MIKE KINSLEY seems to agree with what I’ve said before about journalistic confidentiality and the Plame affair:

A very distinguished New York Times writer once told me that if the Times ballet critic, heading home after assessing the day’s offerings of pliés and glissades, happens to witness a murder on her way to the Times Square subway, she has a First Amendment right and obligation to refuse to testify about what she saw.

So put it all together and you get: (1) the anonymity of Novak’s sources must be protected at all costs for the sake of the First Amendment, and (2) The White House leakers must be exposed and punished at all costs for the sake of national security. Unfortunately for the striking of heroic poses, these two groups are the same people. Either we think they should be named, or we think they should not be named. Which is it?

Of course, for a lot of people the answer is, “whichever will hurt Bush.”

But Novak’s not legally entitled to keep quiet if subpoenaed. And I don’t think he’s ethically entitled to, either.

UPDATE: Hmm. It also may be that the Plame leak wasn’t illegal. As I suggested yesterday, that may explain why we have a special prosecutor, since if Ashcroft concluded that many would accuse him of whitewashing.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here from Megan McArdle.