Stabenow's Response Re: Detainee Act Vote

[barrytonmi]

I received the following e-mail from Debbie Stabenow today in response to an e-mail I sent to her following her vote on the Detainee Act:

October 19, 2006

Thank you . . .

. for contacting me about the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I understand your deeply held beliefs regarding this bill and your distrust of the Bush Administration which I share.

As you may know, the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision found the President's military tribunals unconstitutional. This decision created a void with no judicial process in place for the detainees who our country has been holding indefinitely.

I understand the distrust of the Bush Administration which has frankly shown a flagrant disregard for the law. However, having no law in place would have given this administration continued justification to act without any accountability.

This proposal puts in place protections that do not exist today for detainees and is a better system than the one proposed by the President. I strongly opposed the President's attempts to undermine the Geneva Convention. This bill does not amend the Geneva Convention in any way. This proposal puts in place specific protections against torture, providing needed clarification on what constitutes war crimes and criminalizing specific interrogation techniques.

Could this bill be improved? Absolutely. I supported every Democratic amendment to tighten definitions and strengthen this legislation. Unfortunately, we lost them in close votes. I will continue to work with my colleagues to modify the law, and am hopeful that with changes in the new Congress, we will be successful in making these needed improvements.

There is no question that Congress will need to continue its oversight role of this Administration. While we may respectfully disagree about this bill, my vote was based on the sincere belief that ignoring the Hamdan decision and passing no legislation was not an option. If we had not passed this bill, our military would not have been able to move forward with trials against suspected terrorists now in U.S. custody.

Thanks for sharing your views with me on this legislation. As always, I welcome your input.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

************

OK, so now I feel better having received and read her communication. I will still cast my vote for her - like I had much choice, given Bouchard's record!:thumbsup:

[dad]

1. I rec'd the same form letter.

How on earth could that form letter make you feel better about this candidate?
It would appear that she honestly does not know what she voted for!

" This decision created a void with no judicial process in place for the detainees who our country has been holding indefinitely. "

Actually the process in place was to follow THE LAW and allow these "detainees" a fair trial.

I understand the distrust of the Bush Administration which has frankly shown a flagrant disregard for the law.
~ Yet she trusts them with despotic powers to indefinitely detain persons chosen at their whim, interrogate them with methods up to and including torture (definition of torture as defined by GW Bush) and hold them indefinitely without presentation of evidence.

However, having no law in place would have given this administration continued justification to act without any accountability.
~ Again, I do not understand the "no law in place" argument.

This proposal puts in place protections that do not exist today for detainees and is a better system than the one proposed by the President.
~ Actually this proposal gives the President despotic powers to choose at his sole discretion who is an enemy of the state. The President can define what the definition of torture is, and not reveal what his definiton is.

I strongly opposed the President's attempts to undermine the Geneva Convention.
~ She voted for a bill that forgives the Bush Administrations past war crimes and bypasses Geneva for future war crimes.

This bill does not amend the Geneva Convention in any way.
~ It BYPASSES that quaint document, the GC.

This proposal puts in place specific protections against torture, providing needed clarification on what constitutes war crimes and criminalizing specific interrogation techniques.
~ I call bullshit on that one. The PRESIDENT can decide IN SECRECY what the definition of torture is.

Could this bill be improved? Absolutely. I supported every Democratic amendment to tighten definitions and strengthen this legislation. Unfortunately, we lost them in close votes. I will continue to work with my colleagues to modify the law, and am hopeful that with changes in the new Congress, we will be successful in making these needed improvements.
~ She is working AGAINST her colleagues, such as Sen. Levin, and voting in FAVOR of torture.

There is no question that Congress will need to continue its oversight role of this Administration.
~ No question, yet she votes to diminish Congress' role in gov't time and time again as the Bushies wish.

While we may respectfully disagree about this bill, my vote was based on the sincere belief that ignoring the Hamdan decision and passing no legislation was not an option. If we had not passed this bill, our military would not have been able to move forward with trials against suspected terrorists now in U.S. custody.
~ Once again, no idea of the thinking here. Stabenow again tries to insinuate the US was a nation without laws prior to the passage of the torture bill.


Thanks for sharing your views with me on this legislation. As always, I welcome your input.
~ She'll be getting more input from me. I don't expect a response.

[dad]

2. This is the process that was in place.

The 6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.

[last1standing]

5. It's very simple. She lied.

n/t

[TahitiNut]

8. Exactly! Her letter (I got one, too) is a pack of lies.

No other Michigan Democrat voted 'Yea' ... not one. Not Levin and not one Congresscritter.

So sorry, Debbie. I don't vote for enablers and liars. When it's a question of the "lesser of two evils" I don't choose either.

I'm actively supporting Skinner, and supporting Andy Levin, Jennifer Granholm, and a wide range of other liberal Democrats. Not Debbie. I wouldn't support Lieberman or Ben Nelson, either.

[PassingFair]

3. Lame-O

Not YOU,


the Letter.

She has my vote, but she has lost
my respect, and my shoe leather,
and she has REALLY dampened my ardor
for campaign work this cycle in
Michigan.

Thanks, Debs!

[SharonRB]

9. That's where I am on her, too

She's got my vote, but I'm not as enthusiastic about her. Most of my energy is going into Nancy's campaign,but I still wholeheartedly support the governor, Andy Levin, Andy Meisner, Gilda Jacobs, Sandy Levin, etc.

