[martey]

Are you talking about their publication of the NSA's wiretapping program? Or about European cooperation to track terrorist funds that was in violation of EU privacy law? Or maybe their publication of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s?

Just because a presidential administration or governmental agency says publication of information will "endanger national security," it does not necessarily mean it will cause Americans to die - it might just embarrass the organization.

[wheels]

I suspect it's not about the government or the press -- it's about the specifics. If NYT had written the Wikipedia folks and said, "Don't add this information, it compromises our security." they'd have been laughed at. If they say, "There's this specific guy, and this specific information, and we think there's a good chance if you say this it'll do this bad thing to him." it's another story. I think the government would probably be able to make a similar appeal. "Bob might get killed." is a lot more actionable than "National security might be compromised."

[jrmurad]

Perhaps. I'm not a fan of any recent administration or the Times but that argument strikes me even more ironic considering that the Times' ethics (as presented on and off the editorial page) has always been in favor of violating the rights/security of individuals in favor of "groups."