Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the trial of terrorism suspects in federal court. I appreciate hearing from you.
The White House is currently considering whether to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of conspiring to commit the September 11 attacks in federal criminal court or by military commission. I believe we must bring these men to justice and believe that our federal court system is more than capable of securely, effectively and fairly trying alleged terrorists. Federal courts have been used successfully for years to prosecute terrorists, including Zacarias Moussaoui for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber," and Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
It is important to note that only a handful of convictions have ever been achieved in the military commissions process, and two of the people convicted have since been released to their home countries. While exact figures of how many people have been convicted in the federal court system are harder to pin down, the Bush administration said in 2008 that since 2001 it achieved 319 convictions or guilty pleas in terrorism or terrorism-related cases in the federal court system. I am concerned that using the comparatively untested military commission process would be riskier than prosecuting these individuals in our federal courts.
Thank you again for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
Monday, September 20, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Good Friday Homily-2006
Today we come in silence and leave in silence to commemorate the death of Jesus. We believe that Jesus lived. We believe Jesus died nailed to a cross. We believe that Jesus rose from the dead and lives with us today. We remember that the Body of Christ was nailed to an instrument of torture, an instrument of capital punishment, an instrument of death. We remember that Jesus was an innocent man, the Son of God, who came into human history, as a human being with all the feelings that we have. We believe that he came not only to forgive sins but to also show us the proper way to live our lives so we can avoid sin in the first place. We believe that the Romans actually nailed Jesus to the cross. Yet we also believe that all of our sins today nail the Body of Christ to the cross. Our sins contribute tot he crucifixion of Jesus- to the crucifixion of The Body of Christ. How can this be? Christ died once and for all. He has risen to everlasting life. How do we nail the Body of Christ to the cross today?
As Christian believers we believe that the relationships we have with one another and with all human beings can be referred to as the Body of Christ. When we act sinfully we actually damage our relationships with one another. We damage the Body of Christ. When we sin and damage our relationships with God and others we nail the Body of Christ to the cross.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we start and prolong unjust wars as those killed and those doing the killing are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we torture and when we condone the torture of human beings for any reason as the tortured are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we execute prisoners as both the innocent and the guilty are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide health care to all as all of our brothers and sisters are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we treat others-our friends and enemies with disrespect and indifference as our friends and enemies are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide just wages for our workers as workers are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we refuse to feed the hungry as the hungry are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we (you fill in the blank) because we are all the Body of Christ.
Yes, Jesus died once and for all of us, yet we continue to nail the Body of Christ to the cross when we sin against God and our brothers and sisters, because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ-we are the Body of Christ.
We came here in silence today; we leave again today in silence. How can we remain silent when we see our brothers and sisters, the Body of Christ, being nailed to the cross?
As Christian believers we believe that the relationships we have with one another and with all human beings can be referred to as the Body of Christ. When we act sinfully we actually damage our relationships with one another. We damage the Body of Christ. When we sin and damage our relationships with God and others we nail the Body of Christ to the cross.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we start and prolong unjust wars as those killed and those doing the killing are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we torture and when we condone the torture of human beings for any reason as the tortured are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we execute prisoners as both the innocent and the guilty are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide health care to all as all of our brothers and sisters are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we treat others-our friends and enemies with disrespect and indifference as our friends and enemies are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide just wages for our workers as workers are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we refuse to feed the hungry as the hungry are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we (you fill in the blank) because we are all the Body of Christ.
Yes, Jesus died once and for all of us, yet we continue to nail the Body of Christ to the cross when we sin against God and our brothers and sisters, because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ-we are the Body of Christ.
We came here in silence today; we leave again today in silence. How can we remain silent when we see our brothers and sisters, the Body of Christ, being nailed to the cross?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Feingold Response-St Croix River Bridge
Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the construction of a new bridge across the St. Croix River on State Highway 36 near Stillwater, Minnesota. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation (DOT) have created the St. Croix River Crossing Project. The primary goal of the project is to construct a new bridge to connect Washington County, Minnesota, and St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The new bridge would accommodate vehicular traffic, allowing the historic Stillwater Lift Bridge to be utilized by bicycle and pedestrian traffic only. The cost of the project is estimated at $670 million, with Wisconsin and Minnesota each contributing.
