It comes down to a blowjob versus war crimes.

Feinstein said today that fights over judges can hurt both parties, and ``It's got to end.''

link

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday that she favors legal immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly shared millions of customers' telephone and e-mail messages and records with the government, a position that could lead to the dismissal of numerous lawsuits pending in San Francisco.

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities."

link

S.RES.44
Title: A resolution relating to the censure of William Jefferson Clinton.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne (introduced 2/12/1999) Cosponsors (37)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/1999 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/12/1999--Introduced.

Declares that the Senate censures President William Jefferson Clinton and condemns his conduct.

Urges that future Congresses recognize the importance of allowing this statement of censure and condemnation to remain intact for all time.

Resolves that the Senate now move on to other matters, reconcile differences between and within the branches of government, and work together for the benefit of the American people.

---------------------------------------------------------

Relating to the censure of William Jefferson Clinton. (Introduced in Senate)

SRES 44 IS

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 44

Relating to the censure of William Jefferson Clinton.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 12, 1999

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. KOHL, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. DASCHLE, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. REID, Mr. GORTON, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KERREY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. BREAUX, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. REED, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. ROBB, Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. AKAKA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

Relating to the censure of William Jefferson Clinton.

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House, which was shameful, reckless and indefensible;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people, and people in all branches of the United States Government;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, gave false or misleading testimony and his actions have had the effect of impeding discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter is unacceptable for a President of the United States, does demean the Office of the President as well as the President himself, and creates disrespect for the laws of the land;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton fully deserves censure for engaging in such behavior;

Whereas future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences, including loss of integrity, trust and respect;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal actions in a court of law like any other citizen;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter has brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the Office of the President; and

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton through his conduct in this matter has violated the trust of the American people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) the United States Senate does hereby censure William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and does condemn his wrongful conduct in the strongest terms;

(2) the United States Senate recognizes the historic gravity of this bipartisan resolution, and trusts and urges that future congresses will recognize the importance of allowing this bipartisan statement of censure and condemnation to remain intact for all time; and

(3) the Senate now move on to other matters of significance to our people, to reconcile differences between and within the branches of government, and to work together--across party lines--for the benefit of the American people.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:sr44is.txt.pdf">PDF

S.RES.398
Title: A resolution relating to the censure of George W. Bush.
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. (introduced 3/13/2006) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2006 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.SUMMARY AS OF:
3/13/2006--Introduced.

Declares that the U.S. Senate censures George W. Bush, President of the United States, and condemns: (1) his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA); (2) his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law; and (3) his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:sr398is.txt.pdf">PDF

“I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote,” Schumer said in a statement. “But I must respectfully disagree.

link

I have complete respect for people who disagree. It is a values choice. But let's not forget that a caretaker Attorney General will not be close to Judge Mukasey on the issues that brought the downfall of Attorney General Gonzales. Let us also not forget that Judge Mukasey has had a long and distinguished career. Because his views on torture are different from so many of ours, including my own, does not evaporate all of these other important considerations.

Let me be clear on the torture question, which understandably motivates so many of my colleagues. I deeply oppose this administration's opaque, mysterious, and inexplicable policy on the use of torture. This is not a policy that was constructed by Judge Mukasey .

In particular, I believe that the cruel and inhumane technique of waterboarding is not only repugnant but also illegal under current laws and conventions, period. I also support Congress's efforts to pass additional measures that would explicitly ban this and other forms of torture. I voted for Senator Kennedy's antitorture amendment in 2006, and I am a cosponsor of a similar bill in this Congress. If it was important to do it in 2006, it is also important to do it in 2007.

When Judge Mukasey came before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, he refused to state that waterboarding was illegal. That was unsatisfactory, that was wrong, and that will be a blemish on his distinguished career for as long as he lives. But he has personally made it clear that if Congress passed further legislation in this area, the President would have no legal authority to ignore it--not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by article II of the Constitution. That is a very important point.

PDF

In refusing to say we do not waterboard prisoners, what do we do? We end up giving license to others. When the United States cannot state unequivocally that waterboarding is torture and illegal and will not be tolerated, what does that mean for other Governments? What comfort does that provide the world's most repressive regimes? How does it allow the United States, that hitherto has been a beacon for human rights, to criticize or lecture these repressive regimes that torture that way?

Some have sought to find comfort in Judge Mukasey's personal assurance that he would enforce a future, some kind of new law against waterboarding if Congress were to pass one. Even some in the press have used that talking point from the White House. Any such prohibition would have to be enacted over the veto of this President, a President who has not ruled out the use of waterboarding.

But the real damage in this argument is not its futility. The real harm is that it presupposes we don't already have laws and treaty obligations against waterboarding. As we know, when we enter a treaty, it becomes the law of the land. We have laws already against it. We don't need a new law. No Senator should, with any kind of clear conscience, abet this administration's legalistic obfuscations by those, such as Alberto Gonzales, who take these positions, or John Yoo and David Addington, by agreeing somehow that the laws we already have on the books do not already make waterboarding illegal. We have been properly prosecuting water torture for more than 100 years.

Vote for the nominee or vote against the nominee, but don't hide behind some kind of a cloak and say maybe we should have a law in the future. We have that law. This is as if, when somebody murders somebody with a baseball bat, they were to say: We had a law against murder, but we never mentioned baseball bats. Murder is murder; torture is torture. Our laws make both illegal, and our laws--but especially our values--do not permit this to be an open question or even one that depends on who is doing the waterboarding. We cannot say it is wrong when other countries do it but, of course, it is right when we do it because our heart is pure. That is a prescription for disaster. That is what heightens the risk to American citizens and soldiers around the world, and it gives repressive regimes comfort, and that is something I will not do.

I will not accept this fallacious argument. I will not accept this pretense that it is OK because we have not yet passed a law, when that has always been the law in the United States. It was in Theodore Roosevelt's day, it was when we prosecuted Japanese soldiers after World War II for waterboarding, and it is today.

<...>

That is why I was so disappointed by Judge Mukasey's answers suggesting that he sees little occasion to check the President's power. I was disturbed by his insistence that, with regard to warrantless wiretapping and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the President has inherent authority outside of the statute and could authorize and immunize conduct contrary to the law. I fail to see a valid distinction justifying his assertion that the President could have the power of an executive override in the surveillance context, but not in the torture context, and I worry about where his reasoning could lead us.

PDF

I have respect for Judge Mukasey's background, his dedication to public service, his reputation as a distinguished jurist, and as a good man. But when evaluating our Nation's chief law enforcement official, we must weigh far more than background and likability. Particularly now--particularly now--when we are following the disastrous tenure of Alberto Gonzales, particularly now, when we have lost so much more leadership in the world because of what is happening in Iraq, and, unfortunately, what has happened in Abu Ghraib, we need to look past likability and qualifications.

We must firmly believe our next Attorney General must always put his loyalty to the Constitution above his loyalty to the President. We have a President and a Vice President who have dangerously abused their Executive power and who have undermined the public trust. This is not a partisan opinion.

Listen to what John Dean, White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, wrote:

Not since Nixon left the White House have we had such greed over presidential power, and never before have we had such political paranoia. ..... History never exactly repeats itself, but it does some rather good imitations.

When an administration spies on its own citizens without a warrant, strips habeas corpus rights from those held by America, and fires its own U.S. attorneys for political reasons, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power.

When an administration thinks it can just ignore an entire coequal branch of Government, even using signing statements to reinterpret or disregard more than 750 laws that Congress has passed, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power.

When an administration silences its own officials, rewriting testimony, redacting testimony, shelving reports, refusing to let experts publicly speak the truth, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power.

