- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
If Mr. Greenwald were the scrupulous and wholehearted defender of the law that he fashions himself, I would have expected his position regarding Thomas Tamm to have been something like this:
"It is a pity that the law-breaking of the Bush administration could only be addressed by more law-breaking on the part of Mr. Tamm. Let us hope that his act of conscience, however misguided, will be sentenced lightly, as it served the nation's interests."
That would be a consistent position. That's not what Mr. Greenwald gives us, though, and consequently we know his scruples are a sham. In calling Thomas Tamm "hero" but George Bush "law-breaker," he demonstrates that he's more interested in partisan advantage than he is in law.
The law is the law. Either every violation of it is in some way objectionable, or defenses like "this is necessary for the protection of the nation" are valid defenses, and cannot be dismissed by simple resort to the letter of the law. Apply the letter universally, or not at all.
