Russ Feingold is interviewed in Newsweek and does a great job beating back Republican scare tactics and spurious arguments for surrendering our liberties in exchange for security.

How has the debate overall come to be framed so incorrectly, as you suggest?
One reason is that there’s been an inadequate response to the Bush-Cheney scare tactics. They’ve been successful every time—in the Iraq War, with the Patriot Act—[in saying] “If we’re not given these powers immediately, we will be attacked.” These are bogus claims. The problem is with many people, including Democrats, who fail to stand up and say, “We feel just as strongly as you do. And we don’t want you invading our privacy without any court review.”

Supporters of the PAA say that if these calls and e-mails were subject to the regular FISA court, it would take hundreds of lawyer and analyst hours to prepare them for the appropriate review.
Listen, a criticism like that just shows no understanding of what’s going on here. Every time a foreign conversation runs through a transmitter in L.A., there was an archaic technicality in the law that would require individualized warrants [in order for the government to intercept them]. We all said, fine, we agree with changing that, but in cases when the program ends up impacting Americans, there has to be some oversight.

What’s the status of your amendments? It’s been suggested that in the consent agreement to allow debate, Republicans are allowing straight majority votes only on amendments they know will fail—including yours.
We’re trying to make a record here, and to show who voted for what. My prediction is this thing will go through; it will be challenged and go through the courts. And eventually a Supreme Court with something like seven Republican-appointed judges will strike down the worst parts of it. This is a long-term battle to protect the rights of the American people.

In the modern political climate you’re more likely to hear about amnesty with respect to undocumented workers than you are about the amnesty for the phone and Internet companies who helped the government break the law before the act was passed.
Oh, I think there’s tremendous feeling that there’s a problem here. In some ways I think it goes deeper than immigration. People see their own personal liberties affected. And we’ve seen that the telecom immunity does offend people. People may be nervous about giving a free pass [on immigration]. But what’s gonna bother them even more are the types of things I’m describing here: the level to which their privacy is being subjected to a “trust me” government that impacts their daily freedom and privacy. It really is disturbing to people with any kind of common sense at all.

It’s clear that Feingold thinks about these issues in the same way so many of us online think about the rule of law. He recognizes the need to be strong in the face of an administration that uses fear as their main weapon. Feingold’s efforts standing by the rule of law and defending the Constitution is the sort of courage that we need today from more of Feingold’s colleagues in the Senate.

Feingold isn’t optimistic about our chances to stop the SSCI bill from going through, but is taking a long view on it. He’s a bright spot in the Senate who, alongside Chris Dodd, has provided the kind of leadership we sorely need from our elected officials.

Debate is about to resume on the floor of the Senate about the FISA legislation. I hope we’ll get to see more passionate words and committed stands in the face of fear-mongering by the Bush administration and the Republican Party from some of Senator Feingold’s colleagues.

Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.