Feingold calls Obama Out on Indefinite Detention, Sets Hearings

[FourScore]

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to convey my appreciation for your speech of May 21 on security and values, but
also to express several concerns, particularly about your intention to design a system for what
you called "prolonged detention."

On many fronts, your speech confirmed your commitment to defending our country while
reversing the previous administration's numerous attacks on the rule of law. I was particularly
pleased by your forceful rejection of torture, an issue on which you have backed up your
campaign rhetoric with sustained action, beginning on your second day in office. I also welcome
your acknowledgment that the state secrets privilege has been overused, as well as your
commitment to reform. As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently considering
legislation on this matter, which I hope your administration will now support. I also look
forward to briefings on your administration's use ofthe privilege thus far, in keeping with your
commitment to "voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why."

In addition to these substantive matters, I was encouraged by your stated commitment to working
with the judiciary and Congress as co-equal branches of government on issues of national
security. This respect for our constitutional system stands in strong contrast to the approach of
the previous administration. In light of the principles you have put forth, I look forward to full
and open discussions between your administration and Congress on policy and legal matters. I
also welcome your stated appreciation for congressional oversight and for the need for Congress
to have full access to classified programs and information. As you know, the previous
administration established numerous obstacles to effective oversight and I welcome your
commitment to tearing down what remains of those obstacles.

In the spirit of an open, productive dialogue between your administration and Congress, I wish to
layout my concerns related to the disposition of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I strongly
supported the decision you made in January to close the detention facility at Guantanamo and
continue to do so. The facility has been used as a recruiting tool by our enemies, and allowing it
to remain open would pose an unacceptable threat to our national security. I look forward to
considering your administration's plan for closing the facility, and I welcome your decision to
bring suspected terrorists, like Ahmed Gailani, to justice.

Among the issues Congress must consider carefully is any resumption of the use of military
commissions. Like you, I voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I agree with you
with regard to that statute's many flaws, but it is not clear to me that those flaws can be fixed, or
that the other options in the current federal criminal justice and courts martial systems for
bringing the detainees to justice are insufficient or unworkable. If Congress is to fully consider
your proposal for military commissions, therefore, it will need access to the same information
your administration is currently reviewing, including detailed, classified information on
individual detainees and the extent to which other options are available.

My primary concern, however, relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention
without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a
statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain
individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them
adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.
While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other
forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence
against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial
is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently
invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically
criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a
system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely
without charge or trial.

You have discussed this possibility only in the context of the current detainees at Guantanamo
Bay, yet we must be aware of the precedent that such a system would establish. While the
handling of these detainees by the Bush Administration was particularly egregious, from a legal
as well as human rights perspective, these are unlikely to be the last suspected terrorists captured
by the United States. Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the
temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist
such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing
policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores
or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security. Worse, those policies and
legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having
been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations
of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues.

I do not doubt your good faith efforts to wrestle with these complex issues, and I am confident
that you would seek to use any new authorities carefully andjudiciously. But, as I know you
appreciate, fundamental changes to our constitutional system cannot be considered in the context
of individual presidents or administrations. Whatever new regimes you and the Congress choose
to enact will likely remain in place long after your administration has ended, to be used, or
abused, by future presidents.

I appreciate your efforts to reach out to Congress on this important issue. In that spirit, I intend
to hold a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June
and ask that you make a top official or officials from the Department of Justice available to
testify. I recognize that your plans are not yet fully formed, but it is important to begin this
discussion immediately, before you reach a final decision. I will be sending formal invitations in
the coming weeks and look forward to hearing the testimony of your administration.

I thank you for this opportunity to convey my views and look forward to continued collaboration
as we return our country to the rule of law while aggressively targeting al Qaeda and its
affiliates.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator

cc: The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States

http://feingold.senate.gov/pdf/ltr_obama_052209.pdf

[cali]

1. Excellent letter. I'm with Feingold.

[thread-bear]

13. k&r

He's one of my favorite senators.

[EFerrari]

17. Welcome to DU, thread-bear.

:hi:

[rocktivity]

2. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!

and these hearings had better be public!

:woohoo:
rocktivity

[derby378]

6. Actually, it's "Woo-Hoo" by 5.6.7.8's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHPA79XQL6s

[pleah]

3. K&R

[snowdays]

4. Congressional Oversite in Action--good on Russ.

[derby378]

5. Sic 'em, Russ!

:applause:

[mike_c]

7. I never thought I'd see the day an American senator would write such a letter...

...to the president. How incredibly sad! :cry:

[NJmaverick]

8. Remember when Feingold called Bush out on indefinate detentions and torture?

oh wait he didn't. That would have made a difference.

[flyarm]

10. AHH HE STODD ALONE TRYING TO GET A RESOLUTION FOR CENSURE OF BUSH

AND GOT HIS NUTS CUT OFF *BY PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU..SO NOW WE HAVE DEMS (?) LIKE YOU , TRYING TO CUT HIS NUTS OFF..SAME SHIT JUST ANOTHER DAY!!

wtf did Obama ever do?? oh yeah he did a speech that wasn't recorded and he recreated THE SPEECH in a sound studio..and oh yeah, he said Bush did nothing impeachable..THEN HAD IT ERASED FROM HIS WEB SITE!!


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/13/opinion/lynch...

Will Russ Feingold Stand Alone Again?
Lynch: Senator Takes Heat For Resolution To Censure Bush

March 13, 2006 | by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russ Feingold is used to being alone. ** He is the one in the 99 to 1 vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act in 2001 and the lone Democrat to vote against dismissing impeachment charges against President Clinton in 1999.

On Monday Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President Bush for his “actions in authorizing the illegal wiretapping program and then misleading the country about the existence and legality of the program.” He says the resolution is “an appropriate and responsible step for Congress to take in response to the president’s undermining of the separation of powers and ignoring the rule of law.”

There was an immediate outcry from Republicans. The Republican National Committee called it “Feingold’s Folly” and accused the Democrats of “playing politics with the most important issue facing the American people” and sending “the wrong message to our enemies ....”

On Monday Vice President Cheney encouraged boos for Feingold at a fundraiser in Feingold’s home state of Wisconsin and dared other Democrats to support the resolution.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

EMPTYWHEEL HAS A GREAT ESSAY ON THIS..I WOULD SUGGEST YOU READ IT,.BUT I KNOW YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SPAMMING DU SMEARING RUSS FIENGOLD FOR DAYS NOW!!

FOR OTHERS... WHO DO GIVE A DAMN ABOUT RULE OF LAW..AND OUR CONSTITUTION..I WILL POST IT HERE..


Feingold’s Opposition to Indefinite Detention
By: emptywheel Sunday May 24, 2009 2:22 pm 6


Man, I love Russ Feingold. Here's the letter he sent Obama to lay out his opposition to the notion of indefinite detention. (h/t dday)

He perfectly explains why indefinite would be a dangerous precedent.

He leaves out just one thing here--the possibility that our own government will start rounding up Americans as terrorists and indefinitely detaining them. If animal rights activists can face prison for exercising their free speech under the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act, after all, then it's not a stretch to envison PETA members indefinitely detained.

Feingold also issues a clever warning when discussing his opposition to Obama's suggested use of military commissions to try detainees:

Like you, I voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I agree with you with regard to that statute's many flaws, but it is not clear to me that those flaws can be fixed, or that the other options in the current federal criminal justice and courts martial systems for bringing the detainees to justice are insufficient or unworkable. If Congress is to fully consider your proposal for military commissions, therefore, it will need access to the same information your administration is currently reviewing, including detailed, classified information on individual detainees and the extent to which other options are available.

SNIP:
I suggested yesterday that Obama's consideration of indefinite detention (and I'd say the same about military commissions) is an attempt to bury evidence of our own crimes. I'm guessing maybe Feingold agrees. He seems to be suggesting that Congress can only legislate new military commissions if the Administration shares the evidence--all the evidence--with all of Congress.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/24/feingolds-opposition-to-indefinite-detention/#more-4201

thank you Marcy Wheeler.

[dgibby]

16. Thank you, thank you , thank you!

Glad somebody with the FACTS took this on as a project. The broken (and inaccurate) record was getting very irritating.:yourock:

[bvar22]

19. ...Not just "inaccurate".....

...but purposely misleading....as in pushing an agenda by being dishonest, a la Swiftboaters.

[flyarm]

23. ah yes there are some here that are acting like swiftboaters to Feingold..and it is a disgrace!

i just wonder where their loyalities lay..with the constitution or some nafarious shadow group perhaps???????

They are deliberately misleading..so please copy what i posted and keep it to educate those on posts, where the liars exibit their misleading tactics!!

There is a very concerted effort to smear Russ..and it is dispicable! at best.

