Novak/Plame/Rove: Two moral quandaries

[Patsy Stone]

1) Is it a good thing Novak wrote his article, since it may lead to the downfall of the cabal, even if it was a planted story by Wurmser/Hannah/Hadley/Libby (the list goes on and on...) and it outed a CIA agent?

2) Is the downfall of the Bush Administration worth the outing of Valerie Plame and all of its known and unknown consequences?

I'm all over the place. Basically, I'm a "greater good" kinda person. I can see both sides of each argument. I suppose it's a subjective question based on your own moral philosophy, but I'm curious to hear what people think.

[yellowdogmi]

1. Half Full

It would have been a good thing if the media had globbed onto it like they should have during the presidential election cycle. Now it is just one more glaring example of the contempt that republicans have for the general public. I believe that it goes much higher than Rove. Please look at my site to see all of my outlandish beliefs. I pray that it is their downfall.

[hwmnbn]

2. Hi yellowdogmi, welcome to DU.....

:hi:

What's your site? can you provide a link?

[yellowdogmi]

5. My link

http://360.yahoo.com/twriff67
You may have to copy and paste this into your browser. I carried on about this issue on thursday. Take a look. Please pass on any opinions or critisms you feel like. Thanks for the welcome.

[newyawker99]

4. Hi yellowdogmi!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[yellowdogmi]

12. Hello and Thanks

:spray:
Man was that domestic? It sure wasn't goose island(a chitown thing)

[Patsy Stone]

6. Hi, yellowdogmi

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[yellowdogmi]

13. Hello

:hug:

[hwmnbn]

3. I think it was a bad thing writing the article.....

but it's a good thing because the tactic backfired.

We have Joe Wilson to thank. Without his integrity and courage he wouldn't have called out the chimp publicly. That is what started the whole fiasco.

[GatoLover]

7. Isn't there a similar quandary with the NSC wiretap story?

On the one hand the issue is out in the open and all the civil liberty implications can be debated. On the other hand, if you think outing Valerie Plame might have national security implications, this sure as heck could and probably does.

[tn-guy]

8. even more quandary

If there needed to be a criminal investigation into who disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame then shouldn't there also be a criminal investigation into who disclosed the NSC wiretaps? or who disclosed the "secret prisons"? After all, each instance involved someone leaking supposedly classified information. Does consistancy matter?

[GatoLover]

9. Does consistancy matter?

That's exactly what I'm wondering. I don't really know the answer.

[Patsy Stone]

10. Consistency where?

The consistency would come from one's moral litmus test. If you are a Utilitarian, you say an act is good if, while perhaps hurting a few, it ultimately benefits the many. If you ascribe to Deontological moral tests, then there is only good and bad based on the theory that if you don't want everyone to act that way, it's bad, period, regardless of a positive outcome. Other philosophers, other ethics, there are many from which to choose.

It's probably illegal, and unethical, and reprehensible, but if it gets rid of these people, is it really so bad? I'm trying to decide.

As for the investigations into who leaked what: I don't really care who leaked the NSC info, because that's not the story there. The story is it exists, and W made it exist, and lets it exist. Same with the prisons. Those leaks were for the greater good. Rove and Novak, et. al. leaked for the greater bad. :)

[yellowdogmi]

14. Consistently Wrong

I think that Mr. Wilson was trying to do an ethical and good thing by pointing out that the shrub administration lies to the general public. I believe that the outing of his wife Valerie was crass political payback and demonstrates the lack of respect W and his cohorts have for the rest of us. If you need another example read down four paragraphs into this link.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
I think that this goes higher than Rove or Libby. There are links to Stephanapolous's show where he claims the same thing. They made their bed let them lie awake at night in it fearing impeachment and worse. No Mercy.:mad:

[Patsy Stone]

16. No mercy

And I agree with your statements. This isn't about fact. Fact is: they suck. This about wondering if outcome being so good outweighs how bad the act was. I'm not looking for a way to excuse anything, I'm just thinking about the actions themselves and if they are worth the ultimate cost and benefits.

[Al-CIAda]

11. I'm having trouble with your premise.

re:1 - Novak outed someone who was working on arms proliferation. Networks were compromised/destroyed (Brewster Jennings exposed) by this. This was done for either political vendetta, or more likely, that Wilson put the lie to the cause de jour for war. The outing has causd incalculatable damage. I fail to understand how Novak or the planting of the story is cast in terms of 'good' or 'bad'. it is what it is, a crime.

re:2 -Again, 'is the downfall worth the outing'? Worth? Worth implies and elective cost/calculation has been paid/offered by said opposition. The opposition made no such offer. The party currently in power elected to do the 'outing' all by themselves.

[Patsy Stone]

15. Because something is legal or illegal

according to laws of a particular country, does not necessarily make them "good" or "bad" (i.e. drug policy, abortion rights). That determination is made by one's views of morals and ethics. Justifiable homicide, for example, indicates that even the act of killing is mitigated in some cases.

My premise was a question I was asking myself: Even in light of the background, and the consequences, is what we've wished for, "the downfall" worth the cost? And worth, in this case means value. Did we/will we get the "bang for the buck" so to speak, from the heavy cost of the actions and does that make it okay?

Even though Novak is a slime, and may/may not be legally culpable for the disclosure, was his action ultimately a good thing? Can an act intended to cause harm, ultimately be seen as good, based on the consequences?

I wasn't making a point, I was wondering aloud. I wanted to hear other ethical arguments.