OPINION & EDITORIAL
How dare Feingold propose censure
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
- Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? (November 15, 2007)
- It's the media, stupid: Political coverage misleads (November 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Feingold censure effort warrants praise (March 22, 2006)
- Feingold political rarity in today's world (November 1, 2007)
- Russ Feingold in 2008? (September 1, 2005)
- Feingold right to forgo '08 candidacy (November 14, 2006)
- Veto bill could limit spending (April 26, 2007)
by Bassey Etim
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Last week's push by Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to censure President Bush for wiretapping American citizens without court approval is an insult to America.
While censuring is essentially a strongly worded letter from Congress to the president, Mr. Feingold's resolution is a cheap political stunt which undermines the commander in chief during wartime. It is a shame that our own senator fails to understand one of the basic tenets of American life: holding the president accountable to the law is tantamount to inviting the terrorist hoards to take the lives of countless innocent Americans.
What Mr. Feingold is missing is that this is a post-Sept. 11 world. What place do the humble traditions of yesteryear ("laws") have on a planet where the twin towers could get knocked down? While it seems as if President Bush's domestic wiretapping program does not fall under the Constitution's draconian definition of “legal,” a government's primary responsibility is to defend its citizens.
Let's not be too hard on Mr. Feingold, though. These are challenging times in our nation's history and for some human beings the natural reaction is to curl up into a little ball and give our freedoms away to the terrorists. It's not that he doesn't love America as much as the rest of us, but he doesn't know how to love America.
The fact is that occasional domestic wiretapping is necessary for our country's security. If you asked Mr. Feingold about it, he would claim to agree with this stance. Don't be fooled by his politician slick-talk. He only wants wiretaps performed on American citizens if it is authorized by the FISA courts. If you're not familiar, that involves paperwork, filling out forms and basically explaining to some old man and the back of a filing cabinet why you have just cause.
Sure, President Bush could have asked Congress for any necessary changes in the FISA law and gotten them when the program was enacted. Sure, court approval can be received after the fact in an emergency.
But while Mr. Feingold suggests government employees who spend their lives finding the next batch of hijackers should be filling out paperwork about the Hussein family's botched peach cobbler, the terrorists are laughing at us. That's right, terrorist groups throughout the Middle East regularly meet to discuss technicalities in constitutional law and are encouraged by our unwillingness to support our noble leader and, more importantly, our troops. In fact, I have intelligence suggesting the following conversation may have occurred in the region north-southwest of Tikrit.
"Did you catch a draft of the resolution to censure by maverick Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold?"
"Oh, yes, my main man. I was feeling a bit down on my luck of late, but feel totally emboldened now."
"Indeed, my good man. In honor of Sen. Feingold, I will put in double hours this week on my new roadside bomb."
It's not just the irreparable harm Mr. Feingold's resolution has done to the security of our nation I am worried about. He has also dealt a death blow to the hopes of his party ever pretending it stands for something.
Come on, Russ! These cheap political games are usually reserved for the Republican Party. Why make a public stand on a potentially explosive issue when Democrats can just wait for all the smoke to clear and just say the opposite of whatever President Bush is doing? Even asking this question of whether we should censure President Bush for doing illegal things is so damaging to the party, I feel like a traitor for even mentioning it in my critically acclaimed column. (www.myspace.com/basseye gives it three out of four kudos.)
To conclude, I'm with Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin on this one, who told Fox News Sunday that he had yet to hear a valid legal justification for the wiretapping program. But that is no reason to do something as extreme as sending our executive a strongly worded letter.
Bassey Etim (etim@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 12:44am):
Haha, this was wonderful...
Keep it up Bassey!
Dan B-P (March 21, 2006 @ 12:57am):
Next thing you know, Feingold will be insisting that Congress - not the President - has the power to create these "laws" he speaks of.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 1:30am):
Kohl the Koward,
hardly a senior senator.
Forward!
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 1:38am):
Are you actually serious? To think that the President's spotless record could be besmirched by something as innocous as wiretapping blantantly in violation of FISA! Such censure, nay, impeachment, should be saved solely for extramarital affairs.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 3:41am):
How about the fact that the FISA Court of Review approved the surveillance?
