I'm torn regarding the case of Judith Miller and that other journalist guy.

-- I'm pretty sure I'm against the whole notion of compelled testimony.
-- I think if you have knowledge of a crime you prolly should tell.
-- I don't think it is a good idea for "secret agents" to exist.
-- I don't like the idea of it being a criminal act to have or pass along information (if you are an individual and working in that capacity: different rules apply to institutions).
-- I reckon a state can only function properly if the laws are fairly applied, so if you disagree with a law (such as the one to which I just referred) then you should be prepared to face the consequences of breaking it in protest (see civil disobedience).

That last point clearly doesn't apply beyond the theoretical.

Basically, I don't know where to stand.

I do loathe Judy Miller's work leading up to the Iraq war, though.