I got an email from Senator Ensign today

[UberSquid]

I got an email from Senator John Ensign from Nevada regarding a message I had sent to him regarding my opposition to the recently passed "torture bill". I've followed it up with my response to his response, plus the contents of the original message I had sent. I've never been very good at rebutting, so if anyone has other points I could make, I'd be happy to include them.

Mr. Hoodydoodle

Address redacted


Dear Mr. Hoodydoodle:



Thank you for contacting me regarding the Military Commissions Act. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me, and I value the opportunity to address them.



Salim Hamdan, a terrorist and former bodyguard and aide to Osama bin Laden, was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was subsequently charged with, among other crimes, conspiracy, murder and terrorism. Prior to his trial on these charges, Hamdan filed suit challenging the jurisdiction of the military commission set to hear his case. His challenge was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court. The Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld invalidated the military commissions being used at Guantanamo Bay to prosecute terrorists for war crimes.



In response to that decision, the Senate and the Administration worked to craft legislation that would create military commissions for the prosecution of terrorists and still maintain the terrorist interrogation program. I know that tough questioning of captured terrorists has enabled us to pinpoint the exact locations of where other terrorists were hiding and foil plans to launch attacks and kill Americans inside the US. The legislation, now part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, authorizes the creation of military commissions to try foreign terrorists using a 5- or 12-member military commission overseen by a military judge.



This legislation also ensures that enemy combatants have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to military and civilian counsel, the right to present evidence of innocence, the right to exclude evidence obtained through torture, and the right to appeal. It also establishes a specific list of crimes that are considered "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions.



One of the most important provisions of the bill is that it protects classified information from terrorists who could exploit it to plan another terrorist attacks. I believe that classified information should not be shared with accused terrorists in their trials since that could disclose the names and identities of American undercover agents. It is important to protect our agents and our methods and this bill does that by providing a national security privilege that can be used during a trial to prevent the introduction of classified evidence. However, in order to help the accused establish a defense he may be provided a lengthy declassified summary of the evidence.



I do not believe that terrorists should be afforded the same rights as American civilians or military personnel who have committed crimes. These are not common criminals, nor are they foreign soldiers. These are savage individuals who have rejected civilized society and ignored the rules of war.



The Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, has held numerous hearings on this issue to determine how best to govern the military commissions to ensure that the basic elements of fairness are maintained. I believe this legislation is the best compromise to ensure that those terrorists who choose to wage war against the United States and our freedoms are brought to justice, which is why I supported it when it passed the Senate on September 28, 2006 by a vote of 65-34.



Please rest assured that I will be sure to keep your concerns, and the concerns of all Nevadans, in mind. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. If you should have further questions or comments or would like to sign up for my monthly newsletter, please feel free to write or e-mail me via my website at http://ensign.senate.gov.



Sincerely,



JOHN ENSIGN

United States Senator



JE/ab

This is the email response I got just about an hour ago. My rebuttal is below.

Dear Senator Ensign,

Previously, I had emailed you regarding my concerns over the recently passed legislation allowing torture of enemy combatants, and I appreciate your reply which I have included below for reference. Your reply, however, has left me with a number of questions which hopefully you could enlighten me on.

"Salim Hamdan, a terrorist and former bodyguard and aide to Osama bin Laden, was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was subsequently charged with, among other crimes, conspiracy, murder and terrorism. Prior to his trial on these charges, Hamdan filed suit challenging the jurisdiction of the military commission set to hear his case. His challenge was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court. The Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld invalidated the military commissions being used at Guantanamo Bay to prosecute terrorists for war crimes."

You mention that Salim Hamdan was charged with conspiracy, murder, terrorism and other crimes, but filed suit challenging the jurisdiction of the military conviction before his case went to trial. Forgive me for asking, but was Salim Hamdan a convicted terrorist prior to his detention? I am unfamiliar with the specifics of this individual, but I'm sure you can see my concern where an individual is presumed guilty of crimes prior to his trial by jury. I'm assuming that if the charges against this individual were such that the evidence clearly pointed to his guilt, trial by jury would have found this individual guilty as charged. Why would the government jeopardize conviction by applying techniques which could potentially be deemed invalid, thus causing the case to be thrown out. Was the existing evidence insufficient to obtain a conviction? Were that to happen in the case of a high profile figure such as Salim Hamdan, I would imagine that it would be a black eye to America in our war of terror.

