Arlen Specter E-Mails Me; I Call Arlen Specter
Arlen Specter emailed me this afternoon. All emphases are mine.
Dear Mr. Skwire:
Thank you for contacting my office to express your concerns regarding the United States’ treatment of detained enemy combatants and suspected terrorists. I appreciate your interest in this matter and your willingness to share your views with me.
I have consistently supported efforts to prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for those detained by the United States. In 2005, I voted for Senator McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act, which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” of any detainee held by any U.S. agency. Similarly, in 2006, I voted for Senator Kennedy’s amendment to the Military Commissions Act, which sought to clarify that certain acts prohibited by the Army Field Manual would be considered punishable offenses under the Geneva Conventions. These included: “forcing the person to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; applying beatings, electric shocks, burns, or other forms of physical pain to the person; waterboarding the person; using dogs on the person; inducing hypothermia or heat injury in the person; conducting a mock execution of the person; and depriving the person of necessary food, water, or medical care.” Although the amendment failed, Senator John Warner, the bill’s sponsor, agreed that such conduct would constitute “grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention” and would be “clearly prohibited” by the bill.
In my view, there is an important difference between prohibiting certain offensive practices and providing our adversaries with a public blueprint of all acceptable interrogation techniques that may be used against them. For this reason, I did not support the Conference Report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which required all U.S. intelligence agencies-notably, the CIA-to use only those interrogation techniques outlined in the publicly available Army Field Manual. I agree with Senator McCain, a former prisoner of war and a leader in the effort to ban torture, who said: “I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values.”
I also raised these issues during the confirmation of Attorney General Mukasey. I observed that a president might seek to avoid a legal ban on torture under exigent circumstances. I noted that even our constitutional protections, like the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure, sometimes yield to exigent circumstances. This reality is not an invitation to executive overreaching; rather, it indicates that Congress ought to draw the parameters to influence what the president may do when exigent circumstances arise. Unfortunately, the debate about the interrogation of detainees is too often politically charged on both sides. I believe the topic is complex and merits serious consideration by Congress.
In addition to my votes to prohibit torture, I have also worked to ensure that those detained by the United States have a robust method for challenging their detention. I have twice introduced the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, which would ensure detainees have the ability to challenge their detention in federal courts. I have also offered the habeas corpus legislation as an amendment to other related bills. Accordingly, I was gratified by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to habeas corpus and will allow the federal trial courts to review each detainee’s case to see that individualized justice is done. I will continue to press this important issue with my colleagues and push for legislation that will ensure implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Thank you again for contacting me. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
Well, THAT was certainly a lot of time and effort put into what amounts to a huge, steaming pile of bullshit and hogwash. I swear to God, if the metaphorical bullshit that flows out of DC could be transformed into REAL bullshit, we’d never have to depend on chemical fertilizer again! So I called the Senator’s office, and was promptly transferred to his judiciary staff.
Riiiiiiing….. Riiiiiiing
“Hello, Judiciary.”
“Hi, this is Brendan Skwire calling. I’m a constituent of Senator Specter, and today I received an email from him about torture and habeas corpus that doesn’t seem to reflect the Senator’s actions, and I’m hoping you can provide some clarification.
“For example, Senator Specter wrote:
I have consistently supported efforts to prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for those detained by the United States. In 2005, I voted for Senator McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act, which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” of any detainee held by any U.S. agency. Similarly, in 2006, I voted for Senator Kennedy’s amendment to the Military Commissions Act, which sought to clarify that certain acts prohibited by the Army Field Manual would be considered punishable offenses under the Geneva Conventions…
Now putting aside that the McCain Amendment was ineffectual and that the Kennedy Amendment to the MCA failed, isn’t it true that Senator Specter voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the very day after he said it was “patently unconstitutional on its face” and he wouldn’t support it? And didn’t the MCA LEGALIZE torture and repeal habeas? Could you explain to me how his vote is consistent with his claim that he “consistently supported efforts to prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for those detained by the United States”?”
“Um… hmm… I, er, I-I-I’ll have to check with the uh person who.. um, handles that…” I could practically see his eyes shifting this way and that, trying to weasel out of the questions, so I pressed on.
“And I have a related question. In his letter Senator Specter talks about bringing issues of torture up during the Mukasey confirmation hearings. But as I recall Mr. Mukasey refused to define torture, and even today refuses to even investigate allegations of torture. And Senator Specter voted to confirm him ANYWAY. So could you clarify for me how this is consistent with the Senator’s claim to oppose torture?”
“Um, well…”
“And then he also wrote a good bit about he’s twice introduced the “Habeas Corpus Restoration Act”, but didn’t that bill fail twice? Why should I care about Senator Specter’s support for bills that won’t pass? Isn’t that kind of irrelevant?”
“Um… well, I’ll have to have someone look into this.”
“Yes, I’d appreciate if you would. I’m a constituent of Senator Specter, and it’s my taxes that help send him to DC and pay his salary. I think I’m owed a response regarding this letter, which is completely inconsistent with the Senator’s actions. Here’s my number: XXX-XXX-XXXX. When do you think you’ll be getting back to me about this?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Well, I DO expect a return call and a full explanation. I’m happy to call back tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that until someone either explains to me how this letter in any way reflects the Senator’s record or admits that the Senator is trying to flimflam me.”
And so we said our goodbyes, and hung up. I have a feeling I’ll be calling back later this week, because questions like mine are impossible to answer. The guy who took my call knows the Senator is lying by omission, and he knows I know the Senator is lying. So he won’t call back, hoping I’ll forget about it and go away.
I don’t forget stuff like this, and I don’t go away.
3 Responses to “Arlen Specter E-Mails Me; I Call Arlen Specter”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I love your phone calls! I wish my calls to Claire McCaskill were packed with your assertive nature.
About the subject of the dogs used in torture. I had a German Shepherd latch onto my throat when I was ten years old. When I managed to pull him off of my neck, he sank his teeth into my arm, and held on until I tore him loose. An attack, or threat of attack by a dog is an extremely personal, and deeply frightful ordeal. Some people don’t understand the psychological damage that can result from such an encounter. You NEVER forget it.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Holy shit, that is a TERRIFYING story.
I have a bunch of friends who can’t deal with dogs for similar reasons.
August 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
[...] [...]