Feingold objected to CIA torture in classified letter

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story


Feingold objected to CIA torture in classified letter

By John Byrne

Published: May 13, 2009
Updated 11 hours ago



Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) sent a letter detailing his objections to the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program shortly after he was briefed on the techniques the US was employing on detainees, his spokesman confirmed late Wednesday.

Feingold joins the ranks of several other Democrats who privately voiced their objection to detainees’ torture after being told of it in a classified setting. The Wisconsin Democrat was informed of the CIA’s practices in September 2006, as part of a briefing to the full Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Feingold alluded to his classified correspondence about the Bush administration’s torture techniques in a public letter released in October 2007. President Bush had spoken publicly about the US interrogation and detention program two weeks prior.

“I have detailed the bases for my strong objections to the CIA’s program in classified correspondence, sent shortly after I was first briefed on it,” the senator remarked. “More recently, I have stated my opposition publicly, although I am prohibited by classification rules from providing further details about my concerns in a public setting.”

Read more: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/13/feingold-objected-to-cia-torture-in-classified-letter/

[liberalmuse]

1. Why am I not surprised?

Democrats opposing torture? Why, they're "morally suspect", fer sure. I love you, Feingold. This issue is ripping my heart out. It's nice to know that some Dems are just as we'd expect. Decent. President Obama needs to do right by this.

[No Elephants]

13. A strongly worded letter to the Perp In Chief, then silence, until now? If Feingold were a

Republican, would you be kvelling about that?

I have admired Feingold for years, but jeepers.

[mike_c]

2. Feingold's refusal to discuss details "in a public setting..."

...constitutes conspiracy to commit war crimes, IMO. The law governing classification specifically excludes the use of government classification to conceal the commission of crimes, if I recall correctly-- a response to the Pentagon Papers being leaked. If Feingold believed those briefings outlined conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, he should have made his concerns public, along with his defense for doing so, rather than becoming a co-conspirator, even a reluctant one.

[L. Coyote]

3. You are totally wrong on this. He did make his objections.

How can you call him a co-conspirator?

You are being ridiculous in the extreme, bashing the person least involved and objecting the most!!

[mike_c]

4. Feingold could have conceivably stopped these war crimes years ago...

...by speaking out publicly. Instead, he chose to remain silent, and in so doing, shielded the perpetrators. If you see a murder in progress, do you absolve yourself of responsibility by writing a secret letter to the perpetrators detailing your objections to cold-blooded murder? Does being told about the murders as part of your job absolve you from responsibility?

Of course not. In a nation of laws, there is no such shield, except possibly the fifth amendment.

I'm glad Feingold objected. I just wish he had done more to make his objections a real impediment to proceeding with torture as national policy. He had a responsibility to do so, IMO. What other crimes against humanity might he be concealing knowledge of?

[karynnj]

7. Here is the CSPAN link to the Senate on Sept 28, 2006 when the torture bill was

debated - click on the name of a Senator and a window pops up with their speech. Try Kerry - who said the bill allows torture; try Kennedy, who was incredible giving the history of waterboarding that was used. From memory, Dodd and Leahy were great too. (Kerry on Sept 9, 2006 at Faneuil Hall got a huge standing ovation when he said the US should NEVER torture.

My point, there were MANY Democrats speaking out that the US was involved in torture. Although Feingold learned more - in essence, there were Democrats speaking out then --- and it stopped nothing.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/69850&date=2006-9-28&hors=s

[No Elephants]

12. Appointing an independent counsel may have. Ditto commencing impeachment proceedings. A

"sternly worded letter" about torture to the current member of the Bush crime family in chief?

Is a strongly worded letter to the perp the only thing that that you would have done, if torture had come to your attention and you know it was against domestic and international law? Is there where you would have let your objections end?

Sorry, but these memos and letters, be it from Condi's aide or Feingold, seem more like cya than anything else.

Heck, I sent more strongly worded letters than to Bush while he was POTUS, via www.whitehouse.gov And I was as scared of these folks as anyone.

If I were a Senator, I would have used everything available to me, including Congressional immunity, to make the American public aware of what was happening and to end it.

I've just about worshipped Feingold, but this is a stinging disappointment.

[glitch]

8. I agree with you mike_c. nt

[Abq_Sarah]

5. A secret letter that can be retrieved

Once the heat is on isn't an objection, it's an insurance policy.

The congress writes the legislation, the executive signs or vetos.

The Congress provides the funding.

There are a lot of things they could have done and yet, they sat on their hands when they weren't pointing fingers.

