Opinion
Feingold censure effort warrants praise
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Robert S. Hunger:
- Sen. McCarthy not just another peace freak hallucination (December 14, 2005)
- For love, money or Seoul fulfillment (August 8, 2006)
- Politicans need not grovel to public (September 15, 2005)
- Robertson goes off deep end again (January 15, 2006)
- Veto override a shortsighted victory (September 29, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., executed an exceptionally bold political move last week when he called for Congress to censure President Bush over the warrantless domestic spying program the White House has engaged in for more than four years.
A presidential censure amounts to a public condemnation of the commander in chief. It is a way for Congress to display its distaste for acts of dubious legality. There are no legal ramifications, although it certainly creates a fair amount of presidential embarrassment.
The spying program President Bush has been authorizing since 2002 amounts to one of the most blatant and horrific constitutional violations since the Federalists attempted to silence opposition via the Sedition Act in 1798.
Congress gave President Bush an unprecedented level of power, control and secrecy after Sept. 11, 2001 in order to protect the country. But apparently the Patriot Act did not go far enough for this administration's taste, as Mr. Bush has deemed the courts an unnecessary roadblock to security.
The notion that there need not be any check of governmental power opens the door for the state to spy on virtually anyone it wants, even those who truly pose no threat to the government. After it was revealed that the intelligence community spied on civil rights groups and war protestors in the 1960s and '70s, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, which specifically required search warrants for wiretaps in national security cases, according to The New York Times.
The funny thing in this whole situation is that there would be little controversy if Mr. Bush simply went through the courts and obtained a warrant. Mr. Bush has the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at his disposal, which grants virtually all the requests for a warrant in a matter of hours. It is difficult to fathom how going through this process could possibly interfere with keeping America safe.
Many Republican senators joined their Democratic counterparts in condemning the spying program and promised an exhaustive investigation after the nation realized the extent that our government violated our civil liberties.
And yet somehow these promises never reached fruition.
The first hint that Republicans were losing their chutzpah and succumbing to party leaders came when Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., decided Attorney General Alberto Gonzales need not testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, despite Mr. Gonzales' pledge to do so. Republicans certainly didn't want another Oliver North on their hands, so when Mr. Gonzales visited the committee he was under no legal obligation to speak the truth.
Shortly thereafter the Senate Intelligence Committee decided against looking into the constitutionality of domestic spying, claiming any investigation would only serve to damage the program. And later in February the White House rejected a proposal for a special counsel to investigate the program.
Apparently dissatisfied with merely suppressing an investigation, the White House has taken a play from Dick Nixon's playbook and promised to come down hard on anyone caught leaking classified material. That's right — the administration that is under investigation for leaking a CIA officer's name to a reporter as a form of political retribution is now fanatically purging federal employees suspected of talking to the press.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., echoed the administration's attempt to quell dissent when he appeared on ABC's "This Week" shortly after Mr. Feingold announced his censure proposal.
"The signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief, who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that we know is making our homeland safer, is wrong," he said.
Mr. Frist trivialized the notion of free speech in a democracy when he suggested to "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos that any criticism of a president during wartime only serves to motivate the enemy and weaken support for the War on Terror. The right to criticize one's government is among the freedoms that makes America such a wonderful country. A nation inevitably moves away from democratic ideals when it only permits speech praising the government. And yet unfortunately Mr. Frist apparently wants to turn back the clock 200 years or so and suppress any minority views.
However, it turns out those advocating censure are not merely the fringe faction of the Democratic Party. In fact, Mr. Feingold's proposal is quite popular. According to a poll conducted by the American Research Group earlier this month, 46 percent of Americans want to see President Bush censured for the spying program while 44 percent do not.
The nation today is faced with a public that wants to censure the president but a government increasingly adverse to any form of public investigation.
In proposing the censure, Sen. Feingold is not attempting to undermine presidential authority or kick Mr. Bush out of office by proposing impeachment. He is merely attempting to hold the administration accountable for a gross abuse of governmental power.
Rob Hunger (rshunger@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
"There are no legal ramifications, although it certainly creates a fair amount of presidential embarrassment."
Well if it will embarrass Bush that's all reason needed. As a bonus, maybe it will convince the terrorists in Iraq that all is not lost if they can just hold out long enough for the MSM to turn the tide!
Give 'em hell, Russ!
I love it..."According to a poll..." Gee, where have I heard THAT before? Can't Democrats do ANYTHING without a poll? A feeble call to censure the President which was QUICKLY abandoned by his own party. It amazes me how quickly we have forgotten what mass American Death looks like.
Unlike Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat seeking to censure President Bush for ordering the interception of communications in and out of the United States involving persons with suspected links to al-Qaeda, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt had no qualms about warrantless eavesdropping to protect the United States against attack.
Neither did Harry Truman.
There is a difference, however, between the eavesdropping Roosevelt and Truman authorized and the eavesdropping Bush is doing. Roosevelt and Truman did it in peacetime without congressional authorization. Bush is doing it during a war that Feingold voted on Sept. 14, 2001, to authorize.
Does Bush have the same "constitutional prerogatives" in an authorized war that Carter had in peace? Feingold claims not, demanding censure of the president -- which ought to earn Feingold the censure of enlightened opinion.
Roosevelt did it before FISA. So did Truman- and the Supreme Court called him on it.
Justice Robert Jackson, wrote in the decision that presidential power was at its high point in the "theater of war," and at its "lowest ebb" on American soil when the president acted without constitutional or congressional support.
Bush doesn't have constitutional support for this program- read the 4th Amendment. He certainly doesn't have congressional support, either.
Bush broke the law. Plain and simple. What's your argument- that Bush can break it because previous presidents have broken it, too? Use some common sense.
Are you claiming Congress gave him authority to do it when they gave the President the go-ahead to go into Afghanistan? Maybe you'd like to talk to your congressman, but Russ Feingold certainly never thought that that was what he was voting for. Furthurmore, the Attorney General pointed to a whereas clause in the resolution that was passed as justification for the program. Which would be cool...if whereas clauses carry any legal weight. Which they don't.
There's really no way around this. He broke the law, and he should be held accountable. It's not this political game of 'gotcha' where you fight for your side arbitrarily.
"... warrantless domestic spying program the White House has engaged in for more than four years ..."
warrantless, sheese ... This column reminds me of the Allyson Morisette (or whatever her name is...) about irony. The only example of warrantlessness, is your claim that spying against those in this country communicating with those outside it who are known to be conspiring to destroy the Great Satan, (the USA, that is) is not necessary.
ahhh, to be an unaccountable, clueless, college student again ...
Bold political move??? This man is a coward-where was he to debate his billiant censure idea when Sen. Frist called for the vote? Feingold made a bee-line for the exit as soon as he finished speaking. I guess he favors the "cut-and-run" approach.
Apparently, noone in Madison has had the privelege of hearing Russ Feingold apologize and say, "It's just politics" like I have. Russ Feingold is a weeney who actually crafted a law that restricts my first ammendment rights and never misses an opportunity to pander to the idiot masses huddled in the island to itself Madison. Where McCain/Feingold is seen by him as The first step to getting public funded campaigns.
But you only really get to know Russ Feingold when the reporters and cameras are not around. He looks a lot less like a champion of ideas and a lot more like the candidate.
Another anonymous traitor: "As a bonus, maybe it will convince the terrorists in Iraq that all is not lost if they can just hold out long enough for the MSM to turn the tide!"
Obviously, you side with the terrorist and against your President and Country. You have to be a student as anyone out in the world knows better than to pull for our enemy. Enjoy your freedom you radical you.