One more reply to Chad, and then we'll let this horse die. If Valarie Plame was "undercover" or "covert" then why is Scooter Libby not being charged with the crime of outing a covert agent (and it is a crime to do so)? Valarie Plame's status was classified (it is not clear Libby knew that), but she was not covert. See more information at Powerline as to Plame's status. Revealing her status might have been foolish, and I said so in this post, but it wasn't illegal. When Patrick Fitzgerald charges someone with a crime specifically for revealing Valarie Plame's status, then Chad can let me know and I will recant. Obstructing justice is illegal, and if anyone in the White House was involved in such a scheme then there will and should be hell to pay. And, as I have argued, Plame's status had virtually nothing to do with national security, unlike the leaks about Bush administration national security operations. There is a difference in degree of leaks here wide enough so as to create a difference in kind.
I have things to say about "Secret prisons, torture, warrantless wiretapping, massive databases of citizens phone records" but won't take the time.
Chad is correct in his point 4, namely that the question hinges on whether it is justifiable to leak information if you think you are in the right. In some ways that is a matter between a government employee and his conscience. But we are talking legality here. Revealing covert operations to the press strikes at the heart of our national security apparatus. If we allow this to occur with no penalty than the whole concept of "covert" goes out the window. I think Chad's arguments reveal no principled opposition to the revealing of covert operations. Thus even if we accept Chad's claim that Valarie Plame was a covert agent, he has no principled opposition to revealing her status. He just thinks the political reasons were not good enough. And to be clear, I agree with Chad that it was wrong to reveal Plame's status; I just don't think it was illegal (and here Chad and I simply have a factual dispute over whether Plame was "covert" or not). The costs should be political, not legal. Chad would be on firmer ground arguing for a kind of civil disobedience, i.e., that it is illegal to reveal the Bush administration's covert programs, but the immorality of them gives moral justification for their revelation. That is a more defensible position than the one Chad is making.
Finally, if I am a lap dog to "dear leader" why did I just come out against the immigration bill he is supporting. I think this is an interesting and enlightening debate Chad and I are having. It is shame that Chad resorts to the ad hominem. I think Chad is a vigorous and able defender of liberal opinion, and I would enjoy debating him much more (and would read his blog more) if he could avoid impugning his opponents' motives at every turn.
Recent Comments