"In response to that decision, the Senate and the Administration worked to craft legislation that would create military commissions for the prosecution of terrorists and still maintain the terrorist interrogation program."

Why would military commissions work better than the current Justice system we have in place?

"I know that tough questioning of captured terrorists has enabled us to pinpoint the exact locations of where other terrorists were hiding and foil plans to launch attacks and kill Americans inside the US."

Could you provide me with a generalized example of an instance or two where "tough questioning of captured terrorists" has resulted in the capture and conviction of other terrorists, or aided in the foiling of valid and achievable plots to kill Americans inside the US?

"This legislation also ensures that enemy combatants have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to military and civilian counsel, the right to present evidence of innocence, the right to exclude evidence obtained through torture, and the right to appeal. It also establishes a specific list of crimes that are considered "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions."

Unless I have heard erroneously, this legislation does not include the right to know what one has been charged with, nor the right to a speedy trial. I'm sure you're aware that without those rights, it is entirely possible under this legislation that an individual could be held indefinitely without knowing what they have been charged with, thereby preventing them from mounting an effective defense. Essentially this legislation allows for individuals to be "disappeared" at the whim of the government. Is this not so? What checks and balances exist to prevent this from occurring? What oversights exist to prevent gross miscarraiges of justice?

What exactly is the definition of an "enemy combatant" and where is this codified in existing law? In the broadest possible term, couldn't anybody who disagrees with the conduct of the United States government be considered an enemy combatant?

What methodology was used to determine which list of crimes are considered "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions? What crimes, if any, were excluded from this list because they were determined to not be "grave" enough?

"One of the most important provisions of the bill is that it protects classified information from terrorists who could exploit it to plan another terrorist attacks. I believe that classified information should not be shared with accused terrorists in their trials since that could disclose the names and identities of American undercover agents. It is important to protect our agents and our methods and this bill does that by providing a national security privilege that can be used during a trial to prevent the introduction of classified evidence. However, in order to help the accused establish a defense he may be provided a lengthy declassified summary of the evidence."

I have no quarrel with the idea that the introduction of classified information into a trial could jeopardize national security, but I must respectfully disagree with the use of classified evidence when the defense will be allowed only a summary of the evidence. I'm no lawyer, but shouldn't both sides of a trial be equal before the law? If the plaintiff has information that the defense doesn't have, the trial becomes weighted in favor of the plaintiff. This seems to me to be a ploy more to gain convictions rather than seek the truth of an individual's guilt or innocence. It would be better if classified information never be introduced into a trial if it were likely to jeopardize national security.

"I do not believe that terrorists should be afforded the same rights as American civilians or military personnel who have committed crimes. These are not common criminals, nor are they foreign soldiers. These are savage individuals who have rejected civilized society and ignored the rules of war."

What if the accused terrorists are American civilians, or military personnel themselves? Remember that the accusation of terrorism is not the same as a conviction of terrorism. By not affording accused terrorists the same rights as others who have committed crimes, become no better than the terrorists, who act more out of emotion rather than rational thought.

"The Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, has held numerous hearings on this issue to determine how best to govern the military commissions to ensure that the basic elements of fairness are maintained. I believe this legislation is the best compromise to ensure that those terrorists who choose to wage war against the United States and our freedoms are brought to justice, which is why I supported it when it passed the Senate on September 28, 2006 by a vote of 65-34. "

Given President Bush's proclivity for the use of signing statements and his discretionary application of adherence to the laws which he signs, are you not concerned that this legislation will not be used in some manner not intended by the framers? Or has the legislative branch of the United States become irrelevant while we weren't looking.

Sincerely,
Mr. Hoodydoodle

Finally, here is the message which sparked this whole exchange. It was sent via the Downsizer Dispatch network. Much of the text was written by the folks at Downsizer Dispatch, but I added my own comments at various points.