There is one person i have seen doing a smear campaign against Russ on 4-5 threads ..ahem..over and over and over again.

fly

[NJmaverick]

35. The only one being disgracefully Swift Boated is our Democratic President

and when all your work comes to fruition we can all enjoy the next Republican President.

[flyarm]

69. so being held accountable by our senators is swiftboating?? Or Americans doing their duty and

responsibility of demanding our employees in government do their job and follow their oath to defend and protect the constitution is now ..swiftboating??

wow the bar and quality of the propaganda is surely dropping to new lows!

[sui generis]

78. whoa! you mean Feingold isn't a democrat?

d'oh.

Obama is a mushmouth. He's still a democrat, and criticizing democrats doesn't automatically beget republicans. That's so adolescent you should be blushing right now.

Criticizing democrats is supposed to get us better democrats. When you'se all growed up you'll figure it out.

[Zhade]

66. Yep. A lie.

What a fucking asshole. I HATE LIARS.

[NJmaverick]

34. I thought you were interested in the facts????

The fact is Russell did NOTHING while Bush tortured and jailed.

[NJmaverick]

32. Point of fact that had nothing do with detention or torture

this is a new found interest of his. A way for him to score points with the left, at the expense of the President.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. And this most certainly does

Russ Feingold is a clear strong voice for the truth, where ever the chips might fall.

http://feingold.senate.gov/releases/07/07/20070722.html

FEINGOLD CALLS FOR CENSURE OF PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS OVER IRAQ & ATTACK ON RULE OF LAW
Feingold to Introduce Resolutions Censuring President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Other Administration Officials

July 22, 2007

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold announced today that he will introduce two censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President and other administration officials for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law. Feingold called the resolutions appropriate and necessary steps for Congress to rebuke an administration that is responsible for some of the worst misconduct and the worst abuses of the law in American history.

“Censure is about holding the administration accountable,” Feingold said. “Congress needs to formally condemn the President and members of the administration for misconduct before and during the Iraq war, and for undermining the rule of law at home. Censure is not a cure for the devastating toll this administration’s actions have taken on this country. But when future generations look back at the terrible misconduct of this administration, they need to see that a co-equal branch of government stood up and held to account those who violated the principles on which this nation was founded.”

Feingold will work with his colleagues, as well as seek input from his constituents and the American people, as he crafts the final language of the resolutions. The first resolution will condemn the President and others for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq including:

* Overstating the case that Saddam Hussein had WMD, particularly nuclear weapons, and falsely implying a relationship with al Qaeda and links to 9/11.

* Failing to plan for the civil conflict and humanitarian problems that the intelligence community predicted.

* Over-stretching the Army, Marine Corps and Guard with prolonged deployments.

* Justifying our military involvement in Iraq by repeatedly distorting the situation on the ground there.

The second resolution will focus on the administration’s attack on the rule of law with respect to, among other things:

* The illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

* Extreme policies on torture, the Geneva Conventions, and detainees at Guantanamo.

* The refusal to recognize legitimate congressional oversight into the improper firings of U.S. Attorneys.

In March 2006, Feingold introduced a resolution censuring the President for authorizing and misleading Congress and the public about the illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program. In January 2007, the administration finally brought its wiretapping program within the FISA statute.

“At my town hall meetings, online, and everywhere I go, I hear the American people demanding that the President and his administration be held accountable for their misconduct, both with regard to the disastrous war in Iraq and their flagrant abuse of the rule of law. Censure is a relatively modest response, but one that puts Congress on record condemning their actions, both for the American people today and for future generations,” Feingold said.

Feingold is encouraging people to email suggestions of what to include in the censure resolution. People can email Senator Feingold at [e-mail] or visit his webpage at http://feingold.senate.gov.

[dgibby]

37. There you go, confusing him with facts.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. Pssst

It's just another inconvenient truth.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

83. ...

[bvar22]

41. He is not confused.

Deliberate obfuscation would be a better description.

[karynnj]

55. Thank you for posting the info on that legislation

NJMaverick needs to consider just 3 Senators had the courage to co-sponsor - Boxer, Harkin, and Kerry.

THAT only 4 Senators in total were on record for it is why nothing happened.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

81. Your welcome. The question is, who would stand with Russ this time

against a Democratic President? I think Boxer will and so will Bernie Sanders.

