tool in box is the hammer so every problem looks like a nail to be hammered.

I say take warfare back an honorable notch and stop allowing one force to have an overwhelming technological advantage. Swords, clubs, knives, arrows, martial skills . . . Exactly how honorable and inspiring is it to drop bombs from thousands of feet onto people with no air force to challenge you with?

I guess we convince ourselves that we don't have to sacrifice our citizens lives for our "beliefs" and "designs on empire". We just build death dealing contraptions that can be put into motion from miles and miles away at very little risk to our soldiers. Seems most of our "enemies" have been fighting us in sandles with second rate equipment for the last 60 years and we still seem to get our asses kicked in the long run, achieve nothing, shatter 100,000 of lives on all sides, and go broke doing it. War is almost always a form of collective insanity.

"Isn't what Tamm did illegal and isn't the rule of law to be applied impartially."

No and yes. With the "king's authorization" violations of law were commited. Tamm as, I'm sure any lawyer who seeks to conform his conduct to legally mandated professional ethics obligations, pursued the matter internally once he knew. Surely he was rebuffed. He then had a choice--keep quiet or jeopardize his career and future by fulfilling his professional obligation.

Do you think it's ethical to expose a secret illegal program?

Do you think it's ethical to illegally expose a secret illegal program?

Do you think it's fair/just that both Tamm and Pres. Bush et al should be subject to the rule of law equally and impartially?

Do you believe that the President of the United States of America is above the law or by virtue of his proclamation any action he takes is by definition legal?

I've asked you before, why do you hate the Constitution, the concept of the rule of law, and America?

Why are you so pathologically subservient to authority?

Did you wet the bed much as a child (or adult)?

Did you suffer a severe head trauma recently or are you currently taking prescription medication that impairs your cognitive functioning?

But you're right, my bad. I should have ended with the "are you being purposefully obtuse or do you derive pleasure out of posting inane comments over, and over, and over, and over, again."

that would negatively impact his client's legal position concerning past illegal acts allegedly commited for which counsel is retained to defend against. He could and would be presented with a choice to divulge only precisely that which could prevent the future commission of a crime by an existing client.

That Pres. Bush was not his client, as the DOJ is not the President's personal legal counsel in a particular criminal matter, what Mr. Tamm became privy to is not protected in any way from disclosure by him (to the best of my knowledge). Whichever lawyer allowed whatever information Mr. Tamm now possesses, if allowed to come into Tamm's hands inappropriately, would be on the hook for not properly safeguarding his client's (Bush or whomever) information/confidential secrets if disclosed to counsel with the expectation of confidentiality.

As far as statutory law, what's worse--breaking the law by not divulging a secret illegal warrantless spying program in direct contravention of the law or outing a known covert operative of the CIA for politically retributive purposes? Whistleblower protections are the weakest tea in the law, and do nothing to protect you from the political and economic retribution (much less the legal) that will necessarily follow.

“. . . to be verbally abusive . . . It's the sort of thing commonly found when conventional wisdom is challenged and found wanting.”

Which "conventional wisdom" would that be? Yours and everyone else that thinks the rule of law is quaint and not equally applicable to all? And we are only as verbally abusive to you as you are painstakingly obtuse and inane.

“. . . declared Bush and all criminals. The calls for investigation echo round the room on a daily basis, with "rule of law" pontifically intoned at every opportunity. Yet when someone on their "team" is subject to the terms they demand, foul is protested. It's garden variety hypocrisy."

We've declared there is ample evidence to investigate and prosecute if warranted. That is all. Though we might have attributed the commission of criminal acts to him and his underlings. There is ample reason to believe crimes have been perpetrated as they have been admitted to repeatedly. Which person on "our team" have we cried foul about. Seems to me we are equally hard on the enablers and criminals on "our team" which is by defition consistent rather than hypocritical. If there is an "our team" around here it isn't the Dems necessarily but integrity, factual and intellectual rigor, justice, moral proportionality, humanity before nationality, equal application of the rule of law to all regardless of status.

“Moreover . . . it may turn out like the two year investigation into the Plame leakages, where noone was indicted for the leaks . . . including the actual perps, who were known to Fitzgerald even before the investigation began.”

Wasn't Scooter Libby investigated, indicted, prosecuted, and sentence commuted. Lucky for everyone else he didn't "roll over" as the jury was firmly convinced he was covering for many others. Every Prince needs his courtiers willing to fall on their swords eh?

“ . . . legitimate programs like the Swift banking affair were exposed making the tracing of funds impossible. Quite frankly, it's my opinion that adolescent desires for revenge and retribution are at work here . . . “

Do you know for a fact that "tracing of illegal monetary transactions" is now "impossible" or are you just clairvoyantly speculating and pontificating? And I know to you the pursuit of "justice" is equivalent to a desire for revenge and retribution, but that doesn't make it true.

the "6 liberal networks" thing was classic though. RB is clearly a "true fox believer".