On March 11, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis issued an opinion stating that construction plans for the proposed new bridge violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The National Park Service (NPS) had previously given approval to the project. The St. Croix River was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1964 due to the efforts of former Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson. This designation prevents actions that would harm the recreational and scenic value of the river. The NPS is required to issue a new evaluation that addresses the court's concerns. The project has been put on hold pending the NPS evaluation.
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the construction of a new bridge across the St. Croix River on State Highway 36 near Stillwater, Minnesota. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation (DOT) have created the St. Croix River Crossing Project. The primary goal of the project is to construct a new bridge to connect Washington County, Minnesota, and St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The new bridge would accommodate vehicular traffic, allowing the historic Stillwater Lift Bridge to be utilized by bicycle and pedestrian traffic only. The cost of the project is estimated at $670 million, with Wisconsin and Minnesota each contributing.
On March 11, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis issued an opinion stating that construction plans for the proposed new bridge violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The National Park Service (NPS) had previously given approval to the project. The St. Croix River was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1964 due to the efforts of former Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson. This designation prevents actions that would harm the recreational and scenic value of the river. The NPS is required to issue a new evaluation that addresses the court's concerns. The project has been put on hold pending the NPS evaluation.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Dad Story: Buck's Telephone
Dad's best man at his wedding was a guy named Frank "Buck" Brown. Buck was a leather-skinned man who lost an arm in a farm accident. He lived in an old run down house that seemed to me as a lonely place. Dad would check in on Buck every now and again as his health wasn't the best. When I think of Buck I see his old gray, weather-beaten, paint-deprived house and the following story that Dad told more than once about Buck.
One day Buck was talking on the phone to an operator. Somehow Buck and the operator were not getting along well that day. As Dad tells it, "Buck verbally roughed-up the operator." Unless Buck apologized to the operator the phone company was going to remove the phone and phone service from him. Those were the days when the phone company owned the phone. Well Buck was not about to apologize. So out to Buck's house came the phone company representatives to remove Buck's phone and cut off his service. Buck allowed the phone guys to come into his house to get the phone. One of the phone guys told Buck, "If you call the operator and apologize we will allow you to keep the phone." Buck said, "Okay." So, the phone guy called the operator and made sure that the correct operator was on the line before handing the phone to Buck.
Buck took the phone in hand and asked the operator, "Is this the woman I roughed-up last week?" After making sure he was about to apologize to the right operator Buck said, "Get your ass ready! They are bringing in the phone!"
One day Buck was talking on the phone to an operator. Somehow Buck and the operator were not getting along well that day. As Dad tells it, "Buck verbally roughed-up the operator." Unless Buck apologized to the operator the phone company was going to remove the phone and phone service from him. Those were the days when the phone company owned the phone. Well Buck was not about to apologize. So out to Buck's house came the phone company representatives to remove Buck's phone and cut off his service. Buck allowed the phone guys to come into his house to get the phone. One of the phone guys told Buck, "If you call the operator and apologize we will allow you to keep the phone." Buck said, "Okay." So, the phone guy called the operator and made sure that the correct operator was on the line before handing the phone to Buck.
Buck took the phone in hand and asked the operator, "Is this the woman I roughed-up last week?" After making sure he was about to apologize to the right operator Buck said, "Get your ass ready! They are bringing in the phone!"
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Recent Feingold letter on Afghanistan
Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for contacting me regarding Afghanistan and the recent operations in the district of Marjah. I strongly support our men and women in the military serving in Afghanistan and I am deeply grateful for their service and their sacrifice.
Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the authorization to use military force against those who planned and carried out the horrific terrorist attacks on our nation on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, our military involvement in Iraq distracted us from our mission in Afghanistan and the global threat posed by al Qaeda, and the situation in the region has deteriorated in recent years.
While President Obama appreciates the global threat posed by al Qaeda and the importance of addressing its current safe haven in Pakistan, I am concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan at this point may not help, and could even undermine, our efforts to address that threat. I appreciate General McChrystal's focus on protecting the Afghan population, but continuing to send more troops to Afghanistan could inflame civilian resentment and provoke militancy in the region without significantly contributing to stability. And it could further destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country where al Qaeda has a safe haven.
