Letter from Duncan Hunter

I received a rather interesting letter today, from my congressional representative, Duncan Hunter (R-CA, 52nd District). This was (I believe) in response to my electronic signature on a petition to impeach President Bush. It came on very nice stationary, with U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, and was addressed to me personally. It was actually signed by Mr. Hunter himself, in pen, rather than with a stamp or other facsimile signature.

The text of the letter, dated December 20, 2006, exactly and in full, leaving off my address information, is as follows:

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. I was interested to learn of your support for impeachment of President Bush. While I appreciate your position on this issue, I am confident that behind the leadership of President Bush, we have remained on the offensive in the Global War on Terrorism targeting suspected terrorist organizations at home and abroad and working to better protect our homeland and providing law enforcement and intelligence officials with the tools they need.

As Chairman of the House Armed Services, I believe victory in Iraq remains critical to our overall success in the Global War on Terrorism and the withdrawal of U.S. troops should only begin once Iraq's security and military forces achieve the necessary level of self-sufficiency. American led efforts to promote democracy in Iraq are responsible for the removal and adjudication of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of approximately 30 million people and an unprecedented series of free and fair elections. However, prematurely withdrawing U.S. military personnel from Iraq before security and military forces are capable of protecting the Iraqi people and their interest would concede victory to our adversaries and bring greater insecurity to the Middle East and the American people.

In regards to your thoughts concerning the treatment of terrorists captured and detained by the U.S, I agree with you that we need to provide basic fairness in our prosecutions. However I strongly believe it is necessary for Congress to develop a judicial process that will allow for the effective prosecution of captured terrorists and will ensure American troops and citizens are protected from harm. It is for this reason I introduced H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which creates a fair judicial process that pays special attention to the rules of evidence and includes procedures used in previous military commissions and will allow the government to prosecute its case fully without compromising intelligence sources. H.R. 6166 passed the House with my support on September 27, 2006 by a vote of 253-163 and passed the Senate on September 28, 2006. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006.

Congress has demonstrated its commitment to protecting our nation's families and communities. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as addressing the terrorist threat remains one of our greatest priorities. Again, thank you for contacting me. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter

This is the text of the letter I will mail later today in response, dated January 6, 2007:

Dear Representative Hunter,

Thank you for your recent letter in response to my email. Your response was thorough, but I am afraid that we are in disagreement about most of the points covered in your letter. It is in fact the leadership of President Bush that is in question. In addition, I question the methods he has used, with the approval of Congress, in fighting terror and prosecuting terrorists and others.

As you are the former Chairman, and I assume are a current member, of the House Armed Services Committee, I have some difficulty in seeing how you are linking the war in Iraq to terrorism. I have studied this issue at some length. It is very clear that Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and a terrible dictator, responsible for many tens of thousands of deaths, even of his own people. Much like Hitler or Stalin, he maintained power through a tightly controlled totalitarian dictatorship, but he was at odds with fundamentalist extremists, such as the Islamic extremists that attacked our country on September 11th, 2001. Saddam Hussein, evil as he was, never threatened the security of the United States. While it is true that now there are Islamic extremists in Iraq, they are operating there because the actions of the United States gave them the opportunity to do so.

You contradict yourself when you say, in the same paragraph, that "withdrawal of U.S. troops should only begin once Iraq's security and military forces achieve the necessary level of self-sufficiency", and that "American led efforts to promote democracy in Iraq are responsible for the removal and adjudication of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of approximately 30 million people and an unprecedented series of free and fair elections."

If the Iraqi people have been liberated, and have had free and fair elections, why do they need U.S. troops to achieve self-sufficiency? If they are not self-sufficient, have they truly been liberated, or are they suffering under the occupation of a foreign power, and caught up in a civil war unleashed by that occupation?

Withdrawing our troops would remove a destabilizing factor in Iraq. I have no illusions that our exit from Iraq will be pretty. I am a veteran myself, though I served in peacetime, and I understand that when we leave, the immediate impact will be harsh, and difficult. This will be the case if we leave now, or if we wait. As long as we are there our troops will be a target for insurgents, and the Iraqis will remain reluctant to take full control of securing their nation. I know that you served in Vietnam, and your son has served in Iraq, and I honor that service, as I honor the service of all of the members of our armed forces. It is concern for them that is my chief motivation in contacting you.

You also mention H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I am familiar with this piece of legislation as well. I have strong concerns about the constitutionality of many of the provisions of the document. The suspension of Habeas Corpus, in some circumstances, is a grave step, and while I am not a constitutional lawyer, it seems to me to exceed the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution. I have read the Commissions Act in detail, and I realize that only aliens are subject to most of the provisions of the act. The provision of that act, however, that grants the President or Secretary of Defense, or their appointees, to declare anyone, even an American Citizen, an unlawful enemy combatant I find disturbing.

While I am as concerned as anyone with preventing further terrorist attacks, I feel very strongly that the prosecution of any criminals, even terrorists, is best conducted in civilian courts. Our national security is a vital thing to secure, within the limits of the Constitution and the law. As Benjamin Franklin said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

I am including the full text of your letter to me, and this response, on my blog:
http://sdpeaceguyblogger.blogspot.com/

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

David L. Wiley
Formerly RM2 Wiley, USCG


That's all for now, just thought that I would share that with everyone...

Peace

3,006 today. How many have to die?