I have seen this so many times with this administration. The latest time was with global warming experts whose truths the White House find ``inconvenient.'' And what did they do? They redacted testimony of the CDC Director, the Center for Disease Control Director, when we asked her to come before the Environment Committee of the Senate and tell us what would the health effects of unfettered global warming be. What would happen? The White House muzzled her by slashing her testimony. They gave all kinds of excuses as to why it was done. None of them were real.

Then, when I wrote to the President, and I said: Mr. President, we need to hear what Dr. Gerberding has to say about the impacts of global warming on the health of our people; Mr. Fielding, White House Counsel, wrote back: Oh, gee, we are not going to send you her original testimony you have asked for. Oh, no, that would be an abuse of executive privilege. Let me restate that: That would be an abuse of the separation of powers. And he asserted executive privilege. Imagine asserting executive privilege for something like the health effects of global warming. It is unbelievable.

So now we need an Attorney General who is going to be the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer, not the one who is going to tell us: Oh, yeah, we just cannot do anything about it, Congress.

We need an Attorney General who is going to check this unprecedented abuse of power, not rubberstamp it.

<...>

Waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law.

Waterboarding today is not a hypothetical. It is used in Burma against supporters of democracy. Waterboarding is an unconstitutional form of cruel and inhumane treatment. It is illegal under U.S. laws--from the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ``specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering,'' to the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.''

It is illegal under international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, which are not quaint.

Those conventions prohibit cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment.

Following World War II, the United States convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and allied POWs. Let me repeat: Following World War II, the United States convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and allied POWs. What kind of statement are we hearing from Judge Mukasey ? Our law and our history are crystal clear, so why can't Judge Mukasey state in unequivocal terms that waterboarding is torture and that is illegal?

PDF

For the last 6 years, it is clear that we have had a President who does not understand what the Constitution of the United States is about. What this President believes, essentially, is that he can do anything he wants, at any time, against anybody in the name of fighting terrorism. And he happens to believe the war on terrorism is unending. It is going to go on indefinitely. I think it is very important that we have an Attorney General who can explain the Constitution to a President who clearly does not understand it. Unfortunately, Mr. Mukasey is not that person.

In the last 6 years under President Bush, we have seen the National Security Agency start a program which allows wiretapping without first obtaining a court order, to my mind, in violation of the Constitution. We have seen personal records that have been extensively mined for data. How many millions? Who knows? Nobody in the Senate really knows. We don't have access to that information. It is massive amounts of data mining, in clear violation of the privacy rights and the laws of America under this President.

We have seen the phenomenon of extraordinary rendition, which has shifted detainees to prisons in countries abroad which allow torture. We have seen the firing and the politicization of the Office of the U.S. Attorney. We have seen detainees of the United States being denied the oldest right in the Western legal system--the right to habeas corpus. We are running a prison camp in Guantanamo where prisoners have minimal legal rights, which is an international embarrassment for us as we struggle against international terrorism. And we have seen many other assaults by this President on our constitutional rights and on the laws of this country.

We have a President who clearly does not understand the separation of powers; that the Congress of the United States is an equal branch of our Government; that the Judiciary is an equal branch of our Government; that the executive branch does not have all of the power.

<...>

I have heard some of my colleagues say, if we reject Mr. Mukasey , the President is not going to send us another nominee. That is the right of the President of the United States. But we have our rights as well. We have the right to demand an Attorney General who supports, strongly, the Constitution and is prepared to tell the President when he is acting against our Constitution. That is our right. It is about time we began to defend our right.

I can't blame the President for taking over the rights of Congress, if Congress is not prepared to stand up and fight back. I think that time is long overdue.

Mr. President, if you do not want to send us another nominee, that is your right. We have our rights as well. I will be voting against Mr. Mukasey . I hope my colleagues do as well.

PDF

In the six years of compromising our principles since 9/11, our democracy has so steadily been defined down that it now can resemble the supposedly aspiring democracies we’ve propped up in places like Islamabad. Time has taken its toll. We’ve become inured to democracy-lite. That’s why a Mukasey can be elevated to power with bipartisan support and we barely shrug.

more