Russ Feingold, Patriot

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
- Samuel Adams

In light of large factions in the Senate ready to make warrantless wiretapping legal with hastily prepared legislation, Sen. Russ Feingold appeared on television to announce that he is introducing a resolution to censure President Bush for his actions in secretly authorizing this in violation of existing law. It's a good start and I salute him. Russ Feingold is 100% genuine and has been the only Democrat in the Senate consistently standing up for our basic constitutional values since 2001.

Many are already accusing him of being a political opportunist, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Feingold voted against the Patriot Act in 2001 (he was the only one) and against the Iraq war resolution in 2002, both moves which could have been political suicide. This move too is politically risky- not opportunistic. The easy choice would be to make like the Intelligence Committee and cow to the White House's demands. But Sen. Feingold is taking the difficult, and right, path. Good for him.

I still prefer straight-up impeachment, but one step at a time...

From the AP report:

A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview...

...The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001...

Sen. Feingold has a fact sheet on his website (here) about his decision. It debunks the administration's case for their actions and points out the misleading arguments/statements that they have made about it.

Key quote from Feingold on 'This Week':
"It's an unusual step. It's a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered. There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the president can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered."

See also video: Feingold Will Introduce Resolution To Censure President Bush

Glenn Greenwald notes that Sen. Feingold hit on the three important points of this scandal-

(1) We all want eavesdropping on Al Qaeda and the law allows that;

(2) The problem isn't that the President eavesdropped; it's that he did it in a way that broke the law by eavesdropping without judicial oversight and approval, which Americans required in 1978 in order to prevent abuse of the eavesdropping power; and,

(3) We cannot maintain our constitutional republican form of government if the Congress stands by meekly and silently and allows the President to break the law, no matter what his intentions are. We did not declare martial law on 9/11. We are still a nation of laws and it is intolerable for the President to act illegally.

Too bad those things are apparently too complicated for many in Congress to understand.

No doubt the loyal Bush supporters all over the internet will be responding angrily to this move, accusing Sen. Feingold of treason, whining about "moonbats" who love Osama, and reasserting that this is why they are in power in this country. Maybe even throw in some Clinton bashing. The typical insanity that doesn't even address the issue at hand. The desperation of Bush loyalists grows as each new poll reveals just how tired the American people are of what is happening in this country.

Already, Republicans in power are doing just that- attacking Sen. Feingold over this decision, accusing him of weakening the President (and at 34-36%, he can't afford to get any weaker) and of undermining the war on terror (*yawn* that old chestnut again?). The worst of this bunch is Sen. Frist, who just can't seem to prostitute himself for the White House quick enough these days. From the AP report-

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the proposal "a crazy political move" that would weaken the U.S. during wartime.

Dr. 'Feel Good' Frist also said this- "And as I was listening to it, I was hoping deep inside that the leadership in Iran and other people who really have the U.S. not in their best interests are not listening because of the terrible--the terrible--signal it sends."

Yowza! What was that word I used in my earlier entry... began with an "f"? Trying to say our enemies are glad when Bush is questioned is an old trick with this crowd (and I notice Sen. Frist spiced this one up by throwing in some Iran rhetoric). The signal people like Frist want to send is that we live in a dictatorship where no criticism of the leader is to be allowed during wartime (which is forever, according to the current definitions of the terror war). Sen. Frist should know that our ability to censure/impeach/punish our leaders for their actions is what separates us from countries like Iran. Perhaps, deep inside, Frist is secretly jealous of the type of strong, unquestionable power Ahmadinejad wields over his citizens.

The only signal Feingold's move would send is that we are a nation of laws and that we take them very seriously. That is how a democracy, a republic, works (correct me if I'm wrong here). I suppose that would be a bad signal to send in Bizarro America.

I wrote about that sort of thinking in December. This is what I said then-

Now here, in 2005, the President and his supporters are saying... that because of the continuing terrorist threat, we must interrupt our normal way of doing things, our democratic processes, as the war itself is more important. Our laws, the Constitution, and Congressional and judicial oversight should put on hold (or at least looked at as less important) while the President works to unroot terrorist plots, hopefully harder than he did in August of 2001.

The president was absolutely right in the Fall of 2001 to tell us we must not alter our way of life because of terrorism fears (though perhaps asking for a greater domestic sacrifice than shopping would be good too). The President failed to note this refusal to give in also includes not altering our democracy, the checks and balances, and procedures that are in place to keep the government from becoming the enemy.

If we put democracy on the shelf and ignore clear and unquestionable crimes committed by our President (even if in the name of 'protecting us')... then (to use the old 2001 phrase) the terrorists have already won.

My feelings haven't changed on that. We here in the United States aren't a bunch of scared babies throwing laws out the window for a temporary sense of false security. We are a democracy, not a military dictatorship in which we bow to our 'Commander In Chief' (a constitutionally vague title, by the way). True weakness is to abandon that, as we have slowly been doing.

Sen Feingold's move is a good step back in the right direction.