« CIA Allows Thousands of Secrets in On-Line Database | Main | Update on Baby Charlotte »

Feingold Wants Bush Censured


Russ Feingold says President Bush should be censured by the Senate:

March 12, 2006-- In an exclusive interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold called on the Senate to publicly admonish President Bush for approving domestic wiretaps on American citizens without first seeking a legally required court order.

"This conduct is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors," said Feingold, D-Wis., a three-term senator and potential presidential contender.

He said President Bush had, "openly and almost thumbing his nose at the American people," continued the NSA domestic wiretap program.

President Bush has long asserted that the so-called 'warrantless wiretaps' are an essential tool in the war on terror.

Senator Feingold must have forgotten that the American people overwhelmingly support this program, which is why the story has disappeared from the headlines and the Dems stopped bringing it up...until today.

It's obviously an election cycle.

The Washington Times discusses Feingold's censure idea in its editorial today.

The White House responds as well.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feingold Wants Bush Censured:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Feingold Proposes Bush Censure Over Spying

» Donkey Stomp linked with Feingold Seeks to Censure President Bush

Comments (16)

Looks like Russ beat Hillar... (Below threshold)

Looks like Russ beat Hillary to this one! 2006/8 is going to be very interesting.

I thought we stopped talkin... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

I thought we stopped talking about it because Cheney shot someone in the face?

Doesn't the 1st amendment p... (Below threshold)

Doesn't the 1st amendment prohibit censurship?

I want Russ Feingold censur... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

I want Russ Feingold censured for being an asshat.

Apparently Russ Feingold is... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Apparently Russ Feingold is unaware that domestic warrantless wiretaps continue to be used in criminal investigations. If you call some pawn shop, for example, and that pawn shop is being wiretapped under a warrant, your side of the conversation is recorded and can be used as evidence even though there's no warrant to wiretap you. The same is true if that pawn shop phones you. There's no outcry because everyone understands that the pawn shop's phone has been legally wiretapped and that covers people who call the shop or who are called by the shop, domestic or foreign.

Lets say the pawn shop is a cover for terrorists and it's located overseas somewhere. There's no dispute that various government agencies can legally wiretap the shop's phone. It seems to me that the legal authority to wiretap the overseas shop covers all who call the shop or who are called by the shop just as a warrant does within the U.S. Every privacy argument that has been brought up in regard to NSA wiretaps exists with domestic wire taps done under warrants. The average law-abiding citizen is far more likely to have their conversations recorded while calling within the U.S. than overseas, simply because there are far more domestic wiretaps, all done with warrants issued against someone else.

Did it take some effort to ... (Below threshold)

Did it take some effort to find a poll that doesn't ask about court orders? You had to go back three months.

Here's a recent one

By a 76 - 19 percent margin, American voters say the government should continue monitoring phone calls or e-mail between suspected terrorists in other countries and people in the U.S., according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. But voters say 55 - 42 percent that the government should get court orders for this surveillance.

The majority of Americans support such wiretaps, but they also support getting court orders, which this administration does not do. That is what is at issue.

Watch out for them thar' po... (Below threshold)

Watch out for them thar' polls, Kim; you might end up sittin' on one! As for Feingold: he ain't your average politico. Have you seen him on the talking-heads shows? No eye-shifting or nervous tics, no brain-scratching necessary. Answers every question directly, agree or not. Put him in the White House (with a Republican congress, ideally). He could be the next Grover Cleveland (hint: which is VERY good and seems prescient!) And censuring Bush for violating the constitution he freely swore to uphold: is that too much to ask?

And censuring Bush... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And censuring Bush for violating the constitution he freely swore to uphold: is that too much to ask?

What's asking too much is to cut the judicial branch out of the issue and just assume the president is guilty. Every court case that has touched on this issue supports the President's positions. 1) That congressional authorization to use force also authorizes intelligence gathering. 2) That the President has authority for intelligence gathering under Article II of the Constitution. That authority is independent of congress and not subject to congressional limitation other than by a constitutional amendment.

Mac Lorry, you said: "What'... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry, you said: "What's asking too much is to cut the judicial branch out of the issue and just assume the president is guilty."...Yes, if you want to put it that way, it's up to the government(the prez) to "toe the line" drawn by the constitution so as we the people can be CONFIDENT that our rights are not infringed upon. That's what the constitution is designed for: to protect the INDIVIDUAL's rights, not the government's (d'uh). If he wishes the supreme court to hear his case he can do it. Why not, W? If Leviathon wishes to make the case for extraordinary circumstances, again for the benefit of the PEOPLE, such as FISA, then Leviathon is LEGALLY BOUND to tow THAT line. Of course we know now he didn't and probably never intended to, paving the way for a more competent closet-tyrant on down the road to put EVERYBODY'S ass in a sling. AND with legal precedent if we get a Supreme Court weak enough to be cajoled, which is not unlikely! Thus an ironclad adherence to the founding document is crucial to remain a free nation. HOWEVER you wish to frame the debate the fact is: the U.S.Constitution is a CONTRACT! No "gotcha" clauses allowed!

[email protected] bryanD... (Below threshold)


@ bryanD

Your comment is almost completely incoherent and rarely follows any aspect of reality.

I'm going to be generous and assume you've been drinking.

Your right ed! that makes ... (Below threshold)

Your right ed! that makes no sense at all unless you, ve got a `12 pack in you.. I dont even know what in the begeebers he,s trying to say ?? yes im speaking to you bryanD

bryanD,I can't tel... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


I can't tell what you are ranting about other than probably more mindless anti-Bush thinking mixed with a liberal amount of booze. And who's Leviathon (check your spelling)? Are you trying to refer to Bush as being a Leviathan? If so, that pretty much blows away your last pretense of being intellectually honest. There are lots of blogs where you can post your poison without being called out to justify what you say with facts, but WizBang is not one of them.

Is it me, or is Feingold mi... (Below threshold)

Is it me, or is Feingold missing the part of - innocent until proven guilty - or since when is DOMESTIC wire tapping considered tapping of 'foreign' terrorist calls from overseas ( I always thought domestic meant calls from US citizens to US citizens on US soil?) Isn't (Feingold) trashing the same constitution he's blaming Bush for trashing?

Actually, ed, Mac Lorry, vi... (Below threshold)

Actually, ed, Mac Lorry, virgo,
I am impressed with bryand today. He didn't try to pin it on the jooooos, so that is a step towards reality. We should applaud his progress.

SCSIwuzzy,You are ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


You are being too kind to bryanD'uh.

Let me ask all the conservs... (Below threshold)

Let me ask all the conservs, do you believe in the constitution at all, or do you play lip service to it?

I don't think that Feingold is on the side of terrorists, and I think the whole point to his stance is that the Gov, who represents the people, should in the least follow the laws of the land. Feingold has stated on numerous occasions that if FISA was not meeting the requirnments, then he would be happy to make changes. As it stands right now Bush broke the law. Why can the President break the law and get away with it?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy