Glad to know the media has morals to forget about profits, remain silent and save a life. Besides, the media is quite capable of embellishing something else to make up for it.

I think they were smart and did the right thing for the reporter.  

My problem is that they make other decisions, like the decision to reveal that the US was monitoring the financial transactions of known terrorists and decided that had the right to print the information and dictate policy of the U.S. Government, thereby eliminating a non-lethal method of stopping the war.  It was a viable non-lethal method to stop and arrest those actors that were and are funding people that are killing Iraqis and Americans.  It made the war go longer.  What total egotistical fools. The generation that fought WWII are probably rolling over in their graves at the weakness and lack of courage of the NY Times.  

They also ran the Abu Ghraib story and or pictures at least 45 times on the front page which only incited Al Quaida Iraq and the insurgents to recruit more and kill more civilians and more of our soldiers.  Sometimes the editorial staff seems like it is longer on ego than on fair and common sense.  How much money did they make by exposing the nakedness of Arab men to the world?  They should be ashamed of themselves.  They only extended the torture.  It is my personal belief that the war would have been over sooner.  The NY Times used those Iraqis to try to get Bush thrown out of office and lose the ‘04 election - it didn’t work, but the violence went up so high and the US and civilian fatalities soared. They are complicit in tragedy under the false guise of "truth".

What?  So now they can act all noble and feel gracious and magnanimous for actions they took for one man but would not do for the whole population of Iraqis, and our sons and daughters in arms?  They are enormous fools.