Thank you for responding to my recent correspondence. It's always nice to feel like my views are appreciated by my elected officials. Too bad you utterly fail in this regard. If you are not going to respond to what a constituent has actually written to you - don't bother to respond. You are obviously completely out of touch with the people you serve. I can only hope that our state isn't idiotic enough to elect you Governor.
Now, on to the reason for my writing. I wrote you a letter stating that if you felt that government run healthcare was not a beneficial thing for the American people, then you should forfeit your taxpayer funded healthcare. Not a hard concept to grasp I wouldn't think, something that you should probably have your interns actually respond to. Instead - I get your average drivel about Health Savings accounts and how the big bad government shouldn't be in charge of my health care. Well, Senator - if I had access to decent health care that might make a bit of a difference to me. I don't think you realize how many people you marginalize with those type of ideas. It is very easy to say you are for choice in the healthcare system - when you have a buffet's worth of choices. Your constituents are hurting, Senator and dismissing their valid concerns as something that isn't politically advantageous is against your duties as an elected official.
From your letter: "That is why I believe the best way to address health care costs is to let consumers choose the policies that best fit their specific needs." Why didn't you just say "YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN!" because that is really what you are saying. People tell you they can't afford premiums...your answer is "Sucks to be you". Also from your letter: "With greater competition between private insurers and less government regulation, consumers will ultimately be offered more choices, better services, and overall lower health care costs." Do you honestly believe that? Increased competition is a joke - health insurers have a responsibility only to their shareholders. You should never have the health of another person in the hands of a company that would benefit from that person dying. By denying care, by restricting access, by claiming a pre-existing condition - insurance companies are able to improve their bottom line while screwing the people trusting them. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I hope that you sleep easy knowing that thanks to taxpayers you will never have to live with the idea that a serious illness could ruin you. I hope that you can rest easy knowing that if you get cancer you will get the very best medicine our money can buy.
For a man that claims to travel a certain level of moral high ground - your lack of compassion for your fellow man is astounding.
It is very disheartening to me that so many people in this nation seem to be justifying the treatment outlined in the newly released "torture memos". Talking heads (you should be ashamed Joe Scarborough) seem to think that this is an "all is fair in love and war" type of situation and that couldn't be further from the truth. This is a "we lost our soul" situation. In our history we have supported multiple trials against people and countries for this type of behavior. Please do not give me the Geneva convention argument - Yes, I am aware these are not traditional troops, however, that is nothing more than a semantic justification for something that is wholly unjustifiable.
Lets talk Waterboarding....
This is a dumb story, but it's applicable. When I was little (maybe 6 or so) - I was learning to do underwater somersaults in my local pool. I opened my eyes and saw blue and thought I was facing toward the surface, so I went what I thought was up and started to take a breath - soon it was OBVIOUS that I was not headed up. I was disoriented, I couldn't breathe, I was freaking out - I seriously thought I was drowning. I was struggling trying to figure out which was was up - finally, someone grabbed me and pulled me out. That type of reaction is instinctual.
At some point, humans decided that this type of panic could be exploited. The Japanese were tried for war crimes for doing it.
I guess it's a "nothing new under the sun" moment for our intelligence gathers.
The memos reveal that the CIA was concerned about the effects of repeated Waterboarding, that they suggested that a saline solution be used instead. You might be asking - why at this point. The CIA hired doctors realized that the potential for water poisoning existed. THIS CAN KILL PEOPLE. You might remember a few years back, a woman died after a radio show promotion that involved chugging water (she was trying to win a Wii) - the human body can only process so much water before the balance of minerals are upset. Water intoxication/poisoning can happen after ingesting around 2.6 gallons of water in a short amount of time.
Think about that for a minute - they were concerned that the detainees could ingest enough water to be poisoned by it. This doesn't sound like a harmless technique to me.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was waterboarded 183 times in 1 month.
AbuZubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in 1 month.
These abuses of power CANNOT go unpunished! Our nation claims to be a fair, civilized nation (notice I said claims...) - we cannot afford to lose further credibility by sweeping this under the rug. It's unacceptable, against international law and is un-American.
In 2002, Jay Bybee (now a Federal Judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) wrote a memo as part of his duties with the Office of Legal Council. This assignment became the infamous "Bybee Memo". It made a legal argument for moving particular interrogations into an "increased pressure phase". This memo dealt with the treatment of AbuZubaydah. His name should sound familiar. He was sold to most of us as an alQaeda mastermind, more recent evidence suggests that he was more of a hanger on and should have never been considered a high value target. However, operating under the assumption that they had a meaningful intelligence target the CIA wished to use techniques that weren't "approved". This memo gave them (written to John Rizzo, Acting General Council to the CIA) the fuzzy legal rationale for doing things that were not only illegal, but were against the ideals of this nation. Or at least I think it is. Others seem to not be so sure.
