The NY Times is in a world of hurt because they have been at the forefront of exposing anti-terrorism programs (not to mention misreporting all pertinent details except those most useful to terrorists). Now it seems the NY Times is training their reporters to subvert the law and hide how they get information to publicize that is (a) illegal and (b) helps terrorists (and supposedly democrats in election battles).

There have been rumblings about leak investigations into The Times’ much-publicized stories about N.S.A. wiretapping and the monitoring of banking records.

…

Some of Mr. Barstow’s recommendations have the sound of advice for reporting behind the Iron Curtain before the fall—recalling A.M. Rosenthal burning his notes as a reporter in Communist Poland.

Mr. Barstow said he suggests disposing of story drafts and cutting back on telephone and e-mail contact with sources—or using disposable cell phones for important calls. Reporters should be wary of meeting sources at their offices, Mr. Barstow said, so as to avoid sign-in sheets and security cameras.

In another point of conflict between bureaucracy and confidentiality, Mr. Barstow said he has recommended altering Times expense-sheet forms so that a reporter does not have to list the names of sources who have been taken out for lunch or dinner.

The ‘paper of record’ seems unwilling to stand by its exposure of national security details. Am I the only one who sees these instructions as frightenly similar to how terrorists would work to cover their tracks? How do we enforce laws when organizations work to violate them? When did the almighty Pulitzer and Dollar reign supreme over justice?

Why is the NY Times using disposable phones (when the US government knows who contacts its employees at their office phone numbers and on their Blackberries)? Disposable phones are useful in hiding contacts to terrorists – not government employees (which are inside the US and therefore covered by the 4th Amendment protections). So they idea they need disposable phones is laughable.

My recommendation to the NY Times and their reporters – don’t even think about following such advice. This is clear obstruction of justice with malice of forethought. But if the NY Times enjoys paying large legal fees, by all means subvert the laws of this country.

Update: Clarice Feldman responds to this news at American Thinker by observing the NY Times brought this on themselves by carrying Joe Wilson’s water for him and calling for an investigation into his wife’s exposure (which Joe himself caused).