Diane Feinstein: Drug warrior, Soft on torture
I'm happy to see people beginning to ask questions about Diane Feinstein's weak track record and public statements on torture. As the Wall Street Journal wrote last month:
Starting in 2002, key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, were fully briefed by the CIA about its activities, amounting to some 30 sessions before "torture" became a public issue. None of them saw fit to object.
On the subject of Feinstein and abusive government, it's worth noting that in 2008, Diane Feinstein appeared in this highly misleading ad against California's Prop 5, which would have encouraged drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration: see this obnoxious video.
The accusation that Prop 5 would lead to criminals of all kinds - "child abusers, burglars, thieves, con artists, and embezzlers" out of jail early by claiming to require drug treatment was the central message of the anti-Prop 5 campaign and it was highly misleading. A judge would have to conclude that the offense is nonviolent, the offender has a drug problem and mandated drug treatment is in the best interest of public safety to shorten a sentence or to refer a criminal to drug treatment. It is very hard to imagine a scenario in which a child abuser would qualify for this. And despite the histrionics of that ad, it represents good policy. If a judge thinks that a criminal defendant's non-violent crime is so connected to a drug addiction that treatment makes more sense from a public safety standpoint than incarceration, that should be an option. Moreover, even if you disagree with the policy, this ad is Karl Rove politics, not an attempt to engage with an issue as much as inspire fear in the public based on a recklessly aggressive interpretation of the proposal. Feinstein's appearance in this ad showed bad judgment, showed a willingness to deceive the public, and showed her commitment to a mindless drug policy that locks up millions of people without any apparent benefit.
She's part of an earlier generation of Democrat, one who thinks it's critical to look tough on crime and defer to Republicans on national defense issues. These are the kind of people that we want less of in the Democratic party. I'd like to see some enterprising creative Democrat take a run at her seat in 2012, and if I were a California Democrat I would not trust her with the Governorship in 2010.
From now on, no more supporting a candidate solely because of her gender. Where does a candidate stand on the issues is more important than "identity" politics. Feinstein got where she is to some extent because of the "I'll vote for her because she's female" phenomenon. It is no more meritorious than the reverse "I'll vote against her because she's female."
Senators like Feinstein and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota are accurately typed in your last paragraph. Thanks!
January 6, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, what the Wall Street Journal neglects to mention is that the Congressional Democrats who serve on those intelligence committees are legally prohibited from making public objections to classified policies."
But that is such a convenient dodge and Democrats like Feinstein and Rockefeller are the very worst of the spineless appeasers. If Bush could break every law on the book, these turkeys could have spoke up about the abuse of our civil liberties.
We're supposed to believe it's illegal to defend the Constitution? Ha! I'd like to see that one tested. There are higher laws and higher moral laws.
January 6, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you. I'm not sure if I would go so far as to call it cowardly to violate the law to report on flagrant abuses of human rights - it's asking an awful lot, these are pretty serious laws - but I would say that Senator Feinstein does not suffer from a foolishly excessive degree of bravery. Unfortunately.
January 6, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not convenient. One Congresswoman did blab after certain docs were exposed.
I want a truth commission and I want it to have subpoena powers. I want Congressional hearings and then we can wait and see if two subordinates a this WH can claim exec priv when speaking to each other.
But you know what? I am the lowliest of low and it does not matter what I want.
But that is what we are going to get.
And damn those Dems that might be somehow hurt who sat on the sidelines.
JUST WAIT AND SEE.
January 6, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading some articles on this subject, including here at TPM, Feinstein is cooling her jets. She will ask a few 'touch' questions that should be asked at the hearings anyway. her vote on a number of matters will be important later on.
I think there is some real fear in right wing circles as far as what is coming, what is going to come out, and where the fingers are going to point.
And there will be a truth commission.
January 6, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
She also helped to get the Bush tax cuts through. And I think has generally helped to sustain the war on Iraq, too.
January 6, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Satya, thank you for an excellent and informative post. I really like how you link different issues together to show a consistent pattern, and I was previously unaware of Feinstein's involvement in the drug treatment issue, and am glad to know about it. I'm on the other side of the country, never folowed Feinstein closely, and always sort of assumed that if she was a female senator from California, she was most likely a liberal. I'm glad you set me streaight.
January 6, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political Pull
Such Affiliations Nulled,
Lets See Some Heads Roll.
Enjoy.
January 7, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
DiFi is a trial. I've been her constituent since Dan White killed Harvey Milk
Not easy.
January 7, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things mentioned over the last month or so but has been an ongoing discussion about the intelligence community and Cngressional over-seers is that these Congressmen/women are not allowed to talk about the facts which they have been privy to. This can lead to purjury and outright lie-ing on the part of congressmen/women when they do decide to make statements. We know who many fo these people are but many times we the public rely on investigative journalist as well as activist in finding out this information. As we have seen over the last couple of years pertaining to the intelligence pre-war on Iraq and in the case of warrantless wire-taps, it took years to find out which congressmen/women were briefed on these issues. During that time-period the media and those in power exploited these issues to achieve their goals. The real issue is one of transparency balanced with security. DiFi seems from my perch over the last couple of years as more interested in politics and semantics rather than rational explinations for her decisions and why they are better for the people of California and the people of America. Look the country is in trouble, DiFi was wrong about Bush's tax cuts, she was wrong on FISA (warrantless-wiretaps), she was wrong about Iraq, but I am sure she has also doen some good work. The point is we need to move forward examine our mistakes, admit our mistakes and act like the leaders they were appointed to be. Right nnow it seems many are in search of leadership but are gun-shy because of the past admin. So talk us through, but be warned we are short on hearing bullshit and excuses.
January 7, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink