- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I posted on page 28 regarding Greenwald's double standard, denouncing Bush's "law-breaking" but applauding Tamm's "heroism." I counted three replies that basically all said the same thing: We know George Bush broke the law, we don't know Tamm did.
In the first place, we don't know George Bush broke the law. There's ample defense for the program from the FISA Review Court in 2002, In Re Sealed Case, suggesting that the President's program was entirely legal.
In the second place, the objection misses the point. The point is that whether Tamm's law-breaking is certain or uncertain, Greenwald does not show the same concern for the law in both cases. It's quite clear that he approves Tamm's behavior whether it was legal or not, and that he disapproves Bush's behavior whether it was legal or not. Legality turns out to be just a convenient club with which to beat Bush.
I'm as concerned about civil liberties as the next man, and more than most, but I'm damned if I'm going to join the vendetta of someone whose concern for liberty is determined by the letter that follows his name in the voter registration rolls, be it "D" or "R".
