FEINGOLD AND RESTORING THE CONSTITUTION
I always knew he was not a nutcase, but a man who believed in America and in our values.
John Nichols on 01/07/2009 @ 2:15pm writes in the nation
about my favorite senator and his attempts to contact the President-Elect through correspondence about reining in the executive. He gives 6 crisp demands/requests:
1.) Close the facility at Guantanamo Bay.
This has been promised by Obama. And I think few on the left would disagree with this proposition.
2.) Ban torture and establish a single, government-wide standard of humane detainee treatment.
This is a prayer from the left. Blogs like TPM make it real clear how important and symbolic an Executive Order would be right from the get go.
3.) Conduct a comprehensive review of Office of Legal Counsel opinions
and repudiate or revise those that overstate executive authority.
My sentiments exactly. The time for comic book briefs is over.
4.) Support significant legislative changes to the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act.
This would begin to repair a wrong perpetrated by the Republicans as well as many Democrats.
5.) Cooperate with congressional oversight, including providing full information to intelligence committees.
I will be watching this closely. The dictatorship must be abolished and the eschewing of Congressional Subpoenas must stop now.
6.) Establish presumptions of openness and disclosure in making decisions on the classification of information and respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Transparency is of paramount importance. There will still be national secrets. There have to be even in a democracy. But our level of secrecy in this country over the last eight years mirrors the secrecy of the USSR during the Cold War.
These six short demands would go a long way to helping the United States live up to its own propaganda. In the eyes of its own citizens and the other nations of the world.
He missed one.
7. Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes committed during the Bush Administration.
January 8, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best we can get right now, I think, is that Truth Commission.
But you got me laughin. I would personally organize parades on the street.
January 8, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably correct, but personally I don't understand why a Truth Commission would be more palatable to President-elect Obama than a special prosecutor.
A Truth Commission would be a contentious political process that would threaten to suck attention away from the initiatives important to Obama.
By comparison, Obama could appoint a Republican-leaning attorney with impeccable prosecutorial credentials and have the investigation occur behind closed doors. He would have a perfect answer to charges of partisan recriminations as well: it wouldn't be his administration doing the investigation, but instead someone outside his administration.
It strikes me as the cleanest way to both uphold the rule of law and also avoid a political quagmire.
January 9, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am of several minds on this issue or these issues.
I feel like, screw a single rep leaning prosecutor. Ken Starr was no moderate. Why do the felons who ran this government get a break?
I also feel that a left leaning prosecutor would be very careful not to make the investigation look too biased. But the media would rip into a moderate or lefty anyway. So screw em.
But a three or four person commission with adequate staff, money and subpoena power, like Conyers is advocating is not a bad idea. It is the subpoena power that makes it more than a think tank or some group that will be ignored anyway.
I guess I lean toward the commission and people from the Obama campaign were advocating that unless memory fails. Going with what was promised, however general, never hurts.
But I certainly have no distaste for your option.
January 10, 2009 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I don't think party affiliation will make any difference to a solid career prosecutor. Everyone has biases, of course, but I think that career prosecutors biases are determined more by their professions than by their party affiliations. Because I don't think it makes a difference, I say make it a Republican to mute the wingnuts claims of liberal bias and political reprisals.
(I know.. I know... The Minnesota recount shows that Republican appointees prove no obstacle to wingnut cries of liberal bias... But still... )
January 10, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do away with the Patriot Act altogether. Many of the other atrocities against our Constitution and Bill of Rights will follow suit, simply because they will no longer be "legal".
January 9, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK with me Missy.
January 9, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Feingold is one of my favorites, too, and before going to Obama was my choice for President.
I think he has worked with John Dean on the question of executive excess, a man who knows whereof he speaks.
I've finally gotten around to reading Angler, the Dick Cheney story by WaPo's Barton Gelman in my few spare moments.
What's interesting is Cheney's whole concept on the powers of the judicial, legislative and executive. He sees each of the 3 branches with their own very firm powers that allow no encroachment from the other two. Where did he get that idea? It's not so much a separation of powers as it is a sharing of powers. Notice how the Pres and Congress each have a say in war, treaties, vetos, overriding vetoes, etc. In some ways, the powers are so shared as to be almost inefficient, which Cheney hates, but were purposely designed that way by the founding paters. There is very little exclusivity to be found, except in matters of the purse, which belongs to the House.
