Byron Calame, the Public Editor of the New York Times, writes
The New York Times’s explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper’s repeated pledges of greater transparency. For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush’s secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States. I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.
The New York Times, by releasing the information when it did, after sitting on it for a year, may have compromised national security. It is clearly the goal of Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the liberal publisher of the Times, to discredit the President and to hurt his administration by undermining national security in time of war.
It is my belief that whoever leaked the information to the New York Times has committed an act of treason in time of war and should be prosecuted. The New York Times has shown its disregard for the safety of the United States by publishing the information.