[JDPriestly]

67. Point of fact: Much as I support Obama with regard to the

environment and energy, he is absolutely wrong and Feingold is absolutely right with regard to indefinite detention. It is a slippery slope. It leads downward to the hell of repression and a dictatorship and nowhere else. That is proved in the history of the NAZIS, the Fascists, Franco, the USSR and the Gulags, Eastern Europe, China, Viet Nam, and Japan during WWII. First thing dictators do is make people fearful. Second thing is spy on everyone and enlist many fearful supporters to aid in the spying. Third is to imprison people indefinitely and without trial -- a few truly objectionable people at first and then, gradually ordinary people who have committed no unlawful acts. Bush took the first steps toward dictatorship. If Obama values our democracy, he will completely change the path that Bush cut for us. There is no alternative to rejecting indefinite detentions without trials. Obama needs to do the right thing -- right now.

[jgraz]

21. The first step in establishing a cult is writing your own history

Nice to see you're at least reading the manual.

[NJmaverick]

31. OH BOY! I am getting my own cult

Soon I will rule the world!

[flyarm]

25. ahh just when did Obama do what you are saying..or do anything for that matter?

I do damn well remember when Russ has stood up for the American people and our rights..and our laws.. but i don't seem to remember once when Obama did............ahhh but he did vote present didn't he ..many times..

[NJmaverick]

33. My you seem bitter about our President

I am sure you will be much happier when all your work to undermine him comes to fruition and we have a Republican President.

[EFerrari]

48. Personal attacks are not an argument.

[magellan]

62. That broken record again

And the usual, convenient omissions of fact.

It really is no wonder our government is in the shambles it is with so many Americans willing to make excuses for turning their backs on the rule of law.

[grahamhgreen]

73. Well said Russ!

[flyarm]

68. I am not bitter about anything except ..having my constitution destroyed

No longer having Habeas Corpus

Having my phone lines and emails tapped and read..

giving my tax dollars to wall street and the banks while fucking the american people who are losing their homes and their ability to feed their children

someone saying they are a democrat while pissing on everything i have ever believed to be democratic principles and values..

Having rule of law shredded

Having my vote stolen by both parties

And now my employee in the white house saying he is going to detain people without ever being charged, or prosecuted for a crime..with no justice whatsoever...in fact totally shitting on the rule of law!

I have been a juror 4 times and an alternate once..in fact i just got called for Jury Duty..i believe in the rule of law..don't you???????????? And if not, why not???????

I want my rights back..you got a problem with that??????

I want my children's rights back..and i want to make sure children in the future have their rights back..you have a problem with the laws of this land that people have fought for ..and died for to make sure you have those rights?????????

I despise the Patriot act

I despise anyone who would infringe on the born rights of any American, and i despise anyone who would destroy the rule of law in my country..the U.S.of A.!

...you have a problem with that..tough!

I have watched you spamming DU for 3 days attacking Russ for doing his fucking job..of oversight..you have a problem with people in congress doing their job? tough shit!!


Don't think you can piss on my rights and tell me it is raining!

[bvar22]

43. It is fun watching conservatives self-destruct.

:popcorn:

[gulfcoastliberal]

39. Liar. nt

[BostonMa]

44. LIAR

[midnight]

50. Here is what he wrote to Bush. And Feingold always makes a difference!

Sen. Feingold has long been an opponent of our nation’s use of torture against detainees, writing the following in a letter to former President George Bush on October 15, 2007:

“…I have vigorously opposed the program, and continue to do so. The program is of highly questionable legality, it is inconsistent with our values as a nation, and it does not make our nation any safer. In fact, I believe that it may have the effect of exposing Americans - including military and other U.S. personnel - to greater risk.”
Sen. Feingold’s letter from 2007 underscores what should be every American’s fear about our nation’s use of torture against detainees: the grim possibility our military forces - or worse yet, our civilians - may become the victims of torture by enemies who will justify their actions by pointing to our nation’s actions towards our detainees. Our nation shouldn’t sink to the level of nations that utilize torture, nations like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, and Myanmar, because we’re better than that.

[girl gone mad]

51. When you don't know what you're talking about..

maybe it's best to STFU.

ETA: Krugman wrote a new Times article today, why aren't you on those threads tearing him down? Over that obsession?

[Zhade]

65. Maybe you should shut the fuck up before you make a fool of yourself again.

NT!

[Forkboy]

76. That horse left the barn a loooong time ago.

:)

[billyoc]

72. Remember when you stopped lying about that?

Oh, wait, you didn't.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Good. This is essentially what the President wants Congress to do.

Step up and take some responsibility.

I love Russ!

From the President's speech last week:

"...Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective..."

[MasonJar]

11. Awesome and dead center!!!!!!!!!!! You go, Senator Feingold.

[RufusTFirefly]

12. Come on down, Russ! There's a spot near the muffler, I think

We've been saving a place for you under the HopeMobile. We knew you'd be joining us eventually.

