Getting back on topic.......Here is an article from the NYT from September 24, 2001. What made them change their tune? THEIR AGENDA. The NYT is a rag.

September 24, 2001 New York Times editorial ("Finances of Terror") (access limited to TimesSelect):
Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies...

Revelation risks . . .
By Michael Barone
June 27, 2006


Why do they hate us? No, I'm not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.
No, the "they" I'm referring to are the editors of the New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.
Last December, the Times ran a story revealing that the National Security Agency was conducting electronic surveillance of calls from suspected al Qaeda terrorists overseas to persons in the United States. This was allegedly a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But in fact the president has, under his war powers, the right to order surveillance of our enemies abroad. And it makes no sense to hang up when those enemies call someone in the United States -- rather the contrary. If the government is going to protect us from those who wish to do us grievous harm -- and after September 11 no one can doubt there are many such persons -- then it should try to track them down as thoroughly as possible.
Little wonder that President Bush called in Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and top editor Bill Keller, and asked them not to run the story. But the Times went ahead and published it anyway. Now, thanks to the New York Times, al Qaeda terrorists are aware that their phone calls can be monitored, and presumably have taken precautions.
Last Friday, the Times did it again, printing a story revealing the existence of U.S. government monitoring of financial transactions routed through the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion a day in electronic money transfers around the world. The monitoring is conducted by the CIA and supervised by the Treasury Department. An independent auditing firm has been hired to make sure only terrorist-related transactions are targeted.
Members of Congress were briefed on the program, and it does not seem to violate any law, at least any that the Times could identify. And it has been effective. As the Times reporters admit, it helped to locate the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing in Thailand and a Brooklyn man convicted on charges of laundering a $200,000 payment to al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.
Once again, Bush administration officials asked the Times not to publish the story. Once again, the Times went ahead anyway. "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration," Bill Keller is quoted as saying. It's interesting to note that he feels obliged to report he and his colleagues weren't smirking or cracking jokes. "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
This was presumably the view as well of the "nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives" who were apparently the sources for the story.
But who elected them to make these decisions? Publication of the Times' December and June stories appears to violate provisions of the broadly written, but until recently, seldom enforced provisions of the Espionage Act. Commentary's Gabriel Schoenfeld has argued that the Times can and probably should be prosecuted.
The counterargument is that it is a dangerous business for the government to prosecute the press. But it certainly is in order to prosecute government officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when those disclosures have reduced the government's ability to keep us safe. And pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case, reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail.
Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?

Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

http://tinyurl.com/ot4ae

First of all, the above post is a editorial. I don't really read the times but I think them reporting on the current events as they see them is what they are trying to do. I of course don't think any secrets should be published but there is always the issue of where their info comes from and if the secret being kept is legal.
I think there is a good possibility that some of the about to be de-classified stuff is being leaked by the very people who end up doing the bitching afterward. Our President went on record saying, 'some leaks are a good thing'.
I think that most of the media is under government control, or at least influence, and the Times is one of the few 'rags' that they are having a problem controlling. The Government may just be just giving themselves ammunition against a precieved foe.
As for reporting on the presidents 'secret' agenda and actions: It is quite evident that the President thinks he is above the law. This country does have laws in place that would allow the legal wiretapping of American Citizens. A closed court is already in place. I repost as it applies here:

In 1978, congressional investigations revealed that the NSA had spied on civilian anti-war protesters during Vietnam. The response was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. To prevent future abuses, the act drew a line between foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement. The NSA was free to spy abroad, but when its agents wanted to wiretap in the United States, they had to ask a secret FISA court for a warrant. It was easy enough to get the warrants: Officials had to show probable cause that the person they were after was an agent of a foreign power. And the court, comprised of a rotating panel of federal judges chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, almost never rejected an application. Governed by FISA, the supposedly rehabilitated NSA quietly went back to work. On the rare occasions over the last three decades when NSA directors have spoken publicly, it has been to offer assurances that the agency does not spy on U.S. citizens.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132810/
John Roberts is the chief justice. Getting warrants should not be tough at all. The only reason I can see to not get warrants is because Bush is spying on people he shouldn't and doesn't want any written record of this. Maybe I am short-sighted on this but I can come up with no other reasonable explaination.
If our president is breaking the law then the Time is correct to report any illegal activity by him or his administration. The law is the law. Don't like it, work to get it changed legally.

The way I see it, the NYT thinks it is providing a service to the American people when in fact they are weakening the USA in this war. The president is not breaking the law.

I'm so thankful that you would rather the president obey some law rather than do all he can to prevent another attack on American citizens. Unbelieveable. Warrants are for police. This is war.

Which is it, he isn't breaking the law or he is not obeying 'some law' because this is war? I ask for the answer to one question from you: Why not get the warrants when this would make what he is doing legal in the eyes of most Americans (myself included)?

The president was elected by the people to protect this nation. He doesn't have to answer to you or any other person who is rooting for him to fail.

Has any other president had to obtain warrants to fight the enemy during a war? Let's have a precedent. Go ahead, show me.

Here is you precedent:The President does have to answer to the laws of this country. Have we had a situation like this since this became law, of course not. Is Bush breaking the law? You bet your ass he is. Do I want to see him fail? Of course I want our country to prosper and the president failing in our war on terror would be a terrible thing. I would never wish that on Him or our country. I want our president to simply go by the laws of our country legally set down for him and the NSA. Is this so much to ask? Do you think these laws were made for no reason? Like I said before, don't like the laws then change them.
Now that I have answered your question that you used to answer mine, I'll give it another shot. Please don't avoid my question again.
They are obviously easy to get and the supreme court can obviously be trusted.

Fair enough. Let's change the laws.

Then why under current law is the president required to get warrants even in time of war? For an older gentleman, you seem to lack a knowledge in this history.

For the millionth time: Why? What benefit would we gain from it, when we run the risk of having right violated?

When people make decisions, they often use something called an opportunity-cost analysis. That means you weigh the opportunity against the cost to see which is greater. In this case, you have provided no opportunity or benefit to this program that could not be obtained without a warrant and you have not refuted our claims of a possible cost to our freedoms. That means so far it looks as if keeping this practice in place has no unique advantage to us and a possible adverse effect to our rights. In what twisted logic to you decide it is a good idea to risk something for nothing?