home

Feingold Criticizes Obama, Urges State Secrets Legislation

Via Glenn Greenwald, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) says:

I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administrationís alleged misconduct. The Obama administrationís action, on top of Congressís mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program [the program is still ongoing]. . . . [T]here is an urgent need for legislation to give better guidance to the courts on how to handle assertions of the state secrets privilege. The American people must be able to have confidence that the privilege is not being used to shield government misconduct. That is why I am working with Senators Leahy, Specter, and others to pass the State Secrets Protection Act as soon as possible.

< Arguing For Newspapers As Quote Agreggators | Bomb In Northern Iraq Kills 5 US Soldiers, Kills and Injures Dozens Of Iraqis >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    I agree with Feingold here. Now the next question is where this go anywhere?

    I suggest we consult (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    this guy

    its the only way to be sure.

    Parent

    I thought (none / 0) (#3)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    "the only way to be sure" is to nuke the planet from orbit.

    Hiya Captain Howdy!

    Parent

    thats plan B (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    According to NPR, the psychic (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    business is flourishing in this poor economy. As people want to know:  Will I lose my job?

    Parent
    If this keeps getting worse (none / 0) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:36:28 AM EST
    nothing will surprise me.

    Ever seen "They Shoot Horses Don't They?"

    Not saying that exact scenario but be prepared for various forms of degradation.

    Parent

    Feingold is as admirable... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    as a congress-critter can get...I often wonder how he ended up in such a dirty business...he must get off on banging his head against a wall or something.

    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by joanneleon on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    Another thing:  I'm hoping that all of this leads to some kind of reform to the PATRIOT Act.  Nancy Pelosi mentioned on one of the shows this week, that it will expire at the end of this year.  I'm not sure whether it's better to just wait for it to expire, or to go after it earlier.  Before this EFF case I would have probably just said letting it expire would be fine, that the Obama admin. wouldn't abuse it.  But now I don't know.

    Olbermann criticizes Obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    Keith has never said anything bad on Obama since his decision to run.  According to Dissenting Justice he broke that rule yesterday.

    Things must be bad for Keith to turn on Obama

    You should actually watch the clip (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    rather than reading the heresay. Greenwald mischaracterizes the Olbermann bit.

    Olbermann looks like he might be bashing Obama, but instead he brings on Fineman to apologize for Obama.  The rationale is that the Obama administration took over the Bush lawsuit, so the only way the goverment can fight the lawsuit is to assume the Bush state secrets rationale. And gee, the intelligence community is makin' him do it!

    It's a roundabout apology for the behavior the likes of which is typically only seen on Faux about Bush.

    The clip is all over the net.  It will be easiest to find at places you might find objectionable like NoQuarter.

    Parent

    Pretty damned unfair (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    I saw the clipS (there were several segments), and I think my bona fides on criticsm of Olbermann are intaqct, and Olbermann did a good job.

    Fineman as usual was FOS, but give credit where due on this, Olbermann covered the issue critically of Obama.

    Your comment is blatantly unfair and in my view inaccurate.

    Parent

    Add in the clips of (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 01:58:06 PM EST
    Olbermann speaking with Jonathan Turley about the Constitutional law issues, and you see clear criticism of Obama administration coming from both, IMO.

    Parent
    Well, we'll have to agree to disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    Olbermann did exactly what happens all the time on Faux News.

    An anchor invokes fake outrage and then brings on someone else to explain it all away.

    That is exactly what Olbermann did.  Fineman was his guy.

    I don't live for your approval, BTD.  If I did, I'd certainly be living differently.

    Parent

    your last sentence (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    is absurd.

    Where in the hell does that come from?

    Parent

    Olberman has been (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    pretty critical lately.  he has been letting him have it snark and all.


    Parent
    Dissenting Justice (none / 0) (#9)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    Thank you for pointing me to that blog.

    Parent
    Bad for Keith (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    or bad for Obama when even his worshippers turn on him?

    Parent
    People here underestimate... (none / 0) (#13)
    by BigElephant on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    the actually lack of blind faith and loyalty Obama supporters have in Obama.  As an Obama supporter I supported him in the primary because I thought his policies and rationales were better than Clintons.  Not by much, but enough to support him.  And he was clearly superior to McCain.  

    But with that said, there were specific things I did disagree with him on, even back during the primary.  The biggest one back then was his position on gay marriage.  Civil unions are not marriage, and anything short of that is downright discrimination.

    And these positions on state secrets and FISA vote are other things I disagree with him on.  And I'll be vocal in saying so.  But at the same time I still do support him in most of his other positions.  And I still find him the most attractive of all reasonable candidates for the job (of course the person you really want to be president is the person who never could be, for exactly the reasons that you like them).  

    So when you hear Obama supporters criticize Obama, it's not that they've "woken" up.  It's probably the first time you've really listened (and of course, when you're supporting them in an election, the focus is on the things you find favorable to their competition).

    You're not serious (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    You haven't read the fantastical apologies for Obama, and the rabid snarking of those who dare to
    be critical (like Krugman)?  Please.

    Parent
    Give me some examples... (none / 0) (#20)
    by BigElephant on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    What are some of the "fantastical" apologies.  There will always be difference of opinion and some will agree with his opinion.  What's a fantastical apology?  I'm not even sure what that means, since if they're apologizing that implies that they disagree with him, but are giving him the benefit of the doubt with regard to his intentions.  That generally seems reasonable, but again a specific example would help to make it clearer.

    Rabid snarking?  I disagree with Krugman on a lot.  He knows economics far better than I (but even on that he's made glaring mistakes), but as a NY Times opinion piece writer he also writes about a lot things outside of his area of expertise.  Disagreement is fair.  Look at the "rabid snarking" of Geithner and Summers -- both men who know a fair bit about economics as well.

    Disagreement is not snarking.  And I think the sooner you understand that the faster you'll realize that not everyone is unfair or out to get you.  

    Parent

    I was waiting for this (none / 0) (#18)
    by joanneleon on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    I was wondering why we hadn't heard from Feingold.  It looks like he took his time considering the best way to deal with this situation.  Hopefully, he also spoke with someone in the Obama administration to get their view.  If so, he must not have been satisfied with the explanation.  Just to be clear, I'm presuming that he did consult with them before going down the legislation path.

    I am still anxiously awaiting some kind of explanation from Pres. Obama on this issue.  Does anyone think he will address this directly?