Just so we are clear..... When this memo was written - Torture was ILLEGAL under the United States Code. (It still is, but the code has been tweaked a bit).
United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 113, Section 2340 -- Definitions
As used in this chapter -- (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -- (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, or mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.
United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 113, Section 2340A -- Torture
(a) Offense.--Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if-- (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender
Contrary to what Rush seems to think, the outrage over these memos and the conduct of these interrogators is not about them slapping people around - or in the case of Joe Scarborough, we aren't upset by them throwing a little water in someone's face. The outrage is over waterboarding, over convincing detainees that the would be killed if they didn't talk, sleep deprivation (that according to the memo could be as long as 11 days), stress positions for hours upon hours, being crammed into a small dark, dank box for hours on end....these are things that we would not want to be done to American soldiers/citizens and as such we should under no circumstances use these techniques, no matter what kind of legal "loop holes" can be found.
One of my biggest issues with this is that these detainees often were subjected to these types of tactics, without being proven guilty of ANYTHING. Warlords turned people in for money - and we took their word for it. People were rounded up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you would like more information on this subject: I highly recommend the film: Taxi to the Dark Side.
If this film doesn't make you sick and angry at the conduct depicted, please seek help from a mental health professional.
Many seem to think the disclosure of these memos some how "weakens" our country. I wholeheartedly disagree. Conducting ourselves and governmental affairs under the rule of law has been an important principle of our nation since its founding. We have not always lived up to that principle - but I do not believe we should ever abandon the pursuit.
The disclosure of these memos is a step in the right direction. We must purge this and the rest of the demented frat boy behavior that has permeated the military/contractor/intelligence ranks. Bottom line...if we wouldn't want it done to one of ours, we shouldn't do it.
I was distressed that President Obama stated that the interrogators would not be prosecuted for their role in detainee abuse and torture. I hope that this does not mean that the legal minds that perverted our law to allow this will get off the hook. These people KNEW this was wrong - they ignored the spirit and bent the word of law to allow this. They must be held accountable, if there was pressure from above to make the case, they should be held accountable as well.
I have only read the first memo - I'm still trying to get through the others and the Red Cross report - so this will probably end up as a bit of a series. I am very interested in your input on this issue, so please don't be shy!
That's how I was greeted today, upon arriving at my local area Tea Party. I answered "yes, I am". I knew that it was code she was using (are you one of us?), but well, why not use that to my advantage. I do consider myself a patriot - I'm an honest patriot. I feel the way to be truly patriotic is to speak the truth about your nation.
Let me say that I completely understand how someone could be exasperated with their government. I understand the idea of being upset over unnecessary spending - I remember the stories of the $3,000 hammers and $500 toilet seats. I can understand being upset about huge deficits. What I'm trying to figure out about the Tea Party movement is: What exactly are they protesting? Higher taxes? The Bailouts? Huge borrowing? Pork Barrel Spending? or are they protesting the election of a Democrat to the White House?
On higher taxes, I guess they all must make a helluva lot more than I do. It seemed to me that only the highest tax bracket was going to get an increase and it was only about 3%. Or are they protesting the "possibility" of new taxes?
On the Bailouts, where were they last fall when the Bush administration was in charge of this?
On Deficit Spending, do they not remember Reagan? Do they not remember a hugely expensive war? Again, where have they been?
On Pork Barrel Spending, I saw many Democrats named - but where were the Republican names to go with them? On Obama - The hosts of our local event, stated that this was not a partisan movement, but I fear they do not realize they have been co-opted. Over the past 8 years, I have been called a traitor, un-American, an America-hater, a commie - you name it. All because I voiced my feelings about my country and my leaders. Now the same people that harassed and scorned people like me - are protesting a President that has been in power for less than 100 days. But it's not partisan.
I guess my biggest issue - is when "protecting" the Constitution is mentioned. George W. Bush and his cronies used the Constitution to wipe their asses for 8 years - where was the outrage then? No, these were the same people that would tell you "I have nothing to hide" when it came to warrant-less wiretapping - or would say "I don't care what you do to the terrorists" when confronted about torture. I don't understand how that can be reconciled.
