After months of silence in the press, this week has held some very important developments in the ongoing Justice Department investigation into who leaked the name and occupation of former CIA operative Valerie Plame. After Republicans fiercely denied the need for Ashcroft to recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor, Ashcroft has finally done precisely that:

"The issue surrounding the attorney general's recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest that arises normally when someone has a financial interest or something. The issue that he was concerned about was one of appearance. And I can't go beyond that," Comey said at a news conference.

"The attorney general, in an abundance of caution, believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation," he said. "I agree with that judgment."

While I think the former is speculation that delves into tinfoil hat territory, the latter rings true with me--especially given the breaking news that's hitting the wire now.

FBI investigators looking into the criminal leak of a CIA agent’s identity have asked Bush Administration officials including senior political adviser Karl Rove to release reporters from any confidentiality agreements regarding conversations about the agent. If signed, the single-page requests made over the last week would give investigators new ammunition for questioning reporters who have so far, according to those familiar with the case, not disclosed the names of administration officials who divulged that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, worked for the CIA.

It's plain that White House officials are under some pressure to sign the documents. "They can't refuse," said one individual who's familiar with the case. "The worst thing to be accused of here is not cooperating with the investigation."

The official said that several aides to President Bush whose names have come up in interviews with FBI agents will be asked to sign a one-page form giving permission for journalists to describe any such conversations to investigators, even if the journalists promised not to reveal the source.

The form states that it is the wish of the White House official that "no member of the media assert any privilege or refuse to answer any questions" about the leak, according to a copy of the form obtained by NBC News.

First of all, it raises some interesting First Amendment questions regarding the sanctity of "reporter's privilege". It is undeniably desirable for reporters to be able to assure their sources of confidentiality--this provides the protection and reassurance that whistleblowers need in order to come forth. If reporters start making a habit of divulging sources, or a precedent is set allowing the government to set a low bar for requiring them to do so, it jeopardizes one of the underpinnings of our free press--and thereby, our democracy. It should never--not ever--be done lightly.

But that is not the same thing as saying that it should not ever be done. At some point we must ask ourselves: what greater good is a journalist serving by protecting his source? At what point does refusing to divulge a source--a source who /by the very act of confiding in the reporter/ committed a crime--become morally or ethically comparable to the crime itself? At what point does reporter's privilege become aiding and abetting?

Put another way, let's take this to an extreme. Let's say the source is a serial killer and rapist. The reporter knows who he is, knows where he is, and the killer has confided the details of his crimes to said reporter. Is this reporter morally and ethically bound to protect his source, even though his source is the vilest sort of danger to society? If the answer is--as I believe it must be--no, then a reporter's privilege is not absolute and inviolate, and we should not treat it as such--but should instead consider it on a case by case basis.

In this case, someone within the Bush Administration--possibly more than one person--has outed the identity of a CIA operative. Her area of work was in Weapons of Mass Destruction--arguably one of the most sensitive and important areas of national security. Revealing her identity has most likely compromised sources and methods, cast a shadow of suspicion over everyone with whom she has ever interacted, and has outed a CIA front company--with the possible side effect of outing other operatives who've worked under that front, and initiating a ripple effect that could cost lives and harm our ability to counter the proliferation of WMDs.

If we stipulate that all of the above is true, can anyone mount any moral or ethical defense for protecting the identity of the person who committed this crime? Because even if you do not accept the validity of the above collateral damage and blowback from this crime, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is a crime--despite the most recent spin cycle ("Really, we didn't /know/ she was undercover, so it wasn't a crime!") that Josh Marshall and others have so effectively debunked.

One thing's for certain: this investigation certainly isn't going away. If this week is any indicator, it's been percolating along quite well, and is just now starting to gather steam. I predict that by Spring, if not sooner, we're going to see charges filed against at least one person in the Bush Administration.

And Bush is going to find out that while steam can obscure, it also burns.