:hi:

[last1standing]

4. I got it too.

I'm not so vain as to think I would get my own personalized letter, but I would have thought she, or her staff, could at least have not lied and set up strawmen. The MCA does allow torture up to but not including organ failure or death. That's not the kind of thing that makes me feel warm and cozy. Also, by trying to turn the argument to state that it's my distrust of bush* that makes me not like this bill is deception at its worst. I don't like this bill because any president can use its power, not just bush* (notice I don't say abuse. When a bill is this clear in its intent to allow the president to become a power unto himself it cannot be considered abuse if he uses it).

Anyway, here's my letter back, like it'll do a damn bit of good.

Senator Stabenow,

While I thank you for your response to my original letter, I'm afraid I find your arguments are incredibly lacking. This bill does allow torture just below the threshold of organ failure or death. This is not what we as a country were supposed to stand for. Also, this bill has destroyed the writ of Habeas Corpus, which within one day of being placed into effect is now being used by this administration to silence those who would ask for nothing more than the right to ask why they are being detained.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html?nav=rss_nation/special

Senator, you have let loose a monster. I cannot understand your reasoning, nor your lack of insight as to what this bill has done to our country. I can only hope you can understand why you will not be receiving my support, my donations, nor my vote in future.

Unlike you, I wont be voting for stabenow come November. I hope I am never able to look back and have to admit to knowingly supporting cruelty and corruption such as this.

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. Not good enough.

It will never be good enough until it's rescinded. You've lost me Sen. Stabenow.

[Strawman]

7. No law is better than codifying the repeal of habeus corpus into law

and legally sanctioning torture. That's a terrible response.

[butterfly77]

10. I will vote for her this time...

but they need to get another candidate. I am so tired of her running her ass up to the mike and trying to fit in to a photo-op. I have been watching her for months now.

[noamnety]

11. I'm with you all as well

Got the letter here, too.

I'm biting my tongue til elections, because (MI-D) is better than (MI-R). But I want to go after her, beginning right after the election, in the hopes of encouraging someone with a better moral grounding to challenge her in the next primaries.

[Mich Otter]

12. Why I will not vote for Debbie Stabenow.

There are times when principle has to win out over other wants.
I believe there will be people who will spend years in prison due to the suspension of "habeas corpus" until that part of the bill is finally found to be un-constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Debbie Stabenow either is not smart enough to realize she supports this imprisonment of people, who may or may not be guilty of anything, or she understands and she feels it is more important to score a political advantage in this election.
Either way, I wish she would have resigned from the Senate and let the people of Michigan have a choice for a better person for the job.
After her votes on supporting Condoleza Rice, (who has proven her incompetence), and the bankruptcy bill, (which is a bad bill), I see no indication Debbie Stabenow is fit for her job. She has no backbone to fight for Democratic principles.
A third party candidate will get my vote for Senator.

[Strawman]

13. The secret voting booth is not the place to "rise as a majority of one"

Other than that, I agree with everything you say.

That's just my opinion on the act of voting, but I'm outraged as well and fully understand the desire to not feel as if one has somehow endorsed a representative who would vote that way and has seemingly no non-negotiable bedrock principles. I just personally don't view a choice of the lesser-of-two-evils as an "endorsement."

[Mich Otter]

14. I'll stick by my principles,

you do as you see fit.

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. You are not alone Mich Otter...

The horror of her vote became too much for me to take. Instead of working for her, as I had planned, I am working for local Dem candidates and on voting day I'm going to be able to walk out of that precinct with a clear conscience.

[CoCre8tor]

16. Include me with Otter & Grumpy

Stabenow's vote against the Constitution was shocking and disappointing. I feel that voting for her is akin to voting for dictatorship, not democracy.

Reasonable people could disagree about the other whacky votes that she made (though I feel her votes on the confirmation of Rice, bankruptcy bill, & flag burning amendment bizarre for an alleged "liberal"), her vote against the Constitution breached the public's trust.

Someone told me that he was going to vote, but would skip the US Senator election on account of Stabenow's torture bill vote. I told him I was voting for David Sole - the Green Party candidate - because the third parties have to acheive a certain percentage of the vote to maintain ballot access. I think one of the parties candidates has to recieve 1% of the vote to maintain ballot access. That's what I recall from my Natural Law Party days.

According to the Rasmussen Reports polls, Stabenow leads Bouchard 55-39. I'll sleep better knowing that my vote may help the Green Party and will not be supporting a Constitution-buster like Stabenow, and yet the Dems won't lose the seat either.

One of Gandhi's Seven Deadly Social Sins is Politics without Principle. Stabenow played politics with her support of the torture bill, and failed to stand up for the principle of democracy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/MichiganSenate1022.htm

[placton]

18. Never vote for Stabenow

Or, as better put by others, Debbie Lieberwoman. She is a disgrace and a (political) whore. Her ads try to run away from the party, and with the lead she has, could have voted with Levin. We must begin to build for a primary challenge in 6 years. Unlike Germans in the 30s (and GOP-ites today), I cannot vote for evil.

[bain_sidhe]

17. Why I WILL vote for Debbie Stabenow

Majority Leader Harry Reid

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy deciding which of Bush's nominations for the federal bench get hearings

and Democrats in control of every Senate committee.

[direwolf]

19. Same letter

Though I find her support for this as well as the bankruptcy legislation appalling, Bush-tard is DEFINITELY not someone we need in the Senate.