Corresponding with Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on NYC Terror Trials

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Through Congress.org, on December 10 I sent an email to my Vermont Senators and Representative. My Senators are Mr. Leahy and Mr. Sanders. Mr. Leahy, you may recall, was once a RINO, but has changed parties with the ascendancy of the Democrats to their current status of majority party. (We wait to see if he will become a Republican again when Republicans eventually retake Congress.) Mr. Sanders is nominally an Independent, but caucuses with Democrats and is well-known within Vermont – and elsewhere – as a self-identified Socialist.

Mr. Leahy has not responded to my missive. Nor, for that matter, has Representative Welch, my Congressman. Mr. Sanders, to his considerable credit, responded fairly quickly. Frankly, that impresses me.

On the other hand, we have a clear difference of perspective, and I think he’s “fudging” the Constitution, historical precedent, and simple clear-thinking logic. So far, he has only responded with liberal/White House talking points. I hope that following my response to his reply, I will receive something more substantive.

Here is my original missive, Senator Sanders’ reply, and my response to his reply. Should Mr. Sanders continue the discussion, I will update this post.

My contact via Congress.org:

Mr. Sanders,

I am STRONGLY opposed to extending citizen protections to enemy combatants from Guantanamo detention. Military trials are the only safe option to protect innocent citizens and intelligence secrets.

I URGE you to tell President Obama and Mr. Holder to REVERSE their decision, return these unlawful combatants to military incarceration, and give them the military trial they have earned and deserve.

Sincerely,

Terry Bascom

Mr. Sanders’ reply:

From: “Senator@sanders.senate.gov” Senator@sanders.senate.gov

Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 3:28:43 PM
Subject: Email from Senator Sanders

Dear Terry:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the trial of September 11, 2001 terrorist suspects in New York City. I value the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others accused of orchestrating the September 11, terrorist attacks will be tried in New York City. Holder is encouraging the attorneys in the Southern District of New York and Eastern District of Virginia to pursue the death penalty. Clearly, President Obama takes the crimes of September 11th with the greatest of seriousness.

While I recognize the potential dangers of having terrorists on American soil, it is my strong view that we must not violate the very same civil liberties we seek to protect. Instead, we must return to a system in which fair and independent courts can render due process of law on those accused of crimes against the United States. Although fighting the war on terrorism is serious business and something I hold as a top priority, I know we can fight and win the war on terrorism without destroying the Constitutional rights so fundamental to this country.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Feel free to contact me again in the future about this or any other subject of interest to you, or for up-to-date information on what my office is working on please visit http://www.sanders.senate.gov. While there, I invite you to sign up for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at http://sanders.senate.gov/buzz/. Please be aware that due to security screening procedures, postal mail to my office experiences delays that will lengthen the time it takes me to get back to you. The fastest way to contact my office is by calling 1-800-339-9834.

Sincerely,

BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator

My response:

December 12, 2009

Senator Sanders,

Thank you for your response to my email. I appreciate that you have taken the time to do so.

We have a disagreement on the notion that a military trial for enemy combatants, and illegal combatants at that, somehow puts our civil liberties at risk.

Let me say, first, that I have complete confidence in our military’s ability to conduct a fair trial. Further, as has been pointed out in a number of public forums, keeping the trial in the military arena assures the protection of military secrets – a protection which not only enhances our national security but, because it does so, protects our civil liberties by sustaining the legal and political environment within which American-style liberties can function.

Additionally, it is important to draw a distinction between American citizens and non-American citizens. American civil liberties apply to American civils – that is, American civilians. Non-Americans do not qualify for our civil liberties because the United States does not, cannot, and should not think we can unilaterally extend our notions of government to citizens of other countries. I would think this would be of considerable concern to persons and legislators who object to U.S. “nation building” and hegemony in the world since extending American civil processes to non-US persons is an act of hegemony, and an effort to blanket other peoples and nations with our sense of what is “right” and “just.”

More importantly, extending American civil liberties to non-US persons actually threatens our civil rights by making our notion of Nationhood – not to mention our actual borders – more porous. It is particularly inappropriate when the non-citizen is a combatant whose stated and assumed goal is to destroy the very civil liberties we are protecting. That is what national borders – of the geophysical, political, and metaphysical kind – are really all about: identifying to whom national values, practices, and procedures apply, and to whom they do not. If there is no “not,” there is no nation. And if there is no nation, there are no national civil liberties and practices left to defend.

