There was some large controversy involving this situation, but at the end of the day I too believe that the Times had the right intention, but they may not have done the right thing.
Omitting certain information is still considered lying, it is called lying by omission. Even though the lying was done with the intent to protect from enemies, the outcome was not very beneficial. If allowed enough time, the Times could have easily come up with a better solution that is more compromising to both sides of this issue.
It makes sense initially to print something untrue as long as it protects the people, however it is unethical to leave an entire community of people misinformed about something so serious.