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 4:24am):
Damn.
*applauds*
Mike Westling (March 21, 2006 @ 6:26am):
Nothing proves a point better than some well-placed sarcasm. Well done, Bassey. One thing sure didn't change after 9/11: the fact that the law still matters.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 7:41am):
he he
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 8:39am):
Yeah, send him a letter...oooh I'm scared. We see what good has become of sending them in the past...LOL!
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 8:42am):
Bassey I just don't think that this is a political stunt. Regardless of this being a post 9-11 society the president cannot throw the constitution out in order to make us "safer". Nobody on capital hill is willing to stick their neck out and say hey we have laws in place for this kind of action and we should follow them. If the prez says that's not good enough that's what congress is for. But the executive branch cannot just follow laws when it pleases them just like everyone else. I also don't think that we should break our laws because our "enemy" is laughing at us.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 9:18am):
If you want to dilute yourself thinking this is anything more than a political stunt go ahead. At the very least, the Bush administration can make and has made a valid argument that they have the authority to engage in the wiretapping of phone calls involving PEOPLE IN AMERICA TALKING TO SUSPECTED TERRORISTS OUTSIDE THE US!
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 9:45am):
Nice joke...right? Damn I hope so.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 9:58am):
Bassey, you'd probably send the Dixie Chicks to Gitmo for what one of 'em said about Bush a few years back! Do you realize how many folks agree that Bush should be impeached? They're not going to be happy about this.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 11:21am):
It's refreshing to hear someone with some common sense, as opposed to the liberal, traitorous anti-Bush propaganda. Democrats are using Bush's unpopularity to further their own careers. Everyone wants to be on the anti Bush bandwagon. But nobody takes time to think about the tough decisions that Bush has to make in the face of real terrorists threats.
God forbid, but if Feingold is ever on a plane that gets hijacked, which could have been prevented by some technically illegal wire tapping, I hope he has peace of mind knowing his civil liberties were kept in tact.
I don't know about you, but I would rather have Big Brother looking over my shoulder than having to worry about some towel head blowing up my office.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 11:23am):
Okay Stephen Colbert...
Jered McGivern (March 21, 2006 @ 12:16pm):
The reason we are in this big mess in Iraq is because we've listened to every single word that President Bush has uttered. He has been front and center of a campaign of fear and terror, which has allowed him to do what he pleases as president, and I believe Sen. Russ Feingold believes that at times President Bush has violated our rights as free people of America. If you cannot be free to state your opinion, or criticize your government, then the terrorists have already won. When you wrote;
"Holding the president accountable to the law is tantamount to inviting the terrorist hoards to take the lives of countless innocent Americans."
This statement reiterates my point. You're using fear to put the president on a pedestal to do as he pleases. He is not a King, and he is not a dictator, no matter how much he tries to act like one. America has a set of checks and balances to ensure that one person doesn't have the power to strip those rights away from us, and over step his/her boundaries.
I think it would do you good to watch the movie "Good Night and Good Luck." Here a junior senator from Wisconsin (McCarthy) was censured during the Red Scare, because of his actions. He claimed he was just trying to protect the people of the United States from the evil communists; however, he was treading on the rights of the American people.
Even if the President did this lawfully, Sen. Russ Feingold brings up a good point. What are the exact 'powers' of the president? At what point does he have to take responsibility for overstepping, or going into the grey areas of the law? Even in times of war (although, I thought President Bush declared the end of the war over a year ago) we have to defend the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. That's what makes America great and we can't lose track of that ideal, no matter the situation.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 12:18pm):
How dare Russ Feingold, you say? How dare Russ Feingold for not proposing to impeach this president, I say. Impeachment is not firing the president, it's having a trial to determine whether the president broke the law or not. As for precedence, Bill Clinton's impeachment set the bar mighty low.
I hope you're not serious about your views. Perhaps you're using a Colbert-type satire that allows us to see the wrong through your exaggerated approval of Bush administration. In that case, Papa Bear would be proud of you.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 12:54pm):
Bassey, do you realize that many Republicans have abandoned Bush? It's not just liberals who despise him anymore!