After eight years of war in Afghanistan, we need to acknowledge the serious risks of continuing our massive, open-ended military commitment in that country, and instead pursue a comprehensive, sustainable strategy to combat al Qaeda's global network. That is why on April 14, 2010, I introduced S. 3197, a bill that would require President Obama to establish a flexible timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Such a strategy would bolster our national security by undercutting the perception of the U.S. as an occupying force in the region, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.
I have attached my statement for the record regarding this legislation and an op-ed on the need for a comprehensive national security strategy. For additional information on this issue, you can find video recordings of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings at http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/, and I encourage you to visit my website for a more detailed account of my work on Afghanistan and Pakistan at http://www.feingold.senate.gov/afghanistanpakistan.html
Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to discuss your comments further, please contact Brian Chelcun in my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-5323. For more information about my work on behalf of Wisconsin, you can subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter by visiting http://feingold.senate.gov/newsletter.cfm. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Thank you for contacting me regarding Afghanistan and the recent operations in the district of Marjah. I strongly support our men and women in the military serving in Afghanistan and I am deeply grateful for their service and their sacrifice.
Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the authorization to use military force against those who planned and carried out the horrific terrorist attacks on our nation on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, our military involvement in Iraq distracted us from our mission in Afghanistan and the global threat posed by al Qaeda, and the situation in the region has deteriorated in recent years.
While President Obama appreciates the global threat posed by al Qaeda and the importance of addressing its current safe haven in Pakistan, I am concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan at this point may not help, and could even undermine, our efforts to address that threat. I appreciate General McChrystal's focus on protecting the Afghan population, but continuing to send more troops to Afghanistan could inflame civilian resentment and provoke militancy in the region without significantly contributing to stability. And it could further destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country where al Qaeda has a safe haven.
After eight years of war in Afghanistan, we need to acknowledge the serious risks of continuing our massive, open-ended military commitment in that country, and instead pursue a comprehensive, sustainable strategy to combat al Qaeda's global network. That is why on April 14, 2010, I introduced S. 3197, a bill that would require President Obama to establish a flexible timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Such a strategy would bolster our national security by undercutting the perception of the U.S. as an occupying force in the region, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.
I have attached my statement for the record regarding this legislation and an op-ed on the need for a comprehensive national security strategy. For additional information on this issue, you can find video recordings of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings at http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/, and I encourage you to visit my website for a more detailed account of my work on Afghanistan and Pakistan at http://www.feingold.senate.gov/afghanistanpakistan.html
Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to discuss your comments further, please contact Brian Chelcun in my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-5323. For more information about my work on behalf of Wisconsin, you can subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter by visiting http://feingold.senate.gov/newsletter.cfm. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
According to www.business dictionary.com the definition of a hierarchical organization is as follows:
“Common, pyramid-like organization where one person is in charge of a functional area (engineering, finance, marketing) with one or more subordinates handling the sub-functions. In an hierarchical organization (whether business, military, political, or religious) higher levels imply greater superiority and domination than the lower ones, and the chain of command extends straight from the top to the bottom.”
The hierarchical organization is common in our society as you can see from the definition. It is common in business, military, political and religious organizations. When belonging to a hierarchical organization one gives up one’s freedom to some degree or another. Of course the higher that one is in the hierarchy the more freedom and more control of the organization one has. As a member of the Air Force for more than twenty years I reached the rank of Master Sergeant. I had more input into the organization than an Airman but not near the input of a General. At the top of the military hierarchy is the President of the United States. The president has full control of the military. If a subordinate does not agree with the commander-in-chief the subordinate, especially one of the lowly enlisted ranks has very few options but to obey the president or suffer the consequences. The subordinate does have some control as when his/her enlistment is up she/he can leave the military. As a citizen the military member can also vote for his/her choice as commander–in-chief and can even write in someone. That’s about it. Even if the subordinate leaves he/she still has to be complicit in some way to all actions of the commander-in-chief as the subordinate will always have to pay taxes to support military decisions or else suffer the penalties of tax evasion, fines or maybe even some prison time. Another hierarchical organization with a very powerful head (if you decide to empower him) is the Catholic Church. For those that subject themselves to the Pope’s power and control there is little one can do but do as the Pope says. Perhaps you wish to do this. That is your choice and I say less not more power to you. Choices are beautiful. The Pope is an absolute dictator who answers to no one but his version of God. However if one finds that he/she can no longer live under the hierarchical control of the Pope there is something one can do. It won’t do much good to try to change the hierarchical system unless the Pope wants to give up some control as did John XXIII. Like in all hierarchical systems the absolute head of the system usually cares less what the low level members want as opposed to conserving the organization no matter its functionality or disfunctionality. The system is not designed for the upper levels to serve the lower levels of the hierarchy but vice versa. Like with the military system one can choose to leave the Catholic Church and no longer give one’s freedom away to the hierarchy. There is one more thing that the lowly member of the religious hierarchy can do that the former military member turned civilian citizen cannot do without reprisal. That action is to take away financial support from the organization. So, if one does not agree with the workings of the hierarchy don’t support the hierarchy financially. That’s really the only power one has in the lower levels of a hierarchy. However, if one agrees with the organization stay and support it. If not, leave and don’t support it. We all have those choices.