[EFerrari]

14. LOL

:)

[QC]

22. It's where all the best people hang out. n/t

[flyarm]

24. absolutely..and remember..the back of the bus is where you want to be in the winter..

the tailpipes keep it warm..and the front of the bus in the summer months..

and please..bring deodorant for summer..i love the people here..but the smells..well you get the drift!!


and if you don't ..you will!!

enjoy the holiday..some of us under the bus will be coming out today to honor those who sacrificed for all of us ..with fireworks and a barby!!

beer for everyone ...

fly

[QC]

27. You ain't nobody til you've been under the Hopemobile!

It's instant street cred!

[flyarm]

29. come on downnnnnn..the weather is great and the company better!! eom

[leftstreet]

47. LOL

[chatnoir]

49. lol!

Russ Feingold, come on downnnnn. The more, the merrier -- you'll be in excellent company.
:party:

[Individualist]

15. K&R

[Skidmore]

18. Well, Russ, just get your little self busy and bring some legislation to

the floor to take back some of Congress's powers. That is what the stage has been set for.

[bvar22]

20. It is sad.

Only ONE REAL "Democrat" left in the Senate.
Russ Feingold is one of the few reasons I am still a "Democrat".



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[flyarm]

28. Wellstone and Feingold ..two of our best..and two with guts and love of the rule of law! eom

[flyarm]

26. Great Thread here..don't miss it..45th President by davidswanson

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5714120

The 45th President
by davidswanson

The United States has had 44 presidents and nobody knows who the 45th will be. For the sake of argument let’s imagine for a minute something that is a very definite possibility. Let's imagine that the 45th president will belong to a political party you detest, will espouse the opposite position from yours on matters dear to your heart, and will strike you as completely unlikeable, untrustworthy, irresponsible, and dangerous. Let's imagine that #45 will want to do everything you oppose and will speak in the most odious and arrogant way about doing so. You won't like the substance or the rhetoric. Number 45, of course, will not fit that description for every one of us, but someone between number 45 and number 50 (assuming we make it that far) will almost certainly fit that description for you, and it's as likely to be #45 as any other number.

Now, let's stop to consider what powers #45 will inherit from the previous 44 men, what powers have been used by at least one previous president in recent years without being blocked by Congress or the courts or a subsequent president: the powers to rewrite laws with signing statements, to create laws by simple decree, to draft and act on secret laws specifically written to retroactively and proactively legalize crimes, to produce phony media stories and otherwise engage in domestic propaganda campaigns, to reduce congressional oversight to one-way communications from the White House at the pleasure of the president, to launch and prolong and escalate wars, to lie the congress and the public into supporting wars, to misspend funds appropriated for other things, to rewrite tax laws, to hand out trillions of dollars without oversight, to use illegal weapons and commit countless war crimes with impunity, to spy without warrants, to detain indefinitely without charge, to torture, to murder, to run the government as an election campaign using public funds to support candidates including the president, to selectively leak classified information and to baselessly classify information, to keep anything secret, to try people in kangaroo court military commissions, to create foreign treaties and appoint high officials without consulting the congress, to read your mail and Email and listen in on your phone calls, to rig elections, and to throw out any court case on the basis of an unverifiable claim.

I'm asking you to imagine giving these powers to the worst person who could hold them, a person who would abuse them drastically and whose abuse would be in no way disguised or hidden. Maybe when George W. Bush said that the United States does not torture, while torturing, that satisfied you. Maybe when Barack Obama said the United States would no longer torture (but supposedly never really had) although he would still claim the power to do so that satisfied you. But the primary offense is not the torturing. It is the establishing of the power to torture and passing of that power on to all future presidents. When George W. Bush used signing statements to rewrite laws and give himself powers of torture, spying, secrecy, and spending, maybe you thought that was good because he was a Republican. Or maybe you think it's acceptable for Barack Obama to have just erased congressional oversight of his Wall Street "bailout" because he's a Democrat. In either case, the overwhelmingly most serious and dangerous offense is the creation of the power to legislate in the hands of all future presidents including the worst president ever: #45.

So, while we should try to judge the current president by his actions rather than his brand, and the current congress the same way, we should also be clear on what the most significant actions are: they are the actions that eliminate or more firmly establish unconstitutional powers in the hands of future "executives," whether or not those powers are immediately abused. When a Republican president declares the power to detain people indefinitely without charge and then a Democratic president does the same, if the result is that all Americans who've given their loyalty to one of those parties now approve of giving that power to all future presidents, we can kiss representative democracy goodbye. If, on the other hand, we all agree to oppose giving that power to any single person ever, we might manage to keep the republic.

