Letters to the Editor
-
Just got off the phone with DiFi's office...
Always feels like bashing my head against the wall, doing this, but I did it, and here's how it went:
Called her D.C. office number (202.224.3841), got phone-answerer.
Identified myself as a constituent of the Senator and asked if the Senator had decided to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who violated the law by spying on Americans without a warrant. Was told by phone answerer that she would pass along my thoughts.
Said, no, I hadn't given a thought, I had asked a question: "had the Senator decided to grant immunity... (etc.)?" Was told that the Senator had not yet announced her stance on that question.
Said that it would appear, then, that the Senator had at least not *ruled out* granting retroactive immunity to those accused of violating federal law. Phone answerer hemmed and hawed. I asked if I, as a constituent, could please be told why my Senator had not ruled out granting retroactive immunity to lawbreakers. Was put on hold.
Was transferred to second-level phone answerer, who said same thing as first phone answerer. Asked if I could please be told why my Senator had not ruled out immunity for federal lawbreakers, and asked if she could either confirm or deny the WaPo story that Senate Intelligence Committe Democrats had reached consensus that the telecoms should receive some form of immunity. Was told that the Senator simply had not decided which way she would vote, yet.
Said that I was simply dying of suspense as to which way my Senator would vote on this, but, as a constituent, I'd really like to know why my Senator is, evidently, even considering retroactive immunity for federal lawbreaking. Was told, by second-level phone answerer, that I had already been told all that I could be told on this matter, and that I could always feel free to write them a letter.
Said that I'd tried writing the Senator letters on past issues, for example, before the Senate vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and that I had found the results unsatisfactory. Asked if I could at least speak to a legislative aide of the Senator's who has Intelligence Committee responsibilities, so as to be favored with some insight into my Senator's thought process on this issue, or am I, a constituent, entitled to nothing more than to sit in ignorance on such matters and await my elected representative's enlightened decision. Was put on hold again, and then transferred to the voice mail box of someone named Dan Sapphire (Safire?), who, I hope, is a legislative aide. Left my questions and contact information on the voice mail, and now await a return call.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
-
Gordon
I'm no big time political activist. Actually, I'm pretty close to a nobody as one can get. I do talk to people about politics and I have tried since the start of the Iraqi war to get the few people that I know to lean towards the left. I was unsuccessful in '04. I've had more luck in '06 and after. But, with the way the Democrats vote on such things as FISA, MoveOn, and the discussion going on about retro-active immunity for telecoms, I've stopped dead in my tracks. What gives? What the hell are the explanations for the votes that were given? With Republicans there seems to be one view and one view only (a lot of times). Democrats are not like that and have varying opinions. Ok, but dang it, there are people dying. Ok, it's not me, not anyone in my family, not even anyone close to me. But should the fact that people are dying not give the Democrats some sort of unity to oppose the current flow of the administration? I understand that there are small victories here and there and hopefully they'll build up to a change in direction that this country is taking. But it is the big bumps in the road that the Democrats seem to be stumbling over that make it really really hard to explain to anyone why the Democrats are acting this way. And if the explanation is, well some Democrats are corrupt/sucks, then maybe the borderline people that I've been working on think that they may just have to vote in another/different Republican...
-
A GOLDEN RULE FOR DETENTION AND INTERROGATION
The Administration’s detention and interrogation practices have been questioned and defended in legislative hearings, opinion articles, judicial decisions, and other forums. Throughout -- including discussion of the iteration of the policy issued July 20 -- a fundamental question has been virtually absent: Would the Bush Administration object if captive Americans were subjected to such treatment?
There has been some speculation that our use of harsh interrogation techniques sets a precedent that might endanger future GIs who become prisoners of war. But the greatest discussion has centered on which legal regime is applicable (e.g., Geneva Common Article 3, Army Field Manual), the legal status of the persons held (e.g., prisoner of war, enemy combatant, U.S. citizen), defining classes of treatment (e.g., torture, cruelty, “enhanced methods”), and on whether specific practices (e.g., water-boarding, marathon interrogation, sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold, sexual humiliation, menacing with attack dogs) fit within particular classes.
The Administration contends that these matters are complex and subject to ambiguous guidance. But a definitive understanding of all those factors is not necessary to evaluate whether particular detention conditions and interrogation practices are appropriate policy. The fog thins if one begins the inquiry at the Golden Rule: Would the U.S. object if captive Americans were subjected to the treatment in question?
The Golden Rule often is found in some form or other in cultures that otherwise differ markedly in their traditions of law and justice. The reason: By asking whether you yourself would object to being treated in the way in question, the Golden Rule leaves no place to hide cruelty and hypocrisy behind a particular culture’s definitions or legalisms.
For example, a discussion of whether water-boarding is torture or a mere “dunking” can comfortably end with both sides “agreeing to disagree.” But it is less easy to leave the issue unresolved when the question is, “Is it acceptable to us for captive Americans to be water-boarded?”
The Bush Administration needs to be asked a similar question about every detention condition and interrogation practice. Other questions to ask: Would we object if captive Americans were treated like the captives at Guantanimo? at the CIA’s “black sites”? at prisons we operate in Afghanistan and Iraq? like suspected terrorists held in American military prisons and brigs?
If the answer is no, then American soldiers and travelers abroad ought to be told that.
There is no need to ask whether we would object to American citizens being held indefinitely without charges, counsel, or being told the evidence against them. Already, the State Department has objected to Iran’s detention of Americans under such circumstances – to no avail. It’s hard to get moral traction when you complain about practices you yourself follow.