Senator Patti Murray On Torture

[chknltl]

In response to a question I sent to Senator Murray, (D. WA. State), copied here in total:

"Dear Mr. ((chknltl)):

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Bush Administration's interrogation policies and the use of torture.

Let me be clear, I have strongly supported giving our military and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our nation. To defend our country and our liberties, we must find information from those who seek to do us harm. However, I am firmly opposed to giving the Bush Administration broad powers to circumvent legal barriers protecting against torture and will work to guard habeas corpus rights.

I share your concern and frustration regarding the legacy the Bush Administration left both at home and abroad. Like many Americans, I welcomed the election of President Obama and his commitment to end many controversial Bush Administration practices.

As you may know, in 2005 Congress approved the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) that prohibited inhumane treatment of detainees and limited the use of certain military interrogation techniques by at security facilities like the one operated at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Unfortunately, President Bush issued a signing statement along with DTA clarifying that he would only follow the law insofar as it did not restrict his power to treat detainees as he saw fit, with very limited court review.

In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that President Bush's policy of trying detainees at Guantanamo Bay using so-called "military commissions" was not authorized by existing law and, partly because they allowed evidence obtained through torture, did not comply with the Geneva Conventions. By failing to adhere to the fundamental tenets of the Geneva Conventions, I am concerned that the U.S. will alienate our allies and, more importantly, endanger American troops, leaving troops captured abroad without the most basic protections the Geneva Conventions provide. As a result of this decision, Congress had to act.

In September 2006, the Senate took up the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which set new Congressionally-authorized rules for trying unlawful enemy combatants by amending the Uniform Code of Military Justice and federal criminal law. While MCA specifically barred cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment of enemy combatants or detainees, the actual changes to the War Crimes Act only include a new definition that is so vague that some cruel and extreme interrogation techniques may still be permitted. The bill allowed the President to restrictively interpret the United States ' obligations under the Geneva Conventions and also stripped American courts of their oversight power and undercut the Geneva Conventions. Though legislation was certainly necessary after the Hamdan decision, I voted against MCA because it failed to honor the American commitment to basic moral values and international law.

MCA effectively allowed the President to detain enemy combatants not held at Guantanamo Bay outside the law and without the protection of habeas corpus. The Senate considered an amendment to the fiscal year (FY) 2008 National Defense Authorization Act that would restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States I was proud to vote in favor of that amendment, but unfortunately the vast majority of Senate Republicans opposed the amendment, and it did not gain the required sixty votes to close debate and move forward for consideration. Fortunately, in June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to access our federal courts to challenge the government's ability to hold them indefinitely.

Currently, the military has to follow interrogation guidelines in the U.S. Army Field Manual, which prohibit extreme interrogation tactics such as waterboarding, using military dogs, inducing extreme temperature conditions, and depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care. The Bush Administration has argued that while these guidelines apply to the military, they are not legally binding to the intelligence community (i.e. the CIA). To fix this, Congress passed the FY 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act, which would apply the interrogation guidelines in the Army Field Manual to members of the intelligence community, including the CIA. I was proud to help pass this bill and vote for it. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the intelligence bill because this provision was included, and the House was unable to override this veto. Please know that as I continue to work to pass legislation related to torture, interrogation techniques, and habeas corpus for detainees, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

I support President Obama's efforts to focus on addressing the serious challenges we face as a nation. We must address the current economic crisis, meet our nation's health care and education needs, care for American veterans, and deal with many other issues that were unfortunately neglected during the Bush Administration.

Please know that I look forward to working with President Obama and hearing from you about the right direction to take our country in the years ahead. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me, and please do not hesitate to be in touch.
Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as this issue is brought up during the 111th Congress. Thank you again for contacting me and please keep in touch.

I hope all is well in Tacoma."

[tavalon]

1. That was the Texas Two Step

from a Washington pol.

[chknltl]

2. This first statement made me gasp:

"Let me be clear, I have strongly supported giving our military and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our nation. To defend our country and our liberties, we must find information from those who seek to do us harm."

I like Sen. Murray, like her a lot actually. Only once have I sent her a letter of dismay, (read anger), regarding something she did. That said, for me, her opening remarks would have been something I would have expected out of a...oh I dunno, an Alaskan Governor!

Not that she ever said this but I could have hardly been more shocked if she had told me "So far things have worked out pretty good because we haven't had to fight 'them' over here!"

Aren't we like, over that whole 'war on terra' thingy already? I am personally quite shocked and disgusted over how my under-enlightened nation and my government has acted lately. I like to think that We The People are better than that.

Yes, Senator Murray did better for me with the rest of her response but if I were in her tennis shoes, (does she still wear them?), I would be doing my best to get to the bottom of what happened AND make sure that my constituents were kept updated with the truth as opposed to being mollified with spin-lines.

We The People need the facts Senator Murray, we don't need to know how you are protecting us from the evil doers who hate us because...well just because we are Americans. We are best served by our own actions, actions prompted by our knowing the brutal truth of what the bush monsters did IN OUR NAME to those they deemed to be foreign terrorists!

As it is, We The People are not safe overseas and if we collectively are kept in the dark about what the real terrorists-(the bush crime family) did, we are less able to urge our representatives in Congress to do what needs to be done to keep us safe over here.

One has to wonder what went through the minds of those post WWII German citizens who were made to witness what their government had done in those NAZI concentration camps. Why should We The People be treated any differently? "Well golly gee, we had no idea!!!"
I suspect most of those horrified Germans had no idea either but I'd bet my bottom dollar that they wished that they had known the truth before things had gotten so horribly out of hand. That's what we need Senator Murray, we need the truth.

[pscot]

3. That's a more detailed and responsive reply

than I've ever gotten from a Senator or Congressman. I've written to Rick Larsen a couple of times and never heard back at all. Was yours a letter or an email?

[chknltl]

4. It was an e-mail

I get nice form letters, (e-mails) such as this, quite often from Senator Murray. I also get them from Congressmen Jim McDermott and Norm Dicks, (both local Dems.). Rep. Dicks is my local congressman and will on occasion write a short response to me that I think is not a form letter. Jim McDermott once responded personally, (likely through a staff member), regarding his take on the depleted uranium issue over in Iraq.*

Otoh, Senator Maria Cantwell, has yet to respond to any of my e-mails. fwiw, I actually like her quite a lot and generally the things I send out to her, (and everyone else) are encouragements or thank yous.

I can't advise you on getting responses from Rick Larson but Patti Murray and Jim McDermott are pretty good at getting back to those who write in, you might want to try them. I've never gotten a single response from my e-mails when I wrote them in anger, being polite may help I guess. I am one of those guys who urges folks to contact their reps to let them know when they do good stuff just to let them know that we approve and that we are paying attention. That doesn't mean I won't send off an angry e-mail when they do something I disapprove of. Senator Murray was active against the formation of local impeachment groups and I can assure you that she got more than an ear-load of anger from those of us who found out about it-no she didn't reply.

Here are Senator Murray and Representative McDermotts contact links:

http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/contact.shtml


*(I've also gotten e-mail answers from Leuren Moret and Helen Caldicot on this issue, it's one of my pet nightmare issues, one which btw originated my name chknltl)