If a senator or representative receives information about actions the executive branch is taking that they know to be illegal, they have a duty to stop those actions. They too, swear an oath and it's not to the President.

[No Elephants]

10. IMO, Feingold is one of the best Senators, but this is not good. Sending a letter about torture,

and then doing nothing else? Doesn't seem like him.

[karynnj]

6. Look at the timeline - consider the time frame of Feingold's briefing

September 2006 - this was the same time as the "torture bill". You had Senator Kennedy's amendment that would have explicitly legislated that waterboarding and 9 other specific techniques were torture - that failed to pass. Senator Leahy gave an excellent speech detailing that these things were being done and they were torture. Senator Kerry gave a speech stating point blank that this bill allows torture. Senator Dodd referenced his father's work as a judge at Nuremberg. (I don't remember Feingold's speech - but, I bet there was one - and he voted against the torture bill - of course.

ALL of this was public domain - on the floor of the Senate - which, you can now even see the video of on CSPAN in their archives. Obviously, he got more details, but were they needed?

[EPIC1934]

11. Good Discussion

How Im taking it is that this shows the great discrepancy between the Democrats covering arse with a letter and speeches in front of C-Span fully knowing that they wont be on wider tv, and only the
left of the base willl see it ie DUers. This HAS THE NET EFFECT of allowing the Corporate Scum WING-- IE THE REAL WING OF THE PARTY THAT IS REALLY EMPOWERED-- to go on completely enabelring the Republicans in the Mode of Rahm Emanuel.

Senator Feingold might be a good Senator, I think so anyway. Doesnt really matter. THE QUSTION IS WHAT ROLE DOES HE PLAY WITHIN THE WIDER CONTEXT OF THE PARTY'

Also getting back to the key communications question (the unspoken heart of the qusiton) why do the dems not protest the LACK OF COVERAGE OF THESE OPPOSITION SPEECHES. IT HAS BEEN GOING ON NOW FOR EIGH TEN YEARS. If they knew it wasnt really only to placate and divide base (enabaling continued movemnt of the party to the right as sure as time flies) then they would have taken it to the next level by now forece leadership to do something et al

They dont. They never do. Its communications reasearch ploy.

[karynnj]

19. I agree with you that these speeches did not get the coverage they deserved

That really is the fault of the media and there were at least 3 things involved:
- Protecting the status quo
- The shrinking real news gathering force - before the 1980s, the networks expected to lose money on news coverage, but took pride in having quality coverage. Tom Brokaw was one of the first to make news a profit center, not cost center. This was by cutting serious news and increasing the entertainment value. Cable news, which initially seemed to have the ability to cover issues at length and in detail now spends hours with people knowing little more (or less) than many of here spewing opinion - the louder the better. (With newspapers contracting, this will get worse - as Kerry's hearing on journalism seemed to suggest.)
- The lack of interest in news by the majority in this country. It shocked me to see the percent of people who never read a newspaper.

I linked to the Senate because I could easily do so to show the number of Senators who did speak out and to give people the opportunity to hear what they did say then. Now, I could have provided several links to John Kerry speaking VERY strongly and saying unambiguously (and impolitically as he was then potentially still running in 2008) that torture is never justified and that this bill allowed it. I also know that Kennedy was out there. I resisted doing this because, I know I followed Kerry's appearances closer than I did other Democrats (duh) and I wanted to make a broader case - involving many Democrats, rather than just praising Kerry.

IMO, Feingold, by morality, principle and personality, will continue to be a strong voice willing to stand alone - as he did on the Patriot Act. I don't see him as a leader of a consistent faction of Sentors, because I think that requires concessions and I think he prefers his independence. But, because of his reputation for integrity, his words do carry weight in that he is honest.

[No Elephants]

15. What was needed was someone with the wherewithal to bring this out in a way that

could not be missed and also to do more to stop it than bloviating and writing sternly worded letters. Independent counsel, special prosecutor, impeachment proceedings, petition to the Hague. Whatever it took.

[No Elephants]

9. Mike nailed it. So did Abq.

[No Elephants]

17. That seems to have been ventilated when the Abu

Ghraib report was made public, well before the date of Feingold's letter. http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg112360.html

[malaise]

14. Bravo Russ

Now lets have all these letters declassified and nail these war criminals.

[No Elephants]

16. Just wondering if you read the thread before posting.

[malaise]

18. Yes I did and while we all wish he and others had

spoken out then, I'm sure there were more than a few threats so I need the truth to be finally exposed.