|
Banned
|
Elphaba, I don't disagree with any of your arguments.
Ever since he proposed the "censure Bush" resolution in the senate, and I found out that he was the ONLY senator to <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313#position">vote against</a> Patriot Act I, and refuses campaign contributions from defense industry sources, I have hoped that this senator would run for president in 2008.
He claimed, last year, that the circumstances of his personal life....his divorce in 2005, would be scrutinized if he ran, and that would not be fair to privacy considerations of his ex-wife and himself.
For the good of the country, I think it is not too late to insist, in huge numbers, that he reconsider, ASAP, and run for the democratic party nomination for president:
Quote:
http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_defense_spend.html
....The fight against terrorism and the conflict in Iraq should not be used, however, as an excuse to drastically increase spending, particularly without efforts to cut the wasteful spending that already exists in the defense budget. There are astronomical economic costs associated with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Despite my serious doubts about the wisdom of the Administration's Iraq policy, I firmly believe that the country must budget realistically for the conflict and for the reconstruction that it has committed to.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold.../20071214d.htm
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Opposition to the Defense Authorization Conference Report
December 14, 2007
“I oppose the FY 2008 defense authorization conference report because it does nothing to end the President’s misguided, open-ended Iraq policy, which has over-burdened our military, weakened our national security, diminished our international credibility, and cost the lives of thousands of brave American soldiers.
“There are certain provisions of the report that I support strongly, including a pay raise for military personnel. I am pleased that the conference report contains a number of provisions I supported, including Sen. Webb’s amendment creating a Commission on Wartime Contracting to examine waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the misuse of force by private security contractors, and Sen. Lautenberg’s amendment to create a Special Investigator General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
“But on balance, I can not vote to support a conference report that defies the will of so many Wisconsinites -- and so many Americans -- by allowing the President to continue one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation.”
|
98 other senators saw nothing extraordinary enough about the administration proffering a complete "recipe" for a police state, demanding that it be passed immediatley by the legislature, just days after the 9/11 attacks, to vote Nay:
Quote:
http://web.archive.org/web/200206031.../102501at.html
Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On The Anti-Terrorism Bill
From The Senate Floor
October 25, 2001
....Of course, given the enormous anxiety and fears generated by the events of September 11th, it would not have been difficult to anticipate some of these reactions, both by our government and some of our people. Some have said rather cavalierly that in these difficult times we must accept some reduction in our civil liberties in order to be secure.
Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.
But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.
Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.
That is why I found the antiterrorism bill originally proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush to be troubling.
The Administration's proposed bill contained vast new powers for law enforcement, some seemingly drafted in haste and others that came from the FBI's wish list that Congress has rejected in the past. You may remember that the Attorney General announced his intention to introduce a bill shortly after the September 11 attacks. He provided the text of the bill the following Wednesday, and urged Congress to enact it by the end of the week. That was plainly impossible, but the pressure to move on this bill quickly, without deliberation and debate, has been relentless ever since.
It is one thing to shortcut the legislative process in order to get federal financial aid to the cities hit by terrorism. We did that, and no one complained that we moved too quickly. It is quite another to press for the enactment of sweeping new powers for law enforcement that directly affect the civil liberties of the American people without due deliberation by the peoples' elected representatives.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed at least to some extent, and while this bill has been on a fast track, there has been time to make some changes and reach agreement on a bill that is less objectionable than the bill that the Administration originally proposed.
As I will discuss in a moment, I have concluded that this bill still does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties. But that does not mean that I oppose everything in the bill. Indeed many of its provisions are entirely reasonable, and I hope they will help law enforcement more effectively counter the threat of terrorism.
For example, it is entirely appropriate that with a warrant the FBI be able to seize voice mail messages as well as tap a phone. It is also reasonable, even necessary, to update the federal criminal offense relating to possession and use of biological weapons. It made sense to make sure that phone conversations carried over cables would not have more protection from surveillance than conversations carried over phone lines. And it made sense to stiffen penalties and lengthen or eliminate statutes of limitation for certain terrorist crimes.
There are other non-controversial provisions in the bill that I support; those to assist the victims of crime, to streamline the application process for public safety officers benefits and increase those benefits, to provide more funds to strengthen immigration controls at our Northern borders, to expedite the hiring of translators at the FBI, and many others.
In the end, however, my focus on this bill, as Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, was on those provisions that implicate our constitutional freedoms. And it was in reviewing those provisions that I came to feel that the Administration's demand for haste was inappropriate; indeed, it was dangerous. Our process in the Senate, as truncated as it was, did lead to the elimination or significant rewriting of a number of audacious proposals that I and many other members found objectionable.
For example, the original Administration proposal contained a provision that would have allowed the use in U.S. criminal proceedings against U.S. citizens of information obtained by foreign law enforcement agencies in wiretaps that would be illegal in this country. In other words, evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search overseas was to be allowed in a U.S. court.
Another provision would have broadened the criminal forfeiture laws to permit - prior to conviction - the freezing of assets entirely unrelated to an alleged crime. The Justice Department has wanted this authority for years, and Congress has never been willing to give it. For one thing, it touches on the right to counsel, since assets that are frozen cannot be used to pay a lawyer. The courts have almost uniformly rejected efforts to restrain assets before conviction unless they are assets gained in the alleged criminal enterprise. This proposal, in my view, was simply an effort on the part of the Department to take advantage of the emergency situation and get something that they've wanted to get for a long time.
The foreign wiretap and criminal forfeiture provisions were dropped from the bill that we considered in the Senate. Other provisions were rewritten based on objections that I and others raised about them. For example, the original bill contained sweeping permission for the Attorney General to get copies of educational records without a court order. The final bill requires a court order and a certification by the Attorney General that he has reason to believe that the records contain information that is relevant to an investigation of terrorism.
So the bill before us is certainly improved from the bill that the Administration sent to us on September 19, and wanted us to pass on September 21. But again, in my judgement, it does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting constitutional freedoms. Let me take a moment to discuss some of the shortcomings of the bill. ....
|
He voted for John Robert's SCOTUS appointment confirmation, and he voted against Samuel Alito's. He is too centrist for me, ordinarily, but he's the best we've got, and we need him, now!
Last edited by host; 01-03-2008 at 05:35 PM..
|