Go, Russ, Go

[filkertom]

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said this morning that he will introduce a resolution to censure the President for breaking the law with his warrantless eavesdropping program. Crooks & Liars has the video, Raw Story has the transcript, Glenn Greenwald has the analysis.

So, let's assume that at least some Senators are going to vote against this. What should be We The People's next step in that case? And, unlike the previous question, by all means, Republican LJers, c'mon down. In fact, I've got a bonus question just for you, and I ask it in all seriousness, and ask the progressive/liberal/Dems on the LJ to let them have their say: Why shouldn't the Senate censure President Bush?

Crossposted to Mandate, My Ass.

Comments

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Why shouldn't the Senate censure President Bush?

Well, duh! It's because giving it to the American people up the ass with a rusty backhoe is nowhere near as bad as getting a blowjob.

[nomaddervish.livejournal.com]

I've never really understood the basis of the position that Clinton was blameless in the Lewinsky affair and your comment has just motivated me to write a post in my journal (http://nomaddervish.livejournal.com/21696.html) explaining why I think his actions were criminal (and impeachable) and asking for explanations of the opposing viewpoint. Would you mind popping over there and contributing your views?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Done. :)

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Um, I've got a reverse question for you, applicable to both this and the previous question: what do you expect of those of us who consider ourselves non-party-affiliated centrists? Do we answer both, shut up on both? What do we do with future questions that presuppose a complete two-sided split?

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a non-party affiliated person, my answer is - speak from where your heart is. If it says: "enough of this", say so. A desire for good, effective government is pretty non-partisan, or it used to be, anyway.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I was specifically speaking in both cases to Bush defenders. Sorry for not being clearer about that, but I was trying not to incite a riot right off the bat. :)

[partiallyclips.livejournal.com]

Oh Tom. You're always a riot. :D

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but that wasn't the issue. I can say "enough of this" in contexts where it has not been requested by the initial poster that only Republicans reply. I can say it in contexts where it has not been requested that only Democrats reply. Since I am neither, I'm not sure I do have the right to say it, or anything else, in contexts where either request has been made.

[mathmuffin.livejournal.com]

If the Senate censures the President now, it will stop digging for the complete story. I want Congress to dig. I want the full news on who the President was eavesdropping on, why the National Security Agency thought it was legal, and why the President did not simply request the cooperation of the FISA court. Surely in a real national emergency, the court would authorize anything that made sense. Given the Bush administration's habit of stonewalling, we won't get the full story without the active effort of Congress (or some future President declassifying it 25 years from now).

Oh, and the intended statement of censure says "wiretaps." They should change that, since no actual wires were tapped. It was electronic eavesdropping of overseas phone calls by U.S. people.

Erin Schram

[kengr]

Legal terminology is often out of touch with technical. *Legally* speaking, if it's an interception of a call on the phone network (including cellular) it's a "wiretap".

Intercepting Skype or the like, *isn't* wiretapping. Worse, it's arguably (by their side) not covered by any laws...

[poltr1]

Why *shouldn't* there be a censure vote? I can't think of one, except that it's election season for all the congressional reps and 1/3 of the Senate.

The next step is for the Democrats to issue a Vote Of No Confidence in the President. (You know the Republicans won't for the sake of the [vulgar gerund] Party.) They do this in other countries. Why not here?

[kengr]

Because votes of no confidence are part of the way government is set up there. It's *not* part of it here.

If you check, you'll find that "vote of no confidence" goes with "Prime minister elected by 'parliment' or equivalent". Since the President is elected "by the people", not by Congress, you can't do the "vote of no confidence" bit.

[poltr1]

Bugger.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

For We The People who agree that this is a Good Move, the obvious next step is to support and reward it. I do believe Senator Feingold's Presidential campaign just earned a contribution. I'll also mention said contribution in the notes I intend to send to Senators Levin and Stabenow.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Feingold just moved way up in my shortlist for '08. I will have very little time or patience for appeasers in two years.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

So, let's assume that at least some Senators are going to vote against this. What should be We The People's next step in that case?

If I had my druthers... the words Lock & Load feature, along with Viva la Revolution!

But then i'm just a frustrated pessimistic anarchist, I used to be an Idealist, but then I got experiance.

[kayshapero]

I think I've gotten enough of a look at the sort of experience you want of bad stuff (namely Other People's) in places like the Balkans and Iraq currently (and various places in history) to be pretty sure we want to avoid a local shooting war while there are other alternatives like voting the %^*&) out of office.

And good for Senator Feingold - this IS one more example of how the system, creaky as it may be, ought to work.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I would advise against this for three reasons: Number one, it's incredibly bad karma to wish violence on anyone (and I truly hope it doesn't come to that although I fear it might). Number two, it's illegal to make threats of violence against the president, and having the Secret Service (funny how the SS initials seem more appropriate these days) show up at your door is just no fun.

Number three, I want BushCo in tip-top health for their decades-long stays at the Hague.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Because if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about!

I believe that's the favored response of those who are supporting this, one of the most secretive and shadowy administrations in history.

[naja-pallida.livejournal.com]

That is an absolutely absurd concept. What is next random police searches? (Oh wait, they already did that in the NY subway and they do it on airlines) Afterall, if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind them going through your stuff, right?

I'd be amazed if Feingold's bill goes anywhere. All of the Republicans will be against it, and most of the Democrats won't have the spine to stand up for it. This is quite effectively the government of the Party, for the Party... and for protecting your own ass.