[MARTIAL MONK]

The immunity is vested in the position, not the person but since it exists it is open to abuse. The same abuse that diplomatic immunity is open to. It is grating to us common folk when we see it flaunted whether in his socks or in a diplomatic satchel. It is intended for people of good intentions and good will. The Democrats are hiding behind it to protect criminal activity.

To push criminal sanctions is to invite retaliation. I sense, however, in AG Ashcroft a curious streak of Puritanism that may encourage him to throw caution to the wind and prosecute. I view this as a good thing with some bad fallout. It will remind everyone that the immunity is not complete and the veil can be pierced. Sandy Berger will never see jail time, though. That would be unseemly and would signal all out partisan warfare.

[Ahban]

Your blithe assetion that there are different rules for the in-crowd may be true- but it is still destestable. I suspect that Thomas Jeffereson and our Founding Fathers would have advocated armed insurrection against such a system.

[browardchad]

That would be unseemly and would signal all out partisan warfare.

And what we've got now is not partisan warfare?

Oh, well, perhaps you're right -- it takes two sides to make war, and thus far we've only got Dems on a bloody warpath, and the Pubbies hiding under desks, fearing to be "unseemly" as Rome burns.