". If this information is displayed in a pictorial format, we can play "Where's Waldo" to find the single Republican!

So now the Dear Leader is checking out some bank transactions along with email, phone calls, and maybe even your tire pressure. Can we say whether it’s legal? No. Can we say for sure whether it’s made us safer? No

And you are an idiot if you think the NYT is out get the conservatives. The left complains just as loudly as you. Don't get your panties up in a wad over objective journalism. I know you psycophants from either side can't stand to be called on the floor. You are not happy unless some "reports" from your objective. Read that shill over at Wash Times or Reason or just shut up. The argument is elementary and I think we are all tired of it.

Oh yeah, by the way, your quote, "I may be a Libertarian, but I'm not stupid.", the first and second parts are contradictory.

Have a good weekend Hack!