With regard to this post yesterday, I decided to send an email to the Chief of Staff of my congresssman Peter Roskam. I had a very sincere telephone conversation with him earlier this fall after my cousin's son died in Iraq. He gave me his email address, and believe me I think I have showed QUITE a lot of restraint by not harrassing him on a daily basis about all the problems in Washington. That said, after I saw the YouTube with another Bush patsy saying they can't answer a question about water-boarding, I sent him this email. No reply yet. But at least I was able to get this off my chest, and maybe he will pass it along to his boss? :
Hi Steven:
I spoke with you a couple of months ago regarding my opposition to the war in Iraq (after a relative died there). I reflect on that conversation often, in that I sincerely appreciate the time you took to call me, and also my day-to-day curiosity about the ways that Washington DC works, or doesn't "work", on any given news topic and how that may affect your job duties day-to-day, and if that contrasts much at all to the chaos of your time working in Iraq ;~) I can only imagine that its a roller-coaster everyday...
I'm writing you today to find out what Rep. Roskam's position is and specifically any concrete steps he is taking in support of, or against, the apparently "ill-defined-to-too-many" Torture "situation".... Although I classify myself as a "middle-of the roader" politics-wise, I believe these are "conservative" beliefs I hold and had previously expected to endure indefinitely in the US, namely:
The rule of law- - is it illegal, or not, for any Administration to destroy or withhold evidence that has been requested both in judicial trials and by a special commission tasked to get to the bottom of 9/11?
Supporting our troops-- is it supportive, or not, to effectively stop following the Geneva Conventions? How is it that yesterday an American Brigadier General now cannot answer a question about whether or not Iranian agents waterboarding a US serviceman constitutes torture? http://www.youtube.com/v/89cYbggdGVQ&rel=1- How does this policy help or hinder recruiting sane young men who might otherwise feel a call to serve in defense of our country in the future? Was our grandfather's generation wrong or naive for bringing Japanese and Nazi torturers up for WWII war-crimes charges for doing the same exact thing Bush now says is not torture? I have read of many many conservative politicians and people from within the the Armed Forces state that torture is not effective, and even if it were, it is definitely not worth losing any moral authority we used to have internationally. Is it worth it to give a defacto excuse for any rogue interrogator from another country to do the same to our servicemen and servicewomen?
Whether or not we agree on the merits of continuing the war, I hope that it is not too late to have an honest discussion about what the effective changes in policy (or lack of oversight of the Executive Branch) over the last 6 years have done to our international stature, long-held guarantees of human rights signed almost 40 years ago,http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, and most dearly, the US Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am8- - which my elected representatives all have taken an oath to defend.
Basically I'd like to know if my Congressman is a McCain - or even a Lindsey Graham(!) - republican, or a completely lost cause to the Bush cool-aid ;~) I believe other 6th District constituents might like to know not just what his beliefs on this topic are, but how he will be demonstrating those beliefs with his votes in Congress in relation to Homeland Security, the War on Terror, and Veteran's Affairs: http://roskam.house.gov/Issues/
(Back to work.... not a pleasant lunch break topic...)
With Best Regards,
L.____Z.____
No comments:
Post a Comment