I too, am infuriated when I learn of press outlets breaking stories which compromise sensitive operations or technical details of national security systems and capabilities. I think where I differ with you is that I don't interpret these actions as ideological actions. They are exactly what they seem, an attempt to sell newspapers to their constituency, or more specifically, sell advertising to merchants which sell to those readers. They are no different from those companies which do everything they can to sell goods or commodities to regimes which present a clear danger to American interests.

The government has created a complex system of licensing to control trade with nations which it considers a threat to the US; this is necessary because of the intense economic pressure which tempts all private enterprise to sell their goods to anyone who will buy them, and they show little restraint when a substantial profit is anticipated. In spite of this, downright illegal transactions do occur, and failing that, intense lobbying goes on to frustrate these restrictions.

I worked for a defense contractor who sold (legally) a sophisticated intelligence gathering system to the Red Chinese by lobbying the Reagan administration to waive its own rules and allow transfer of this technology. The only concession to national security was that we did not sell them the latest model of our system, but the previous version. The operational capabilities were essentially the same, and the excuse worked out for press consumption was that the system had civilian applications. The Chinese were asked to sign a document that they would not use the system for military purposes, but no provisions for enforcement or verification were implemented.

What the Times is doing is philosophically no different, although in this case, they are selling papers, not remote sensing technology, and that the issue is complicated by American traditions concerning freedom of the press. History is full of examples like this, from selling wheat to the Russians to drilling for oil in Angola to selling weapons technology to Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran. I personally have seen Soviet freighters loading up on Florida phosphate in a Tampa port, with their radio antennas sucking up SIGINT from nearby MacDill AFB. The fact that Russia is already one of the world's leading producers of phosphate seems to have escaped the attention of both the phosphate companies, the Federal Government and the US Air Force. Or perhaps not. As Bob Dylan pointed out, "Money doesn't talk, it swears". Or as Lenin once remarked, "The last capitalist will hang from rope sold in his own store."

It has always been my conviction that ideology plays little role in world affairs, that nations and corporations (the distinction becomes more blurred every day) deal in power and money, and that viewed abstractly their actions differ only in degree, not in kind. The role of ideology today is primarily for the mobilization and control of public opinion. I find it particularly ironic that our greatest potential rival in the world today, China, is now a capitalist powerhouse. Their change in ideology has not changed our antagonistic relationship one bit, but American firms
are doing everything they can to sell them as much rope as they'll buy.