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 1:07pm):
what people need to realise is that in a post 9/11 world civil liberties are just not practical and we need to allow the president to take every right we have away in order to stop terrorism.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 1:31pm):
Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 1:34pm):
If you don't like the way our president runs this country, then you could move to a more free society. How about Saudi Arabia. Oh, wait. Oh, how about the freedom loving land of Iran. No, that's not good either. How about North Korea or China. Damn, it's hard to think of a non Western country with the freedom equal to ours. Sure, you can point to some place in Western Europe and say that they have great civil liberties, but they aren't as big a target for terrorists.
The government needs the power to protect us. I don't like the illegal wire tapping. It should be made legal, with judicial review, but it should be allowed. Our founding fathers had a wonderful idea when they wrote the Constitution. But if they had known about the threats we face today, would they have made changes?
It's really easy to talk about ideals and freedoms and civil liberties when nobody is out to get us. But when there is a threat, we have to make sacrifices. We shouldn't ignore a valuable tool in fighting terror just because it clashes with our vision of utopia. Why isn't anyone complaining about luggage search at the airports? Aren't those a violation of our rights too? We allow that because it's a practical, necessary thing.
It's a hard line to draw. How many freedoms do we give up for security? I don't know. But steadfastly clutching the constitution while allowing terrorists to operate freely is not the right idea. For now, we need security more than freedom. Hopefully the problem of global terror will be solved soon and we can demand more freedoms. But it's foolish to ask the fireman to present his warrant while your house is burning down.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 1:43pm):
Did you actually just say towel head? SHAME
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 3:56pm):
"Did you actually just say towel head? SHAME"
My girlfriend comes out of the shower with a towel on HER head all the time. When she gets PMS she threatens to do the same things terrorists do.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 4:03pm):
"We shouldn't ignore a valuable tool in fighting terror just because it clashes with our vision of utopia. Why isn't anyone complaining about luggage search at the airports? Aren't those a violation of our rights too? We allow that because it's a practical, necessary thing. "
Defining the line between security and civil rights is an important discussion. Man, am I glad we did that 30 YEARS AGO! We've already HAD this debate, and the result was FISA.
If George W. Bush or Alberto Gonzales want to argue that the system needs revamping, that's a different question altogether, and even Russ Feingold would agree that it should be discussed. But where George Bush is wrong, and Feingold is right, is that Bush illegally set up the program anyway. He didn't tell anybody. He just did it by fiat. And that's illegal.
A friend of mine was upset about activist judges making new laws. I'm worried about this activist executive ignoring them.
Bassey, this is probably the best column I've read in the Herald all year, with the possible exception of "US Should Endorse Monotheism", though that was for the wrong reasons. If you keep this up, you could overtake Rob Deters on my all-time list.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 4:18pm):
To everyone who's freaking out, it's satire. Read Swift's "A Modest Proposal". To everyone who's defending the wiretapping-for shame. What the hell do we have FISA for if not for this kind of wiretapping? Bush is promoting a system of absolute executive unaccountability under the guise of "national defense." It's reprehensible.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 4:24pm):
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who understand satire, and those who don't.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 4:36pm):
We have just got to rachet back these security measures. There hasn't been a attack on US soil since 9-11 and it's getting so old to blame Bush for that one. We need a fresh new one to blame on Bush and apparently these nasty old "security measures" are keeping it from happening, or something.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 10:48pm):
It's Time to Censure Former President Jimmy Carter
Since leaving office, President Jimmy Carter has repeatedly sought to undermine U.S. foreign policy, criticized the missions of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, as well as embracing known terrorists and terrorist organizations. Most recently, President Carter pressured the international community to provide funding for the terrorist organization Hamas.
This website contains extensive documentation of the offenses described above that you can read for yourself here.
http://www.censurecarter.com/
Jered McGivern (March 22, 2006 @ 3:53pm):
Unfortunately I had not read all of Bassey's material before I posted on this site. I pick up on satire much better on t.v. then in print, unless it's in the Onion.
