[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

As others have noted, the Plame leak is distinguishable. Plame was a covert agent, whereas the CIA interrogator here was not. Moreover, the President and the Executive Branch (i.e., the people who are charged with executing the laws Congress passed) are and should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the press.

I think, however, the more interesting question posed by the article is, "When is torture acceptable?" Some people on the left often say "torture is NEVER acceptable under ANY circumstances." However, nearly every single one of those people would also make an exception if presented with the classic hypothetical, "Well what if a terrorism suspect knew the location of a nuclear device that was about to go off?" Some people on the right, the so-called "law and order" folks, apparently don't think so much of laws that limit the government's right to knock the snot out of suspected terrorists.

I am not sure where the line between perissible and impermissible torture is or what exactly constitutes torture. I want the government to be able to do just about whatever it takes to prevent another 9/11. On the other hand, I'm a law and order guy who generally does not like to give the government broad powers, especially the power to detain and kick the crap out of suspected terrorists. It's a tough issue with no easy answers.

First off the leaking of Plame was not illegal because she was no longer acting as a covert agent.