There is no risk to our civil liberties in treating foreigners intent on doing material harm to our country as military opponents. And, as we both know, since they are not fighting in uniform in a legally-declared war of one state against another, they do not even qualify for Geneva Convention safeguards. Indeed, if we summarily put them in front of a firing squad we would keep better faith with both our national tradition and the historic tradition of nations throughout time. We would also do more to protect our civic boundaries than we will do if we extend legally-inapplicable rights and privileges to those who neither warrant nor respect them.

For the record, I don’t care if the enemy respects our notion of rights and privileges, but I care mightily whether they warrant them. They do not.

It is already a kindness to treat illegal combatants as if they were legal combatants and therefore entitled to a military trial. In many nations and historical periods they would be treated as spies, and spies have no legal standing of any sort. But since treating these legal non-persons as legal combatants does not pose a risk to the United States, I have no objection to that kindness. I only object to treating these non-citizens as citizens, since that does put our nation’s values, laws, customs, practices, boundaries, and culture at risk.

Understanding the legal difference between those who do and do not qualify for various national and international laws and conventions is the surest way to protect and defend American civil liberties. Confusing classes of people and legal categories is a certain way to water down, and eventually eliminate, our distinctive civil liberties and practices.

Our domestic civil liberties are only at risk if we do not extend the full protection of the US Constitution to actual citizens and legal residents of the United States of America. This situation does not come even close to that danger. Therefore, I again encourage you to urge President Obama, Mr. Holder, and your fellow Senators to reverse the decision to try illegal enemy combatants, who are non-citizens, as if they were US citizens with rights under our Constitution.

Sincerely,

Terry Bascom

Mr. Sanders’ reply: stay tuned…

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Tags: Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, congress, Democrats, federal government, Freedom, Liberalism, liberals, Politics, terror trials, terrorism, War on Terror

No Sheeples Here says:

December 12, 2009 at 9:24 am

Terry,

I hate to rain on your parade, but the response to your “missive” was boilerplate generated by office staff. No more, no less.

I appreciate your passion, as do millions of fellow Americans. Bernie and Patrick couldn’t care less.

Reply to this Comment
- tbascom says:
  
  December 12, 2009 at 12:48 pm
  
  Oh, I know. It’s clearly produced by either an autoresponder or (in this case, I think more likely) a staff flunkie slightly customizing a talking-point formatted reply. That’s the reason for my response – I’m curious to see what, if anything, happens next. And the point of this blog post is to make a public record of the good Senator’s response or lack of response – in keeping with our Tea Party experience that our representatives don’t listen to those they are to represent.
  
  Just another nail in the incumbent coffin, I hope. (Unless Sanders blows me away by actually engaging beyond superficial, generic responses.)
  
  Should I get even so much as a boilerplate response from Leahy or Welch, I’ll announce that, too.
  
  Reply to this Comment
smrstrauss says:

December 12, 2009 at 11:21 am

The terrorist criminals should be treated as the criminals they are, with an ordinary criminal trial. It gives them too much honor to consider them enemy combatants. They are criminals, and should be treated as such.

They are foreigners, but it is normal to give trials to foreign criminals, you know. Say that a Frenchman comes to the USA and murders his girlfriend. It is normal in such a situation to give the guy a trial, even though he is not a citizen, and even if his guilt is obvious.

So, let us treat the criminal scum like the criminals that they are, not with military trials, which implies that they are members of a military force (even if illegal). They don’t deserve the spit-and-polish, and the honor of a military trial.

They deserve a criminal trial, like the criminals that they are.

Reply to this Comment
- tbascom says:
  
  December 12, 2009 at 1:25 pm
  
  I’m sorry, smrstrauss, but you are missing a few key points.
  
  These are not “visitors to the US,” they are warriors captured on a battlefield, bearing arms against US soldiers. That makes them combatants. And, since they do not represent any State, they are technically illegal combatants. That’s a far cry from a jealous visiting Frenchman.
  
  Whether you are a friend of Mr. Obama or not (and I have no idea of your politics), you are joining with him in conflating categories that must not be conflated. A soldier is not a civilian; a battlefield opponent is not a domestic visitor; an illegal combatant is not a mere common criminal.
  
  By the way, if these enemy combatants did visit the US for the purpose of committing violence, they would still not be criminals, they would be agent provocateurs or spies. Provocateurs and spies are not visitors and guests – not even angry French visitors and guests – and MUST NOT be treated as something they are not.
  
  The real crime here is in conflating these distinct categories. If a foreign combatant is no different than a jealous visitor; if a soldier apprehended in military combat is no different than a domestic gang-banger; if an illegal combatant is no different than a legal combatant; then the legal and philosophical walls that protect our civil liberties will be eroded.
  