And apparently it was Cheney all the way that led with this firm belief and an overwhelming desire to restore power to the executive branch. He bucked Congress even when there was not much to hide. And Bush went along with it because he's a dumb fu$k.
As a constitutional lawyer, teacher, and all around power sharer, Obama surely does not subscribe to Cheney's beliefs. Yet, power gotten is power that's hard to give up and the one place Cheney had it right, so to speak, was in the efficiency of avoiding Congress and any other interested parties. Much easier to go to war that way. So yes, we want Obama to restore the constitutional way, but we're giving up the chance to do end runs around Republicans, too.
Isn't it OK when Democrats do it? (she says jokingly.)
Sorry for running on. The closer it gets to the 20th, the more nervous my keyboard gets.
January 9, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Seashell. It is difficult to let go of power. Cheney is and was so evil and w so worthless.
This New Team is so much different. Even in light of the silly criticism from the mainstream press.
I get more excited though Seashell, not nervous.
January 9, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Us Wisconsinites are proud as hell of our Russ. As you note, he has been the lone progressive voice from around here for a while now. You'd think the state where the Progressive Party was born would yield better representation on the left, but what can ya do.
If we cede Waukesha to Illinois and Green Bay to Michigan I think our numbers would look much better ;-)
January 9, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
People from Wisconsin like to say that Minnesota is the Land of 10,000 puddles. I really cannot underline enough my glee at seeing Russ in the news again, making noise.
January 9, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was that a snide remark aimed at Minnesota?
Why in the world?
In 2006, Senator Feingold was the keynote speaker at Rochester Minnesota for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party's state convention. I handed out about 300 Feingold For President bumper stickers (made them myself) and if I'd had more, they'd have wanted them.
Wisconsin was the home of Fighting Bob La Follette, Gaylord Nelson, and Frank Zeidler, but was also the lair of Joe McCarthy. Minnesota was the home of Floyd B. Olson, Eugene McCarthy, and Paul Wellstone, but nevertheless also produced Norm Coleman.
Russ Feingold could use some reinforcement, which is what we devoutly hope that Al Franken will provide when he gets there . . . if that stumblebum Reid doesn't keep Al out all year.
January 9, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in Minnesota. Have been most of my life. You list all my heroes. And I see Wisconsin as providing just as many. These are two great states.
Beautiful lakes. And usually a political slant toward the working class and the poor.
January 9, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am pleased that Senator Feingold is putting these issues in writing. I predict he will NEVER get a response from President Obama directly. I predict that not because of any animus towards Obama---I am glad I voted for him; the first time in my life I ever voted for the winning Presidential candidate.
Obama simply will ignore the issues, or in the case of Guantanamo and torture, he will postpone actually doing anything with one vague excuse after another, while, just like Bush did, verbally insisting "we don't torture."
Feingold may get a noncommittal letter from a staff person, thanking him for writing. He may not even get that.
"All political government must necessarily become despotic, because all government tends to become centralized in the hands of the few, who breed corruption among themselves and in a very short time disconnect themselves from the body of the people." (Lucy Parsons, 1886)
I wish it were otherwise. But "change we can believe in" will never come from the top down, it must be fought for from the bottom up.
Without wider support from his colleagues in Congress, Feingold remains an isolated voice.
And if President Obama DID act to restore civil liberties and curb the institutionalized apparatus of surveillance, repression, and state-sponsored terror, how long do you think it would be before President Biden would be sworn in?
January 9, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before I entered the blogosphere, I wondered if there was ever a movement to encourage people to change their communications carriers to Qwest. It seems to me that all the carriers have thier problems. There are no clean hands, but I really think Qwest should be rewarded for their resistance to the eavesdropping efforts by this Administration.
January 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Gregor. Good point. Have not thought about that for over a year.
January 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just saying, we are the market and if the market moves away from the carriers who colluded with the Bush Administration, they would be hesitant to do it again. At the end of the day, these people are all about their wealth and they assume we will buy there crap regardless of what they do. But what if we didn't?
January 9, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor a boycott is a tool. It is a good tool.
Supposedly we have choice in this country.
I would support one.
I took a nap and missed your comment
January 9, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink