Feingold's lonely nutty quest

San Francisco Chronicle:

If Sen. Russ Feingold was hoping his fellow Democrats would offer a groundswell of support for his maverick resolution calling for President Bush's censure over warrantless eavesdropping, he didn't get it Friday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his proposal.

Counting Feingold, only three of the committee's eight Democrats showed up for the sometimes combative hearing that featured a historic moment: Watergate figure John Dean's first appearance before a Senate panel since his 1973 testimony that played a key role in the downfall of President Richard Nixon.

Besides Feingold, the only Democrat to speak at the three-hour hearing was Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont. He indicated he might support censure, which would bring the number of Feingold's co-sponsors in his lonely quest to four of the Senate's 44 Democrats.

The two others who have signed on to support censure are Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who quietly offered her support last week. Neither are members of the judiciary panel.

...

Most Democrats are nervous, if not dismayed, by Feingold's election-year proposal. It excoriates Bush, accusing him of breaking the law by violating civil liberties while skirting congressionally approved provisions for going to court to get domestic wiretapping warrants.

Some Democrats feel Feingold's proposal goes too far by attacking a president while the country is involved in war. Others fear it could energize Republicans, much as GOP efforts to impeach Democratic President Bill Clinton backfired on Republican candidates in the 1998 congressional elections.

Republicans say the resolution is a partisan move by Wisconsin's Feingold, who is interested in running for president in 2008, and could weaken Bush in his effort to defeat international terrorism.

...

There is a reason why Feingold lack support for this nutty idea. There is a reason why the only witnesses he could find are fringe characters like convicted felon John Dean, who used the appearance to hype his latest book. That reason was given by the FISA judges who did appear, and none of whom support Feingold's theory on the law. What the President has done is intercept enemy communications with their agents in the US in wartime. Only an idiot would think that a warrant would be needed for such activity. Feingold's theory would require that the executive jump through hoops to hear what the enemy is saying to its agents plotting to murder people in this country. He should be embarrassed by this silly argument. It is an example of the legalistic lawfare model of fighting terrorism that failed us in the 1990's and led to the 9-11 attacks.