NY Times "depth charges" will cost lives

Many years ago, I read somewhere that journalists were responsible for a lot of WWII casualties in the Pacific. It seems that the Japanese set their depth charges to explode at a depth much shallower than our submariness were capable of running. When our subs were detected by enemy destroyers, they were able to escape being sunk by dropping to 300' and silenting slipping away.

Some despicable fool talked about it to the media. And of course, their interest in printing a story exceeded their loyalty to the men fighting for their country, so they printed it. The enemy read the story and dozens of our subs were sunk that would have survived had the story not been printed.

The casualties caused by the story far exceed the dead on those subs. Had the subs not been sunk, they would have been able to torpedo far more enemy troop transports, supply ships and fighting vessels. How many Marines, soldiers, and sailors were killed or wounded fighting against an enemy that shouldn't have been there or would have lacked adequate food and ammunition? The unnecessary losses stagger the mind.

The NY Times' recent revelations of our ability to listen to terrorists' calls will obviously make it harder for the US to stop them. Wackos on the left are asking how. Their deliberate ignorance is breathtaking.

We should be able to assume that the terrorists would not make calls to allies in the US if they knew that we used the calls to capture those allies. By running the story, the Times informed the terrorists that their calls were monitored. Officials have said that the enemy has already changed behavior in response to the story. By making it harder for us to stop the enemy, the Times has made it more likely that terrorists will succeed in killing people here in the US.

Let's be perfectly clear. Some day people will die because of the NY Times. And the reporters and editors had to know that when they ran the story.