The almost universal huddling together of the media "community" around a self-righteous defense of their own Judith Miller is an insidious, gang-like attempt to protect an action which has been and always should be completely illegal: aiding or abetting the revealing of the identity of an active undercover United States spy should be considered high treason any which way you look at it.  The editors of the Post chide Judge Hogan and readers like me who see this crime for what it is as witch-hunters.  I would counter that any journalist, nay anyone who defends Ms. Miller's actions is protecting a series of criminals, friends or no.  Every person who has information about the commission of this crime should be obligated to disclose all they know in a court of law.

Our CIA operatives like Ms. Plame risk life and limb daily in a supreme sacrifice of lifestyle and normal career recognition to protect us from harm.  If a U.S. citizen, regardless of their profession, knowingly aids the process of revealing a U.S. spy's identity, they should be prosecuted and jailed to the fullest extent of the (thankfully still active) law.  The moral fault here lies not with hearing the leak or even necessarily protecting the leaker (though illegal), the moral fault lies with making the personal decision to disseminate this information to others in any way, shape or form.  When Judith Miller or any reporter in any media organization in this land makes a decision to disseminate highly classified U.S. intelligence information and put U.S. servicewomen or servicemen in peril of abduction, harm or even death, I can think of few acts more deserving of being labeled treason.  If she or anyone else withholds information about this high criminal act, she is similarly guilty of aiding and abetting the crime.  If Ms. Miller had been covering troop movements in Iraq and published their whereabouts via media outlets to insurgent combatants who then promptly used this intelligence to blow our soldiers up, would she still be innocent of any crime?  What if Ms. Plame was now dead as a result of her identity being revealed?  Would the crime's classification as treason be more palatable then?

Still, however criminal Ms. Miller's actions are, they pale in comparison to the originators of the act.  The fact remains that at least one person on Bush's team put a servicewoman's life and livelihood in jeopardy on purpose by disseminating information about her identity, seemingly using this as a cudgel to beat down dissension in the ranks and retaliate against Ambassador Joe Wilson's well-justified criticism of Bush's deliberately false (see proof in Downing Street memo) warmongering.  Every soldier in our armed forces knows that the troops under his command are his responsibility.  Our commander-in-chief must not be immune from recrimination and accountability for the actions of his subordinates, or we are living in a dictatorship little better than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  Bush's failure to produce the culprit himself in this case is tantamount to an admission of complicity in continuing this illegal practice.

If the purpose of law enforcement is to seek out, expose and punish crime wherever it exists then our courts and enforcers must pursue this crime with the same tenacity we pursue crimes of terrorism.  One of the hallmarks of our nation's freedom is equal civil treatment under the law regardless of race, class, or gender.  If Novak, Miller, Rove, or President Bush himself is protected from blame because of class, social standing or profession, then civil rights freedoms have eroded, not "freedom" of the press.  

Thursday's tragic terrorist attacks in Britain and the automatic recoiling behind our leaders that ensues after such an attack should do nothing to distract or dissuade the people of this free land from protecting that freedom and bringing treasonous acts to light.  We must fight terrorism at home and abroad.  If Bush was complicit and anyone on his team is found guilty of the treasonous act of revealing Ms. Plame's identity to scare Ambassador Wilson and others like him out of speaking against Bush's rhetoric, then we must punish this act of terrorism by removing those responsible, as high as it goes.  If we do not, then I fear our more perfect union is weaker and in more dire distress than at any time since the Civil War.

Howard Kurtz, whose journalism I normally respect, paints a picture of a victimized Ms. Miller, quoting Times Executive Editor Bill Keller as saying "'She's a little exhausted from having been so tirelessly out on the front lines'" and quoting Daniel Schorr of NPR's lament that "'The public no longer respects what we do.'"  Is it any wonder that we don't when the Post's own editorial page defends the aiding and abetting of a crime that could have led to a person's death?

The Washington Post's printing of this letter I sent them would be a small step towards regaining some of my trust, and I pray that those responsible for this tragedy will be brought to justice.  The number one way to scare off new counterterrorism recruits we so desperately need from joining the clandestine service is to show them that their identities and their lives may be used as bargaining chips by the President and officers of the nation they are sworn to protect.  We can punish this act now, or face the consquences later as these acts continue.