I would agree, although she shouldn't need to resign. That is the reason that whistleblower laws were passed.
I DO think she should be willing to suffer the consequences of her actions if it is determined that her whistleblowing was not in the interest of the public good. For the same reason that self-defense exists, but the standard is high, and it is never a slam-dunk. The problem I have with the whistleblower statutes is that the same people who decided is it is whistleblowing are often the ones being "blown". On 4/24/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do! My opinion on the issue is that if the lady wanted to leak > classified info that she felt violated ethics, she should. But she > should resign first. > > JJ will likely disagree with this, but breaking the law is perfectly > acceptable (to me) in some circumstances; civil rights springs to > mind. Was Rosa Parks a criminal or protesting an unethical and > oppressive government? > > But the hilarious part is that it simply highlights this > administration belligerent use of classified data to tell half truths. > Me thinks they dost protest too much. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205293 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