President Bush wants legislation that would empower the federal government to
1. Arrest non-citizen U.S. residents accused of terrorist involvement as "unlawful enemy combatants."
2. Arrest non-citizens for contributing to charities linked to militant groups.
3. Charge, try, convict, and punish people based on evidence they have never seen, and cannot rebut. (Such courts are called "Star Chambers," and they are a stain on the history of the human race.)
4. Prohibit the accused from challenging the lawfulness of their detention before an independent court.
5. Hold people in military prison for life, without ever telling them the cause of their detention.
6. Subject detainees to cruel and unusual punishment.
7. Use evidence collected through torture to secure convictions.
8. Redefine the War Powers Act to grant torturers "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

This legislation would stain America forever. It would betray everything we have ever stood for in the world. It would breed distrust and create new enemies. It would endanger our troops by erecting a low standard of morality for every other nation with which we deal. And it would do absolutely nothing to protect us.
Information gained through torture is useless. Victims of torture will say anything to stop the pain.
Convictions rendered by "Star Chambers" are baseless. We cannot know who is guilty unless we test the evidence using due process. "Star Chambers" will prohibit us from knowing if we have convicted the guilty or the innocent. But we will stand convicted in the eyes of the whole world, and we will be guilty.

If this legislation passes we will have betrayed our finest American principles for absolutely nothing, and given future politicians terrible new powers with which to rule and terrorize.

If we allow this legislation to pass we will be damned before the court of history for all time, and we will richly deserve it. As an American, I used to believe that we stood as a stronghold of morality in the eyes of the world, but legislation such as this along with a growing list of disturbing acts such as the illegal invasion of Iraq (pre-emptive war was considered a crime against humanity during the Nuremburg trials if I remember correctly), blind support of a nation that constantly flaunts UN resolutions (Israel) while condemning others on the basis of unproven "facts" (Iran's pursuit of nuclear fuel enrichment for the purposes of power generation, which is not only allowable under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of which the US and Iran are both signatories, but is also different from the enrichment required to generate fuel for nuclear weapons) and the issue of illegal wiretapping (The FISA court already allows wiretaps to be placed with retroactive approval. Why would the executive branch desire this oversight to be eliminated if not for nefarious purposes? The last time I checked, the President of the United States of America was employed, as is the legislative branch, at the behest of the people, and should be answerable to them).

These and many more activities of this administration, and administrations before it have caused America to sink into a moral quagmire in the eyes of the world. We cannot defend America by destroying America and all it once stood for.

If anybody has any comments of corrections, I would appreciate the feedback!
Thx

 

[Laura]

I wonder if the good senator has ever thought about the fact that he - and many other members of Congress - could also fall victim to this bill?

 

[tschai]

What's next-an updated version of the Inquisition? Looks like we are headed there for sure.

The real scary part is most Americans never see this kind of thing-are not even aware such things are even being contemplated while they are engaged in their daily activities.

Even more scary is that fact many of the folks responsible for putting this kind of crap to votes have admitted they do not even read the content of the Bills they vote on-they complain there is no time to do so because the Bills are rushed out onto the floor for voting before they really have a chance to evaluate the language of the Bill and it's implications-not that it would make a difference in many cases. The Bills are often worded in so much double speak and legalese that it is hard to determine exactly what they are attempting to put into law-and are constructed so if you vote "NO" you are actually in FAVOR of the Bill.

You'd think if something containing the words "Torture" "Incarceration without due process" "Life in prison without reason" was put in front of them, it would cause these folks to say "Whoa-what the heck are we talking about here?"

But then again that is what NORMAL people would do-and we know none of those exist on the Hill...

 

[the rabbit]

tschai wrote;
"The real scary part is most Americans never see this kind of thing-are not even aware such things are even being contemplated while they engross themselves in their Monday night football and reality TV shows."

Hi
Now I know what you mean when you write this,though i feel one has to be careful when saying such things as it kind of alienates and could easily be construed as an "I am smarter than you" kind of attitude. The guys who watch their football etc are not the enemy here,there are many who like to watch sport and still know a real enemy when they see one.And they are many though obviously not enough.

The Joe six pack (another term used) works hard usually to make ends meet,feeds a family and so on, he/she is tired from all of this work,though would soon wake up (hopefully) if a way was found to get right information to him/her.Said folks try and save money so as to send their kids through education in the hope that their kids will do better than they did. Which is sad in itself,they are worthy for crying out loud! They just dont know exactly HOW they have been used. This is what we have to address,to find the medium where they are more likely more open to take on board information.Though if they see one as being an effete snob youve no chance of holding the attention and rightly so.

The people who can see come from all walks of life and have many diffirent interests.Thats a fact!

 

[UberSquid]

I wonder if the good senator has ever thought about the fact that he - and many other members of Congress - could also fall victim to this bill?

I suspect the thought never crossed their minds. After all, it is not them under the baleful "Eye of Mordor"...at least not at the moment.

