mundhra: Woodward and editors at the Post refused to identify the official other than to say it was not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

I understand the principle of a journalist protecting their sources, but not in the course of a criminal investigation. To use an extreme example, suppose a journalist had an exclusive with a serial killer on the lam - shouldn't s/he be compelled to reveal information that would lead to their capture? But (I hear Woodward saying) then no one would talk to us anymore; tough shit - when there are conflicting principles, the effort to uncover a possible crime trumps the journalist's personal preferences.

nocal:

If you value the free press, then you see the problem. No one will talk to a reporter if they know they're going to get turned in. "Unnamed sources" are sources at all because they can be anonymous. When there are conflicting principles, then you stick to your motherfucking principles. Plus the example you gave is bullshit; you do realize that other occupations have confidentiality rules? If someone is believed to committ a crime in the future or be harmful, they can report that to the police.

nocal:

If you value the free press, then you see the problem. No one will talk to a reporter if they know they're going to get turned in. "Unnamed sources" are sources at all because they can be anonymous. When there are conflicting principles, then you stick to your motherfucking principles. Plus the example you gave is bullshit; you do realize that other occupations have confidentiality rules? If someone is believed to committ a crime in the future or be harmful, they can report that to the police.

vladtweano: I think nocal's right, but you're both missing the point as it applies to this mess. Libby wasn't leaking to Miller about a crime. Rather, his leak to Miller was the crime, and by all accounts (except hers, of course), she was complicit in it. She has a history of being a mouthpiece for this administration, like Novak. The only thing that saved Novak was that he sang.

dreymers: Which one supports the greater public good: assisting in an ongoing investigation of a possible crime or protecting future possible information?

I have to question Woodward's motives in coming forward at this point in the game.

vasudeva:
Yes.

With regard to Libby, this all amounts to nothing. He was indicted for lying to the grand jury. He's toast.

What this does indicate is that there was yet another active leaker (Rove, Libby and now this person). If it's Hadley, it now involves the president's office, the vp's office and the national security advisor (Rice, at the time).

Unfortunately the I really don't think the situations are comparable in any shape or form.

I think it boils down to subject matter. Of course, you can say, "Perjury is perjury, whether it's about BJs or about starting wars." Then again, "Murder is murder, whether it's manslaughter or cold-blooded and premeditated."

Deciphering Libby's handwritten notes posed a challenge to the prosecution, Wells said.

"We're trying to work something out where Mr. Libby can help them read his notes," he said.