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.

Except for the not-so-small fact that President Bush has, in fact, admitted to the nation that he did indeed authorize illegal surveillance operations. Put bluntly, he admitted he's a law breaker; the fact he has (thus far) escaped prosecution for this doesn't negate the fact.

As for Mr. Tamm, we can debate his heroism all we want. Ultimately the fact he chose to follow a set of convictions which for him transcended the bureaucratic structure that employed him sets him apart from many of his fellows. I don't know if that makes him a 'hero', but certainly speaks to his bravery.

Then again, I once heard "a hero is someone who is too scared not to be a coward".

The law is the law.

So was slavery in most of the United States prior to January 1, 1863. So were the Poll Tests used throughout the southern US until after 1965.

Just saying.

Apply the letter universally, or not at all.

So say we all.

Okay. That's what I was trying to get at, albeit, clumsily. You'll have to be patient with me, I don't have good language skills in this domain. But, that was my thought when you said database. It's the only thing that would make sense. They have it, and have had it stored, before they knew it was important. And, the nature of their "luck" in finding it, suggests that ginormous vacuum cleaner sucking up everything they can get their hands on, and a ginormous vacuum bag in which to store it all... presumably, indefinitely.

New Jersey? Let's see if we can catch Obama squirming. If he slides, wiggles, and dodges, I say he is convinced and he knows.

Hello, Gwenn!

Fair is fair, doncha think?

How about all the guyz languishing in horrible Syrian prisons.

Do you care about them too?

Do you care about Biscet?

Or, does he deserve to die?

Lotus Feet, that was truly beautiful.

Spare us the gory scenery. Just go crush on each other somewhere else, will you?

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".

So, I asks you, didn't dear Jamie Gorelick make it awfully hard for that FBI gal to blow a 3000+ lives saving whistle?

Didn't her subordinate enforce Gorelick's rules?

Do you know about the Gorelick rules, or is it inconvenient for you to comment 'bout that, cause you are part of Gwenn's lynch mob ' round here?

Without putting us all to sleep with pages of legal mumbo jumbo, could you sum up the Clinton Justice Department's views on looking at suspected terrorist's computers and phones, and, really tell us, with a straight Agostino face, that they were correct in their lawyerly prohibitions against a real potential alarm to prevent 9/11?

Hey, you wern't sworn to secrecy 'bout dis was ya?

Nobody's gonna bump ya off if you tells da trut', right?

Phillipe Sands on the likelihood of torture investigation of Bush team--surprisingly upbeat (fresh aire today):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99061358

based on:

http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Team-Rumsfelds-Betrayal-American/dp/0230603904

Sands is a professor of law at University College London, where he directs the Centre for International Courts and Tribunals.

I believe you're confusing heroism and criminality. Assuming both Bush and Tamm broke the law, they would both be criminals. To Glenn and many others, Tamm is a hero for exposing, and now fighting an administration rife with corrupt and unlawful behavior. Further, laws may exist wish may exonerate Tamm based on his duty not to turn a blind eye to illegal activity. Others, I suppose, believe Bush's unlawful behavior was heroic in protecting citizens.

Regardless, Glenn isn't proposing that either is above the law, but rather only the less powerful are prosecuted.

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".

-- Plumb Bob

judging "concern for liberty" (whatever that means) by some warped standard. BTW, I have no idea what letter follows Tamm's name. Do you?
Anyhow, you missed the basic point that one guy gets investigated for leaking a potential crime while the ones who pretty much admit to breaking the law, walk.

NYT, The Caucus, By Michael Falcone, January 7, 2009, 6:59 pm (see sig)

With few exceptions the transition period has been a model of presidential goodwill and cooperation. Apparently, the curious users who have been submitting questions on President-elect Barack Obama’s Web site, Change.gov, didn’t get the memo.

In fact, the number one submission on the popular “Open for Questions” portion of the site might seem more than a little impolitic to the current, and soon to be former, occupant of the White House.

“Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor — ideally Patrick Fitzgerald — to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping,” wrote Bob Fertik of New York, who runs the Web site, Democrats.com

Though the Obama team has promised to answer some of the top questions as early as this week, they have not said whether they will respond to Mr. Fertik’s, which has received more than 22,000 votes since the second round of the question-and-answer feature began on Dec. 30.

The site logged more than 1.5 million votes for 20,000-plus questions as of Wednesday. The second highest-ranked submission, which is about oversight of the nation’s banking industry, is several thousand of votes behind the query about a special prosecutor.

Mr. Fertik’s question has been pushed to the top, in part, by a coalition of liberal bloggers, including a writer for the Web site, Daily Kos, who have “endorsed” it and encouraged their readers to vote for it on Change.gov.

[…]

No word yet on whether they’ll have an answer for Mr. Fertik.

But a clue to their potential response might come from the mouth of Vice President-elect Joe Biden who told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos recently that he would not rule in or rule out a Justice Department inquiry into the role of top Bush administration officials in cases of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and other facilities.

“The questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed or a very, very, very bad judgment has been engaged in is something the Justice Department decides,” Mr. Biden said.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/advocates-of-a-special-prosecutor-for-bush-seek-an-answer-from-obama/