It's Still Not Right

A British intelligence agent gets charged with leaking an email in which American spies requested British intelligence to tap certain telephones. The defendant has pled not guilty claiming "The disclosure made by her was a sincere attempt to prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizens."

Just because she didn't agree with her government's position, and just because she had a sincere desire to save lives does not mean that she is not guilty of violating the law.

Perhaps conscientious objection should be considered as a mitigating factor in determining the punishment, but it does not change the fact that she violated the law (a fact that her lawyer has even stated she will not dispute).

I'm starting to have some real problems with the idea that activists should, for some reason, be given a pass for acting in "sincere" faith. If their beliefs are so strong that they are willing to willfully violate the law, then they should be willing to stand up and accept their punishment for having done so.

See, anyone can make a stand when there is no consequence. But only a true believer for their cause can face the music for their action.

Hopefully, the British courts will take this opportunity to remind the fair weather activists that there are penalties for violating the law, even when it is a disagreeable one.