Open Letter to Senator Ken Salazar
|
|
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Equality / Civil Rights, Civil Liberties / Privacy, Peace & Social Justice
Categories: Equality / Civil Rights, Civil Liberties / Privacy, Peace & Social Justice
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Senator, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet you voted along with the Republican party to censure anyone who verbally criticizes a member of the military or of the armed forces. This seems to be in conflict with the oath you took. This stunt of mock outrage brought on by the Republican minority in the Senate regarding an ad purchased by the group MoveOn.org that referred to General Patreaus as General Betray Us. This is a tame statement compared to the daily ranting on Fox News programs and right wing talk radio. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said much worse and wholly inaccurate statements regarding Senator John Kerry's military service. Former Senator Max Cleleland endured a despicable campaign against him that compared him to Osama bin Laden. These transgressions and slanders are protected speech. Yet only now, when a statement is made by an advocacy group millions strong, that reflects the sentiments of millions more Americans has a group been censured by the Senate.
I am not familiar with another instance when the Senate made such a bold condemnation of political speech. Does the Constitution no longer matter? Was your oath just a stunt? You also voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies habeas corpus rights to "Enemy Combatants." A designation that is decided almost solely by the President. You are aware, with your back ground in law, how vital habeas corpus is to our legal system. The Constitutional requirements to suspend habeas corpus, invasion or rebellion, have not been met. Yet you voted for its suspension. This goes beyond partisan views. Why are you contributing to the dismantling of Constitutionally protected rights, essential to our democracy? More importantly, why aren't you standing up to protect these rights? Don't you recognize how dangerous these un-Constitutional acts are to the future of our nation?
The preamble of the Constitution promises to keep these rights for our posterity. Is our most sacred founding document now as quaint as the Geneva Conventions, or the FISA courts? Does the rule of law only apply to some individuals and not others? If so, why? I'm a concerned citizen, a member of MoveOn.org. Will you be censuring Senator McCain's comments that we should leave America? And finally, when can I expect you to begin honoring your oath of office?
Senator, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet you voted along with the Republican party to censure anyone who verbally criticizes a member of the military or of the armed forces. This seems to be in conflict with the oath you took. This stunt of mock outrage brought on by the Republican minority in the Senate regarding an ad purchased by the group MoveOn.org that referred to General Patreaus as General Betray Us. This is a tame statement compared to the daily ranting on Fox News programs and right wing talk radio. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said much worse and wholly inaccurate statements regarding Senator John Kerry's military service. Former Senator Max Cleleland endured a despicable campaign against him that compared him to Osama bin Laden. These transgressions and slanders are protected speech. Yet only now, when a statement is made by an advocacy group millions strong, that reflects the sentiments of millions more Americans has a group been censured by the Senate.
I am not familiar with another instance when the Senate made such a bold condemnation of political speech. Does the Constitution no longer matter? Was your oath just a stunt? You also voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies habeas corpus rights to "Enemy Combatants." A designation that is decided almost solely by the President. You are aware, with your back ground in law, how vital habeas corpus is to our legal system. The Constitutional requirements to suspend habeas corpus, invasion or rebellion, have not been met. Yet you voted for its suspension. This goes beyond partisan views. Why are you contributing to the dismantling of Constitutionally protected rights, essential to our democracy? More importantly, why aren't you standing up to protect these rights? Don't you recognize how dangerous these un-Constitutional acts are to the future of our nation?
The preamble of the Constitution promises to keep these rights for our posterity. Is our most sacred founding document now as quaint as the Geneva Conventions, or the FISA courts? Does the rule of law only apply to some individuals and not others? If so, why? I'm a concerned citizen, a member of MoveOn.org. Will you be censuring Senator McCain's comments that we should leave America? And finally, when can I expect you to begin honoring your oath of office?
Comments are closed for this post.
Yes, please add my name to your open letter. And thank you for shining the light for all of us; trying to hold these elected officials accountable. They will say anything and take any oath to get elected; but once in office their statements and actions can be radically different from what they promised upfront. Keep an eye on them. They're a slippery bunch.
Keep up the good fight, get us engaged. Please keep me in the loop, especially on upcoming rallies/demonstrations.
Sincerely,
Fritz Miesen
September 21, 2007
Editorial
In Search of a Congress
If you were one of the Americans waiting for Congress, under Democratic control, to show leadership on the war in Iraq, the message from the Senate is clear: “Nevermind.” The same goes for those waiting for lawmakers to fix the damage done to civil liberties by six years of President Bush and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
The Democrats don’t have, or can’t summon, the political strength to make sure Congress does what it is supposed to do: debate profound issues like these and take a stand. The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush’s increasingly narrow agenda.
On Wednesday, the Senate failed to vote on two major bills. One would have restored basic human rights and constitutional protections to hundreds of foreigners who are in perpetual detention, without charges or trial. The other was the one measure on the conduct of the Iraq war that survived the Democrats’ hasty retreat after last week’s smoke-and-mirrors display by Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush.
There were votes, of course, but not on the bills. They were cloture votes, which require 60 or more Senators to agree to cut off debate, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster, so Senators can vote on the actual law. In both cases, Democrats were four votes short, with six Republicans daring to defy the White House.
We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.
The country needs a lot more debate about what must be done to contain Iraq’s chaos and restore civil liberties sacrificed to Mr. Bush’s declared war on terrorism. Voters are capable of deciding whether Republicans are holding up the Senate out of principle or political tactics.
The current Republican leadership, now in the minority, has organized its entire agenda around the filibuster. In July, the McClatchy newspaper group reported that Republicans were using the threat of filibuster more than at any other time in the nation’s history.
Remember, this is the same batch of Republican senators who denounced Democrats as obstructionist and even un-American and threatened to change the Senate’s rules when Democrats threatened filibusters in 2005 over a few badly chosen judicial nominees. Now Republicans are using it to prevent consideration of an entire war.
If anything was clear from General Petraeus’s testimony and the president’s prime-time speech, it was that Mr. Bush has no idea how to end the war in a way that salvages as much as possible of America’s treasury, blood and global image while limiting the chaos that would follow any withdrawal, whether it comes quickly or slowly. Mr. Bush’s only idea is to keep the war going until he leaves office, and that means that other co-equal branch of government, the Congress, will have to lead the way out.
Democrats and Republicans who oppose the war have a duty to outline alternatives. Those who call for staying in Iraq have a duty to explain what victory means and how they plan to achieve it. Both sides are shirking an obligation to deal with issues that must be resolved right now, like the crisis involving asylum for Iraqis who helped the American occupation.
Congress is the first place for this kind of work. Right now, it seems like the last place it will happen.
NY Times