From Feingold's letter, sent to the President on Friday (h/t Glennzilla):

My primary concern, however, relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.

Oh, snap! "Apparent disagreement with you," my ass. You two guys are a piece of work -- and this is more proof that you really, really need to lay off the Kool-Aid.

Feingold ain't done yet:

While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely without charge or trial.

Yep, Feingold's just lathering on the praise here.

You have discussed this possibility only in the context of the current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, yet we must be aware of the precedent that such a system would establish. While the handling of these detainees by the Bush Administration was particularly egregious, from a legal as well as human rights perspective, these are unlikely to be the last suspected terrorists captured by the United States. Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security. Worse, those policies and legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues.

So, bots -- comments? I think the next gambit is usually to denounce Feingold as a purity troll, a member of the Loony Left and the fringe of the Democratic Party, and so on.

So it's worth noting, in retrospect, that oleeb was 100% correct. Feingold's initial remarks were, indeed, carefully limited, and accentuating the positive -- EXACTLY what oleeb claimed, despite your knee-jerk derision. His follow-up letter, a product of reflection and analysis, demonstrated a repudiation of Obama's radical proposals for indefinite preventive detention. So, score: oleeb 100, Feingold 100, NCSteve and JohnMcCSF: FAIL.