Quote:

the G-man said:
As with any time it exercises its prosecutorial or police powers the government is not supposed to get involved in attacking legal conduct. Especially if the conduct involves the excercise of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.



Not really what I was getting at. Like I said, my question wasn't related to legality.

Quote:

Others think the motive was an attempt to point out that Wilson was unqualified for his post and there only because of nepotism. Bringing to light unqualified people holding government authority because of nepotism is far less sinister.



Point.

But if that was indeed the case, something doesn't add up.

Why didn't whoever did it step forward and admit it if there wasn't any wrongdoing, legal or otherwise, in their own opinion? If their motives were indeed noble, and if their actions were indeed legal, why not stand up and take pride in what you've done, especially now that we've seen the consequences of the leak and the effect it's had on the Bush administration? This could have been resolved long ago, and it would have prevented a truckload of fuel from being added to the flames of partisanship.

So getting back to the ethical and non-legal viewpoint, is it right to stand by and let other people be attacked and villified if they are indeed innocent? If Rove and Libby are genuinely innocent of all charges, is it ethical for the person who did leak the names to come forward to clear the names of his or her comrades in arms? Especially if Plame's name was leaked for noble reasons (in the eyes of the leaker)?

Last edited by Darknight613; 2005-11-17 2:06 PM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey "If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script