So, what to do? The first step toward restoring the rule of law before #45 appears is prosecuting the crimes of #43. The second step is reforming the conduct of #44. The third step is moving powers away from #44 and all future presidents and to the Congress (combined with reforming congressional elections). And these steps can all take place at once and should all begin immediately. The detailed guide to making them happen can be found at http://prosecutebushcheney.org

[mod mom]

30. Feingold is definitely one of the best Senators we have!

[pacalo]

40. Anyone else notice the clever, subliminal insertion of the word "regime" in paragraph 6?

The word which describes the last 8 years is in the second sentence:

My primary concern, however, relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention
without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. If it were subliminal, you could not see it

The word regime is the exact same word that the President used to describe his new 'legal' system. When Russ uses that word, he is reflecting the vocabulary of the President, not being 'clever' and certainly not 'subliminal'.

[pacalo]

82. I hadn't heard that. Would you give me a link in which Obama uses the word "regime"

for his new (???) legal system? I like to judge for myself.

[Senator]

42. We Should Call This What It Really Is -- Paranoid Detention

The other labels concede the lie that this is "about them" (and their "threat"), rather than the truth that it is about us (and our fear).

Obama has adopted the core bushcheney/beltway paranoia -- about how to treat "evildoers" on both sides of the permanent "war on terra."

---

[Thickasabrick]

45. I love this man. I wish he lived in my state so I could vote for him.

I hope he never lets up. Awesome letter.

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. Goddamn it, THIS is who we need leading the United States Senate

not that worthless coward Harry Reid. I salute you, Senator Russ Feingold! :patriot:

[defendandprotect]

52. Bushco could have done this -- !!!

[pjt7]

53. Feingold should replace Harry Reid

This Country needs character over criminal compliancy.

[tan guera]

61. Feingold should replace Obama

[Motown_Johnny]

54. Wasn't "Japanese Internment" "Indefinite Detention" ?

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Yes it was, indefinite detention of people that were clealry civilians

Obama says that these people are prisoners of war, not civilians. He may be wrong, but if he is right then it can be justified.

[Motown_Johnny]

58. Then the POWs will be afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention

or is there some way to say they are POWs but not protected by it?

[Hippo_Tron]

59. No they are, I suspect any tribunals will be in line with the Geneva Conventions

The SCOTUS struck down Bush's because they were not.

[ooglymoogly]

57. Common sense, common sense, common sense.

Behold common sense!....we have missed you for so long now. Who would have thought it so illusive and so ephemeral. kr

[trthnd4jstc]

60. In Regards to the title of this thread: Good! n/t

[magellan]

63. K&R n/t

[Zhade]

64. Feingold's right.

Good for him. I support him in this.

[chill_wind]

70. Well stated letter. K & R for Russ and his dutiful care

and mindfulness of the separation of powers and his mutual desire with ours to see the long over-due end of the Unitary Executive.

Thank you Senator Feingold and may a few more eventually find your same moral courage.

[sui generis]

74. Yeah, I'd vote for Feingold long before I'd vote for Obama again.

But I said that before the election too, pity the man didn't run.

Real leadership requires real leaders, and Russ Feingold has the right stuff on every issue. He does not waffle and backtrack and I have never heard the man say "uh,. . . .".

I guess the Obama militants here just wouldn't recognize political leadership if it smacked them upside their sour little heads.

[Snazzy]

75. GCIII: Common Article III

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part I : General provisions


In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590006?OpenDocument

---------

"regularly constituted court" means something and is this law of the land (and there are plenty of others). Creating a special set of rules is illegal. We have military courts, we have civilian courts, those are legal. It's that simple, there is no need to wait and reserve judgement till some brilliant plan emerges. Anything but our own regular courts (or some other country's or the the international courts) is illegal by common article iii. The Obama admin must address the torture or Cheney wins and we do all these crazy contortions to have a Democratic president acting out his unitary executive bullshit.

[amyrose2712]

77. K! nt

[L. Coyote]

79. Are we finally going to discuss Indian Reservations. About time.

Their indefinite detention has gone on long enough now!

[L. Coyote]

80. Are we finally going to discuss Indian Reservations. About time.

Their indefinite detention has gone on long enough now!

[grahamhgreen]

84. Except they're allowed to leave...