  If we are legally incapable of distinguishing a foreigner caught in a battlefield bearing arms against US soldiers from a citizen whose jealous rage results in a murder, then our notion of nationhood, civil rights, and citizen integrity is already deeply undermined. Our freedom and our distinctiveness as a nation – indeed, our ability to continue to exist as a nation (which requires some clear philosophical, ideological, political, legal, cultural, and geographical boundaries) is in grave jeopardy.
  
  That is, if everybody and anybody is “in” then nobody is “out.” And that means there is no distinction between nations – it’s just one big one-world system. That might be welcome to President Obama, Mr. Holder, many American left-leaning legal beagles, the majority of both Houses, a lot of judges across our country, too many rank-and-file liberals, and perhaps even you, smrstrauss, but it is not acceptable to me. I continue to recognize that there is something unique and distinct, indeed exceptional, about the United States of America. If we continue to muddy important distinctions, the result will not be an enlightened world, but a darkened US of A.
  
  Reply to this Comment
  - Larry Gilman says:
    
    January 17, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    
    “These are not “visitors to the US,” they are warriors captured on a battlefield, bearing arms against US soldiers. That makes them combatants.”
    
    This is factually false. Many Guantanamo detainees were not captured on any battlefield, but were captured in surrounding regions or delivered to US custody in return for bounty fees: former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has written that his government handed over hundreds of “terror suspects” to the U.S. in exchange for bounty money (http://www.propublica.org/article/uighurs-sold-to-us-military-for-bounty-109). Few of the Guantanamo prisoners were actually captured in arms.
    
    Morever, even my above paragraph grants too much: it grants, namely, that whatever the US government says about these people is factual (e.g., that Prisoner A was captured on a battlefield fighting US or allied forces). But we do not know this, unless we assume that whatever the US government says is truth by definition. If that is assumed, discussion is at an end — as is reality, for all practical purposes. But trials exist to determine truth.
    
    Moreoever, we have strong prima facie reason to believe that many or most of the detainees are innocent, namely the word of high US officials: in 2009, Republican Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to then-secretary of state Colin Powell, “told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a ‘mosaic’ of intelligence” (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/19/guantanamo-detainee-innocent.html). Wilkerson even asserted that _about 90%_ of the detainees are innocent and known to be so by the US government: “Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are considered terrorists . . .”
    
    If we continue to kidnap and imprison the innocent, and to assume the guilt of the allegedly guilty on the say-so of the powers that be, the result will not be an enlightened world, but a darkened US of A.
    
    Reply to this Comment
CKA in Red State USA says:

December 13, 2009 at 1:41 am

Thanks for sharing your correspondence with socialist Sanders.

I agree with what you wrote to him.

What he says epitomizes what I’ve said, many of us have said: Liberalism is an intellectual, moral and spiritual disease.

When people such as Sanders, but really us all, cannot or will not call something by what it is, there is no chance of bringing that something into reality and then dealing with it.

Sanders reflects the moral ambivalence, not to mention the bedrock rejection of the Constitution, exhibited by Barack Obama and his thugocracy.

The terrorists are not criminals in the sense of civilian courts would use that term. They never will be.

And as Andy McCarthy, a lawyer who helped prosecute the “blink sheik” after the 1993 bombing of the then standing WTC, and former Secretary of the Navy Lehman said on Sean Hannity’s special Friday night about Eric Holder’s decision: Since at least 1993, we learned that these people are enemies, not criminals. Much evidence exists to support that assertion.

Worth remembering is that in two world wars, when a combatant was found behind enemy lines out of uniform, yet acting offensively–as in: trying to kill or cause problems–that combatant was typically shot as a spy.

Holder’s actions, Obama actions and Sanders’ view of those indicate how very dangerous those men and their fellow travelers are to the security of the U.S.

Worth also noting: One of the audience members on Hannity’s program, who was a relative (perhaps father?) of someone murdered on 9/11 in the then-standing WTC towers by those terrorists, said that he thinks Obama has acted treasonously. The man wondered when Obama will more overtly “step across the line.”

The president and the chief law enforcement officer of our land seem to have rejected their oath of office.

And they do seem so very vulgarly bent on putting America and the former president on trial.

That Holder and Obama even suggest such a trial in a civilian court, but especially just a few blocks, if that, from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan, shows real contempt for the memory of the dead and the feelings of their survivors. They also effectively accomplish what KSM and the other terrorists could not do: secure the world’s attention during this “show” trial.

These enemies of that state that now are in office–Obama, Holder and the other anti-Americans and Marxists, must be stopped.