“Common, pyramid-like organization where one person is in charge of a functional area (engineering, finance, marketing) with one or more subordinates handling the sub-functions. In an hierarchical organization (whether business, military, political, or religious) higher levels imply greater superiority and domination than the lower ones, and the chain of command extends straight from the top to the bottom.”
The hierarchical organization is common in our society as you can see from the definition. It is common in business, military, political and religious organizations. When belonging to a hierarchical organization one gives up one’s freedom to some degree or another. Of course the higher that one is in the hierarchy the more freedom and more control of the organization one has. As a member of the Air Force for more than twenty years I reached the rank of Master Sergeant. I had more input into the organization than an Airman but not near the input of a General. At the top of the military hierarchy is the President of the United States. The president has full control of the military. If a subordinate does not agree with the commander-in-chief the subordinate, especially one of the lowly enlisted ranks has very few options but to obey the president or suffer the consequences. The subordinate does have some control as when his/her enlistment is up she/he can leave the military. As a citizen the military member can also vote for his/her choice as commander–in-chief and can even write in someone. That’s about it. Even if the subordinate leaves he/she still has to be complicit in some way to all actions of the commander-in-chief as the subordinate will always have to pay taxes to support military decisions or else suffer the penalties of tax evasion, fines or maybe even some prison time. Another hierarchical organization with a very powerful head (if you decide to empower him) is the Catholic Church. For those that subject themselves to the Pope’s power and control there is little one can do but do as the Pope says. Perhaps you wish to do this. That is your choice and I say less not more power to you. Choices are beautiful. The Pope is an absolute dictator who answers to no one but his version of God. However if one finds that he/she can no longer live under the hierarchical control of the Pope there is something one can do. It won’t do much good to try to change the hierarchical system unless the Pope wants to give up some control as did John XXIII. Like in all hierarchical systems the absolute head of the system usually cares less what the low level members want as opposed to conserving the organization no matter its functionality or disfunctionality. The system is not designed for the upper levels to serve the lower levels of the hierarchy but vice versa. Like with the military system one can choose to leave the Catholic Church and no longer give one’s freedom away to the hierarchy. There is one more thing that the lowly member of the religious hierarchy can do that the former military member turned civilian citizen cannot do without reprisal. That action is to take away financial support from the organization. So, if one does not agree with the workings of the hierarchy don’t support the hierarchy financially. That’s really the only power one has in the lower levels of a hierarchy. However, if one agrees with the organization stay and support it. If not, leave and don’t support it. We all have those choices.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Church Must Take Responsibility
I recently wrote a letter to the editor of our local weekly newspaper the Rice Lake Chronotype. My letter encouraged the bishops of the Catholic Church to take responsibility for their actions and the actions of those that serve under them in this ever growing scandal of abuses perpetrated on children and adults. I have received some comments from some individuals in the local community that appreciated what I wrote. These comments were to my face. I have also heard from some contacts that some others have said that I should not air the church's dirty laundry. I am a former Catholic and deacon. I have heard that one person said we should just pray about it. Of course I disagree with the last two comments. Some have said that I am just getting even with the church. Why should I lower myself to being even with the church? Upon my leaving the church and my clerical position I asked my bishop (I no longer consider him "my" bishop)to tell me that I had done nothing wrong but the church had failed me as the church had done given me the support to which I was entitled as a church administrator. You can find my letter at Rice Lake Chronotype.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)