The killer called New York Times

The New York Times Cover Up If there was a rule of law extant ... .

“ The New York Times, as a price for getting advance access to the documents, sat for weeks on the most explosive revelation of all: Namely, that WikiLeaks was poised to publish material that held the potential to cost the lives of hundreds of people.  Does that make the Times complicit? If the Times had reported the news despite whatever promises it made to WikiLeaks, could the terrible outcome have been averted? In the famous 1931 Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court ruled that prior restraints of the press, not withstanding the strictures of the First Amendment, were permissible in some extreme circumstances.  “No one would question but that a government might prevent . . . publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.” There is no issue of prior restraint in this WikiLeaks episode; a restraining order against the foreign-based WikiLeaks organization by an American court would have been impossible to enforce.  (More) ”