Reply to this Comment
tbascom says:

December 13, 2009 at 9:22 am

Yeah, CKA, I think the decision to hold the trials in southern NYC is a calculated, cynical slap in the face of those who lost family and friends in the Twin Towers attack, and a calculated slap in the face of American middle-class values and norms – for which O and his Team have no respect.

It is an obvious, and clear symbolic statement that the O Team does not consider the assault on America and its values by the Islamic fascists as that big of a deal.

Treating enemy combatants as mere criminals is an effort to downplay their actual attitudes and deeds; that is, it’s an effort to ‘whitewash’ their actions, which is to ‘aid and abet the enemy.’

And when you put that beside Obama’s cheap-trick gifts to the Queen of England and Prime Minister, while clearly respecting and showing deference to the dictator, Chavez, then Obama’s values and sympathies, get clearer.

Consistently, he has dissed the popularly elected leaders of northern hemisphere democracies while cozying up to the dictators of southern hemisphere countries. That’s powerful symbolism. We ignore it to our peril.

Like you, I believe we have to stop them, and soon. If we don’t, our democracy will start to look like those of Russia and Iran – sham elections and one-party rule, with a strongman at the top. I think Obama is planning to stay where he is, American presidential custom be damned.

And I think the Tea Party movement is our best hope of restoring the values and perspectives of our founders. I have little confidence in the GOP – which, at best, will have to be dragged in the right direction. Too many GOP representatives still don’t get it.

The Donkey Party is obviously the functional enemy of American democracy today, despite the good intentions and center-right values of many rank-and-file party members.

Reply to this Comment
- CKA in Red State USA says:
  
  December 13, 2009 at 2:23 pm
  
  “The Donkey Party is obviously the functional enemy of American democracy today, despite the good intentions and center-right values of many rank-and-file party members.”
  
  Indeed, though I wouldn’t be as polite as to call them the “functional enemy.” They are the enemy, a clear and present danger to our country.
  
  Try as I may, I cannot excuse anyone now affiliating himself or herself with the Democrat Party, especially those registered as Democrats.
  
  I, too, know some good people who are registered Democrats.
  
  But I ask, somewhat rhetorically: How can they continue to support the party that is now America’s enemy, the enemy of the most vulnerable of us–the unborn and elderly and infirm–the enemy of racial harmony, the enemy of free speech, the enemy of balanced education, the enemy of individuals, the enemy of free enterprise, the enemy of Christianity, the enemy of decency and morality?
  
  No sir, those “good” people I know, as I suspect you do, bear responsibility for the Democrats being in power.
  
  Their ignorance, indifference and/or cognitive dissonance is as dangerous as those who run their party and ignore the will of Americans.
  
  By the way, spot-on observation about Obama denigrating the leaders of the northern hemisphere–who, news flash! seem to white–while kissing the behinds of the Southern Hemispherians and Asians–who, news flash! seem to be any hue but white.
  
  History will record that not only was Barack Obama the worst president to hold office and the head of perhaps the most corrupt in American history–but also the one who irreparably fractured any racial, social and economic harmonies that existed prior to his single-term in office.
  
  And, yes, I do look for the show trials of him and his other treasonouse cohorts, once they are bounced from office.
  
  Best regards, Terry.
  
  Reply to this Comment
  - tbascom says:
    
    December 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm
    
    My experience with rank-and-file Dems is that they fall into a some broad categories: they don’t follow politics carefully enough, so take their intellectual cues from mainstream media – hence are largely ignorant; they possess utopian ideological perspectives that make it hard to comprehend – I mean, they find it hard to really take in and wrap their minds around the demonstable FACT – that their party leaders do the opposite of what their utopian language suggests they will do and are doing; or, they are generally dissatisfied with what capitalism has wrought, in the form of abuses by a few big corporate leaders, and still think the Democrat Party is the party of little people.
    
    There’s definite cognitive dissonance involved. The Democrat Party gets more big business and rich people dollars than the Republican Party according to Opensecrets.org, yet continues to be perceived as the party of the little people. And even though some of the most egregious big corporation scandals have been perpetrated by companies who have given predominantly to Democrats, the Republican Party gets tarred and feathered with their misdeeds – because, afterall, the media keeps saying the Republican Party is the party of “big business,” and rank-and-file Dems don’t go look for themselves.
    
    In point of fact, 19 of the top 25 individual donors gave predominantly to Democrats, vs. 5 of the top 25 who gave predominantly to Republicans.
    
    And of the top 25 corporate givers, 12 gave predominantly to Democrats, and only 1 gave predominantly to Republicans. (The balance were fairly evenly split.)
    
