Here is the NYT public editor's email address: public@nytimes.com. And here is my contribution:

Dear Public Editor:

What could possibly be the justification for publishing C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights by Scott Shane, Stephen Grey, and Margo Williams? Is there some greater public good here that hasn't been identified in the article or anywhere else? Has there been some transgression of the law? What exactly was being uncovered here and for whom? (Other than the kinds of planes America's enemies might want to consider targeting.) There must be some reason why NYT editors considered it acceptable to increase the risk to American lives with such specifics. What is it?

If one of these planes now goes down, how will the NYT answer questions about causing American deaths?

William Teccumsa Sherman once said that he treated reporters "like spies, which in fact, they are."

It is a great pity that the bratty middle-aged children at the NYT can count on the responsability of the grownups in the Bush administration to not draw even more attention to this story by prosecuting or condeming it. I'd bet a lot of money this makes them (the jerk-off news people charged with nothing more than finding stories that sell newspapers) feel very clever and "smarter" than those charged with the security of this country and this world. But this shit's gotta stop!

As usual, it is left up to us to do it. And the only way stop the Liberal press is to boycott them and their sponsors.

THE RIGHT MUST BOYCOTT!

May they think of this as they look in the mirror.

It's been 30 f'n' years and we are STILL dealing with the impact of the Church hearings on our intelligence agencies.

You know they've been accusing the military of deliberately targetting them (Jordan, Foley) what would happen if the military really did start wacking these guys? It'd be like a tree falling in the forrest, would anyone care?

Why should the NYT care? No one's going to do anything about treason, no one's going to get whacked, and it sells papers (something the NYT has had a harder time doing lately).

So what if a few hundred people get killed because they aren't smart enough to keep their traps shut (giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they are loyal Americans), or because they can't stand the thought of our country being The Big Dawg and want to bring it to its knees in favor of our enemies (not giving them the benefit of the doubt, thus making them traitors)?

It is internationally chic to hate America. Too bad they favor internationalism instead of patriotism, even if it does cause deaths to Americans.

rdbrewer

SPOTTED-SHIP-SANK-SAME. SPOTTED-TREASON- SENT-SAME.

If one of these planes now goes down, how will the NYT answer questions about causing American deaths?

Uh, Bush lied?

Iblis almost said what I was going to post.

Alert Foley and Eason. Journalists are targeting soldiers.

I hope there's a precedent for a treason case here. Failing that, I sleep more soundly knowing that at the very least there's a special corner of hell reserved for this type of sub-human.

I am confused.

Is the NYT working for Al Qaida or is Al Qaida working for the NYT?

I think J. Jonah Jameson is the editor in cheif at the New York Times. We can only hope they put their online content on a pay per view basis soon. And then The Justice department can supeana their online subcribers lists to find the jihadis that way.

"The New York Times opposes virtually all covert action and feels a greater good is accomplished by making it as difficult as possible to engage in such activies."

Consider what "news" based on "anonymous sources" really is. If this isn't "covert action" then why is the Times fighting disclosure in court? The NY Times (and more generally, the MSM) are demanding via the courts that the press - and only the press - is entitled to secrecy in how they accomplish their "missions."

They really are dumb. The sort of people they aggravate with crap like this are not people you want mad at you. They aren't people you want to be on the same planet with if they're mad at you.

If a few Times reporters drop off the face of the Earth, don't be too shocked.

To: public@nytimes

Many, many thanks for this informative article. I trust your considered judgement that "outing" Bush administration CIA covert chickenhawks will endanger no "right-thinking" American so much as the Bush administration, itself, endangered deep covert Arlington operative Valerie Plame's role as a CIA agent. Let them eat yellowcake, as they always say. And thank goodness you guys have the superior DNA-imbued IQ and Rhodes Scholar education to know these things with metaphysical (thanks McLaughlin) certitude.

Would revealing sources for this report endanger the lives, reputations, or potential financial viability of your sources or yourselves? Of course it would! But I certainly share your conviction that non-source operatives deserve euthanasia by ground-to-air missile - (a simple pious editorial on your pay site about misguided martyrdom would be a nice consolation prize for the no-neck orphans). Anyway, I sincerely hope one day you'll get a chance to go to court to protect your sources. Meanwhile, just want to applaud the courage of your convictions. Remember, always speak truth to power:
"Th newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward."

God bless Woodward & Bernstein & Little Dan, too,
Courage!