I find myself seeing both sides of the argument when it comes to the issue of the New York Times publishing a story about a classified government program.

Of course, some of the statements being made about the incident strain the limits of credulity.

I must go on record as saying I am not a huge fan of the New York Times. To say that the newspaper promotes a liberal agenda is akin to saying the Pope is Catholic. It goes without saying.

But the people who are saying that what the New York Times did is tantamount to treason are more than a little off base.

If you haven't heard, the Times published a story about a "secret" program the W administration was using to track down sources of terrorist funding.

Now, I used quotes around "secret" because before the Times story ever came out, I knew W was following the terrorist money trail.

Right after 9/11, he told us he was going to do that. He said his administration would "starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest."

You probably remember this.

He went on to say if you housed or funded terrorists you were guilty of terrorism, too, and vowed to track down each and every source of funding for terrorists that he could.

So, it's no "secret" that W and his guys were looking into the cash flow of terrorists. And I would suppose the terrorists took him at his word and changed the way they do business.

Anyway, after subpoenas from the Treasury Department, the Belgium-based financial organization SWIFT - Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication - began helping U.S. agents track down sources of terrorist funding.

That last part is the "secret" part. Everybody pretty much knew the government was tracking terror money. But they didn't know for sure about the SWIFT stuff.

But since nearly every international transaction travels through the SWIFT databases, anybody who cared to think about it probably figured W's guys were snooping around in there.

So really, how much "secret" information was the Times publishing?

That's the part that makes me see the Times' side of the argument.

Nonetheless, I think in this case Times should have used a little discretion in this case.

By the Times' own admission, the program appears to be legal. Subpoenas were issued.

(Compare and contrast this to the warrantless wiretapping that was going on when W's guys ignored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That was arguably illegal and should have been reported.)

So if it was, in fact, a legal, classified government program, why the need to report on it?

The Times argues the public has a right to know what the government does. That's true, to a degree.

But even in little old Kosciusko Count, government entities are by law given the option of holding "executive sessions" to which the press is not invited.

They can talk about personnel issues, pending litigation and the purchase of real property in private. The public doesn't have a right to know what they're saying in those sessions. Actual decisions, however, must be made in public meetings.

We in the newspaper business understand that. We know at times government activity is off limits.

So for the purpose of argument, let's say the city council holds an executive session with regard to pending litigation. Let's say the city is being sued. After the session, a city councilman comes to me and offers to tell me what happened because:

A) he has an ax to grind with the city and

B) he knows if we publish the story it will give the plaintiff in the lawsuit a legal advantage over the city.

And - by the way - he'll only talk if we won't name him as a source.

I can say without reservation we would send the guy packing.

There is no law that says I can't do the story. That decision is left totally to our discretion.

In my mind, that's precisely what happened at the Times.

The story gave them the chance to make W and his guys look bad and they ran with it.

"See, they're snooping around again. They're eroding your freedoms again" seems to be the message.

Further, I read that for two weeks, Senators, Representatives and administration officials - Democrats and Republicans - all but begged Times managing editor Bill Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger not to print the classified material.

The former Republican Governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean, and former Democrat Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, were co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission.

They asked Keller and Sulzberger to hold the story. Even John Murtha, the Democrat from Pennsylvania who has been one of the most ardent critics of W and the Iraq war, asked them to keep it quiet.

They explained that the Bali nightclub bomber, an al-Qaida guy, got caught because we were able to track his financial dealings.

They explained that privacy safeguards were in place and that subpoenas were used.

Nonetheless, the Times decided the public's right to know outweighed all other arguments.

Obviously, I am all for freedom of the press. But with freedom comes great responsibility.

In this case, it seems the Times essentially torpedoed an arguably legal, classified government program that was responsible for capturing terrorists.

That's irresponsible. [[In-content Ad]]