    The top corporate donor, ActBlue, gave 100% of its $24.4 million contribution to the Democrats in the 2008 race. The number 2 giver, Goldman Sachs only gave $7 million – a third of the top giver – and that went 74% to Democrats. Indeed, the first Republican-leaning corporate giver occupies position #23! And that’s the National Auto Dealers Association. They gave 57% of $3.3 million to the Republicans. So, just which is the party of Big Business?!?
    
    Among top individual donors, the top giver – Dr Ayasli of Hittite Microwave – gave equally to both parties. However, the 2nd through 7th positions gave solidly Democrat; the first predominantly- Republican giver, Ray and Dorothy Oden, occupy position 8. So, again, which is the party of the big money people?!?
    
    And this is without looking at Hollywood, for Pete’s sake. We all know what that would show! Or athletes. (Though the political preferences of athletes are more evenly distributed, they still tend toward the Democrats.)
    
    These “iffy” companies gave more to the Democrats than the Republicans, by the percentages shown: Goldman Sachs (74:23), JP Morgan Chase (54:36), Citigroup (61:33), Morgan Stanley (53:43), General Electric (59:26), Credit Suisse (54:46), Lehman Brothers (65:31), and Deutsche Bank AG (69:31). If they lean so clearly toward the Democrats, why are the Republicans blamed for their misbehaviors?
    
    More importantly, what do those misbehaving businesses think they are going to get from supporting the statist policies and practices of the Democrats, and letting Donkey party politicians publically savage them and the free market system, rather than supporting the free market policies and practices of the Republicans? Obviously, they are looking for governmental protection and cooperation that squeezes out the start-ups and “little guy” entrepreneurial competition, and establishes big business monopolies or guilds. That is, they are looking for facism (facism = the coordination of government and big business) – and Obama and the Donkey party are giving it to them, hurting rank-and-file Democrats in the process, and creating an unfriendly environment for entrepreneurialism – which is the source of new job creation.
    
    Reply to this Comment
    - CKA in Red State USA says:
      
      December 13, 2009 at 9:46 pm
      
      Thanks for the stats re: Dems’ big donors vs. Repubs’.
      
      What you’ve shown is the power of the former Fourth-Estate-turned-Fifth-Column.
      
      Keep repeating a lie and everyone believes it, right, re: Democrats being the party of the little people.
      
      As for companies giving both ways, IMO, they’re just providing CYA fire for themselves. They’ll play with whomever. Clearly, they’re profit-seekers, which is fine with me, if they but had just a tad of scruples.
      
      And as for your reason the companies support the statists/totalitarians, I think you’ve hit the bullseye: They will hide behind and manipulate the prevailing politics and regulations, and drive out of business companies with less muscle and political favor.
      
      One thing comes to mind re: the cap-and-trade madness: The president and CEO of American Electric Power Corp., which generates 75 percent of its 38,000 megawatts of power through coal, said they will make money through the cap-and-trade program.
      
      They may be basing that on the total screwup in Europe, when the EU gave away credits for free. That allowed companies to make windfalls of millions of Euros. And it did nothing to reduce that ole debbil CO2.
      
      I also heard the AEP president and CEO state, as flatly as you can imagine, that the current 4 cents per kilowatt-hour they charge consumers will go to 7 or 8 under cap-and-trade.
      
      That’s softer than saying price at the wall outlet will be 75 to 100 percent higher. And that’s only for residential consumers.
      
      Price increases to manufacturing will be passed directly to consumers.
      
      Besides that, in at least one AEP subsidiary, Appalachian Power Co., the West Virginia Public Service Commission recently gave the company an almost-46-percent increase, though spread over four years, for cost adjustments for fuel and for installing a few billion dollars of air-pollution-control equipment.
      
      As for companies such as Goldman Sachs, they appear to have their hands in all parts of government: Timothy Geithner comes immediately to mind.
      
      At bottom of all this, though, IMO, is the ignorance of the rank-and-file Democrats, as well as the independents and Republicans, to what charlatans and imposters the Democrat leadership and DNC are.
      
      They stopped representing the “little man,” oh, say, about 50 or 60 years ago.
      
      Maybe it will take millions of the “little man” Americans being unmercifully bankrupt for them to get the message: that the Democrat Party was and remains one of slavery.
      
      Thing is, now it’s one of not just color/race, but also economic strata, social standing and intellectual wherewithal.
      
      But, you know, if the state-controlled minion media were not just that, I don’t think the Democrats would be where they are presently.
      
      Best.
      
      Reply to this Comment