Jacob Weisberg argues that the _NYTimes_ should not have published its story about CIA tracking of transactions made through the international bank clearinghouse known as Swift. His points are sound, but I suspect part of the reason the _Times_ and others published the story over government objections was because they’ve heard the same objections time and again to stories about programs that are less effective, far more legally questionable, and much more impactful to the public discourse. By playing all their cards in defense of programs far more pernicious (and less legal), the government lost any standing it had to reasonably argue for this story to be killed.