And what's the difference?

Benedict Arnold's infamy was devising a plot to turn West Point, which he commanded, over to the British. In addition, he gave the British other information on troop locations, etc... Why? Because Arnold disagreed with the colonies' relationship with the French. So, Arnold took it upon himself to decide foreign policy, and in so doing he betrayed his country.

Today, there is news of more perfidy from the New York Times.

Not content to reveal the existence of the program to track calls made by terrorists into and out of the country, the New York Times has now revealed the existance of a program to use banking transactions to find terrorists. From NRO's Media Blog:

According to the NYT's own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the "public interest" (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public's interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program. Keller and his team really do believe they are above the law. When it comes to national security, it isn't the government that should decide when secrecy is essential to a program's effectiveness. It is the New York Times.

The NYTimes does not agree with this nation's foreign policy, and so has taken it upon itself to oppose that policy. In so doing, it has betrayed secrets that will hinder our ability to defend ourselves.

Traitors.

When will the Justice Department grow a spine and start doing something about this?