It's OK To Break The Law If You Have A Good Reason

Chad at CCK has responded to my post on what should be done about those who leak classified information.  I will respond point by point.
1. On Valarie Plame, the point is exactly that she was not an undercover agent.  Virtually everyone is in agreement that there was no crime committed in leaking her name to the press.  That doesn't mean it wasn't dumb or even wrong, but it was not illegal.  Scooter Libby has been indicted for obstructing justice, not for leaking a name. 
2. If Valarie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, willfully distorted the truth on the op-ed page of the New York Times, and he did, what is the Bush administration supposed to do?  Yes, they tried to undermine his credibility and they did so in a way tried and true in Washington.  Read Howard Kurtz's Spin Cycle if you think behind the scenes manipulation of the press is phenomenon unique to the present administration.  If I may quote John McCain, politics ain't bean bag. 
3. It seems unwise to allow employees of the federal government to leak national security information because the program involved appears "suspect."  There is great discussion over whether the NSA surveillance of overseas calls to the US was legal, although the lack of action by both Congress and the Courts is telling.  I would argue that the preponderance of legal opinion (but not without strong dispute) is that the controversial surveillance methods the Bush administration has used to fight Al Qaeda are legal (see this piece by Judge Richard Posner, for example). Again, that which is legal may also be unwise. 
4. The sum of Chad's argument appears to be that it is OK to leak classified information if you think you have a good reason.  Well, who decides if there is good reason?  Whose judgment defines which programs are just fine and which are "suspect"?  Evidently, an administration leaking benign information for political purposes is not a good enough reason to leak, and therefore, despite the fact that no crime was committed, people should go to jail.  But if you leak classified national security information that would be useful to the enemy, that is a good leak, because the national security programs are "suspect" in some minds.  I suspect most people would find this to be dubious reasoning. 

There is no doubt that the government must maintain the ability to act covertly in the name of national security.  There is also no doubt that Al Qaeda has benefited from these leaks.  I would argue that if there is truly something untoward going on in intelligence gathering the appropriate tactic by an intelligence employee is to notify the congressional Intelligence Committees as they have appropriate safeguards for secrecy and can hold the executive accountable.  You don't reveal classified national security operations to the New York Times.