Don't get me wrong - I've long been a Feingold fan. The reality is that Senators like Feingold represent our last best hope that the criminal acts perpetrated by the Bush administration will not go unexumed, unexamined and unpunished. Anyone harboring "hope" that this will come from Obama is in denial - the man's spokesman has repeatedly and emphatically embraced these positions that have disappointed us all. As you point out, Obama does in fact now OWN telcom immunity and the wiretap violations, having voted to immunize the telephone companies, and he now owns Bush's expansive view of the Executive, which he is using to cover up war crimes.

Holder appears to be no better - if he is taking his marching orders from Obama on this score then he's useless, and if he is in fact exercising independent judgment here, we are equally up the creek. Some of the judges and courts appear willing to do the right thing, but are being cut off at every turn by an increasingly complicit Congress. If potential civil liberties and constitutional champions like Feingold throw in the towel (and I'm not saying he has - yet), then what hope remains for accountability?

Clearly, Feingold's thinking is still clearly on the right side of the issue. My concern is that I detected a significant scaling back in his rhetoric that I found worrying. The use of weasel words and aspirational language (rather than the blunt calling out to the carpet we know he's capable of) historically is a baaaaaad sign.

It may be, as you suggest, that he has a politically more difficult course to navigate in order to accomplish his goals, and is deliberately tempering his words for a better chance of getting where he wants to be. However, I stand by my assessment that there is in fact a change in Feingold's tone, and would prefer that he had called this what it was - a complete betrayal of Obama's voters, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

Not good with the tags yet.

Feingold's statement scares me more than anything. It is entirely too passive given his previous activism on the issue, and suggests that he has no intentions of taking a real stand on the issue. If they have Feingold now too, the crazy anti-torture, pro 4th amendment nuts (me! me!) are screwed.

Just "troubled"? Where is the outrage? "[T]elecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program?" Oh it's allegedly again now is it? He will "encourage the greatest possible public accounting of the use of the state secrets privilege." Memo to Feingold - would prefer FACILITATE. And can I tell you how reassured I am that you appreciate the "Attorney General’s statement that he hopes to share his review with the American people." Senator, I don't mind saying that I don't particularly want the observance of the rule of law resting on Mr. Holder's "hopes" that we can enjoy his "review." "Beyond the particular case at issue here"? What makes this one any less important than the rest of them? As each case gets shut down by CONGRESS (and only sometimes the courts), I see the life of our constitutional democracy being snuffed out with each of these cases. "The American people must be able to have confidence that the privilege is not being used to shield government misconduct." I don't want to have "confidence" that the privilege is not being used to shield government misconduct, I want the privilege to NOT IN FACT be used to shield government misconduct - oh, and here's a thought, maybe I don't want my government to ENGAGE in misconduct. That should be the entire point, no?

Never thought I'd be this disappointed in you Russ.

Keep beating them drums motherf$%@#$%!!!!

This will be met with the same collective shrug that has characterized the American reaction to every newly discovered outrage.

Can be completely subverted and undermined by one or two rogue employees in the OLC and some bad legal jiu-jitsu. Makes all that arguing during the constitutional conventions seem like a complete waste of time, no?

Hmm.. who has more abjectly failed at performing the constitutional role the Framers gave them? A fat, lazy, bloated Congress that refuses to check the Executive? The fat, lazy, bloated media that has let themselves become little more than mouthpieces and propoganda-passers? Or is it the fat, lazy, bloated populace that simply refuses to care?

I vote for 3. I've long since stopped waiting for the public outcry I've been expecting for the past 7 years. The fact is that the vast majority of the American people are now perfectly willing to trust the government to look out for their best interests - with no clear idea what their "best interests" are, and completely forgetting that the underlying assumption between quaint documents like the Bill of Rights are that the government can't be trusted.

Beat me to the thought, you did...

I don't believe for one second that she's sincere. Thanks to my Greenwald-jaded mind, the fact that Pelosi now is all gung-ho for criminal prosecutions for wiretapping and torture signals to me that she is now absolutely convinced that they will never happen.

While I appreciate the fact that it might add to the drumbeat, she wouldn't be singing that song if she thought it might actually happen.