Even more scary is that fact many of the folks responsible for putting this kind of crap to votes have admitted they do not even read the content of the Bills they vote on-they complain there is no time to do so because the Bills are rushed out onto the floor for voting before they really have a chance to evaluate the language of the Bill and it's implications-not that it would make a difference in many cases. The Bills are often worded in so much double speak and legalese that it is hard to determine exactly what they are attempting to put into law-and are constructed so if you vote "NO" you are actually in FAVOR of the Bill.

A previous email I had sent to Senator Ensign addressed this and requested his support for the "Read the Bills" act being proposed by the Downsizer Dispatch network. His response was:

(...)As a proponent of limited government, I support the principles behind the
"Read the Bills" proposal; however, I do have concerns. The "Read the
Bills Act" provides that a law cannot take effect unless the rules in the
bill have been followed. By legislating a set of rules that directly
conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution that establish
legislative process, I fear that a federal court would rule "Read the
Bills" is unconstitutional. The truth, however, is that it would not be
necessary to legislate that each member of Congress read each bill and
amendment if elected officials were held accountable to the people. I
take great pride in representing you and our fellow Nevadans. That is why
I have made a commitment that either I, or my staff, will review every
piece of legislation considered in the Senate and that I will not support
any legislation until I am able to understand its impact on our state and
on America. Please be assured that I will continue to work hard for
Nevada and for increasing the openness and accountability of the federal
government consistent with the intent of the "Read the Bills Act."(...)

Now this, to me, sounds more like "Don't worry your head about these complex law thingies...Us congressfolks have things well under control. Buy. Consume. Sleep. Of course, now, by his own admission, Senator Ensign has now confirmed that he fully understands the impact of the Military Commissions Act on America.

The Joe six pack (another term used) works hard usually to make ends meet,feeds a family and so on, he/she is tired from all of this work,though would soon wake up (hopefully) if a way was found to get right information to him/her.Said folks try and save money so as to send their kids through education in the hope that their kids will do better than they did. Which is sad in itself,they are worthy for crying out loud! They just dont know exactly HOW they have been used. This is what we have to address,to find the medium where they are more likely more open to take on board information.Though if they see one as being an effete snob youve no chance of holding the attention and rightly so.

The people who can see come from all walks of life and have many diffirent interests.Thats a fact!

Well said, rabbit. One of things that I've noticed is that people tend to be more receptive to the truth of the situation if you don't start off by attacking their beliefs right off the bat. The technique I tend to use is to insinuate small bits of trivia into conversations when the situation warrants. More often than not, I get the "Really?!" reaction rather than "That's a load of donkey dung!". If we had the resources that "Mordor" has, then the truth would be much more visible. Since we don't, I do what I can when I can.
;)

 

[tschai]

tschai wrote;
"The real scary part is most Americans never see this kind of thing-are not even aware such things are even being contemplated while they engross themselves in their Monday night football and reality TV shows."

Hi
Now I know what you mean when you write this,though i feel one has to be careful when saying such things as it kind of alienates and could easily be construed as an "I am smarter than you" kind of attitude. The guys who watch their football etc are not the enemy here,there are many who like to watch sport and still know a real enemy when they see one.And they are many though obviously not enough.

The Joe six pack (another term used) works hard usually to make ends meet,feeds a family and so on, he/she is tired from all of this work,though would soon wake up (hopefully) if a way was found to get right information to him/her.Said folks try and save money so as to send their kids through education in the hope that their kids will do better than they did. Which is sad in itself,they are worthy for crying out loud! They just dont know exactly HOW they have been used. This is what we have to address,to find the medium where they are more likely more open to take on board information.Though if they see one as being an effete snob youve no chance of holding the attention and rightly so.

The people who can see come from all walks of life and have many diffirent interests.Thats a fact!

You are right of course-the statement was made in haste-not meant to alienate nor project the "holier and smarter than thou"-which I certainly fall short in this category. The "Joe Six Pack" monicker has been used by many, and yeah, I should be careful not to use labels or point to any particular group (unless of course it is warranted-but this is a slippery slope and unless we are sure of the footing had best resist the temptation lest we draw friendly fire)

Sports are not the enemy nor the viewers of said events-and everyone is entitled to their downtime recreation whatever form that may take. As one of the denizens of the so called "middle class" and of blue collar background myself I know all to well the daily struggles faced by many. Perhaps it would have been better put to say "engrossed in other day to day activities"

Thank you for pointing this fuax pas out, Rabbit.