I got the chance to catch up on my reading last week when I flew nearly six hours to Seattle, Washington. Knowing my boredom threshold pretty well, I decided to buy a wide range of reading material from a celebrity trash magazine and The New Yorker to National Geographic Magazine among others. I think I spent about $50 in total.

One magazine I picked up called Newsmax, I had never heard before, but the title and Don Imus's picture on the cover were enticing enough for me to purchase it. The articles were pretty interesting despite the obvious, conservative undertones. [I try to look at both sides as a reporter and not label myself a liberal or conservative.]

The magazine featured an excerpt from Ken Timmerman's new book, Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender. Part of the excerpt discusses The New York Times sabotaging U.S. efforts to fight the war on terror by running stories exposing "highly classified U.S. intelligence programs."

Timmerman uses a 2006 article James Risen and Eric Lichtblau reported on as an example of the Times as a saboteur. He says "their target was an obscure financial clearinghouse in Belgium" called Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) used to monitor potential terrorist funds. The excerpt describes the program as "highly classified" and highlights the reactions of administration officials and Times editor, Bill Keller, to the newspaper running the story.

According to the excerpt, Keller says the article is a matter of public interest while administration officials say the article is a form of treason, claiming terrorists didn't know it existed until the Times story.

This raises a good question. Should the Times or reporters in general reveal such classified information during a time of war?

I have my own opinions on this, which I am keeping to myself, but I thought it would be interesting to throw the question out there. Email your response which I will post or leave a comment.