Cynthia Wendt
Assistant to Congressman Dennis Moore

Dear Cynthia,

Thank you for the phone discussion last week. I look forward to getting the letter from Dennis Moore about his vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, H.R. 6166. I'd like to specify my objections and concerns for his vote on this bill.

I hope he will explain supporting a bill that gives retroactive immunity to President Bush from war crimes according the terms of the 1996 War Crimes Act for policies of abuse towards prisoners. This language is part of the bill Dennis signed:

(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6054:)

"... no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001."

I'd like an explanation for his support for retroactive immunity for potential war crimes.

In my opinion, support for such a bill is a de facto admission of the existence of war crimes committed by the Bush administration and collaboration by members of Congress. And constitutes criminal evasion of such crimes as may have been committed. Congress cannot declare that international laws are invalid. That prior ratified treaties are null and void. That laws in force over the last five years are retroactively nonexistent. This is an avoidance of prosecution for criminal acts. As a former prosecutor, I'd like to hear his perspective on this, please.

In addition, the bill Dennis voted for, quoting from the New York Times editorial on the subject:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Senator Leahy said this of the bill that Dennis supported:

"it’s Kafka. But it’s more than that. It’s just a total rollback of everything this country has stood for."

Attorney and Co-founder of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner said,

". . . what this bill authorizes is really the authority of an authoritarian despot to the president. I mean, what it gives him is the power, as the senator said, to detain any person anywhere in the world, citizen or non-citizen, whether living in the United States or anywhere else. I mean, what kind of authority is that? No checks and balances. Nothing."

The New York Times editorial board concluded this of the bill Dennis voted for:

"But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."

Attorney Michael Ratner, said:

"any senator who voted for this, in my view, is essentially guilty, guilty, guilty of undermining basic fundamental rights and may well be guilty of war crimes . . . " I presume he would say the same thing of a member of the House who voted for the identical bill.

The bill that he voted for appears to establish the United States as a tyranny. (At least until the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional.) What defense does Dennis have for supporting this bill? Dennis has some serious explaining to do. After all, he is a former prosecutor. I presumed he stood for the rule of law and for the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. Now I am having doubts about him in these matters. Of course I can ask these kinds of questions in some sort of public forum, but I'd prefer to ask and get answers privately from him.

I am a co-founder and current member the Progressive Caucus of the Kansas Democratic Party. (www.ksprogressives.org) I believe many of my fellow Progressive Caucus members are quite interested in the reasons our only Democrat in the House delegation from Kansas would vote for this bill. I'd be happy to meet or talk with him on the phone so I can better understand what he was thinking when he voted for this bill.

Thanks,

Kelly

Kelly Patrick Gerling
5905 Slater Road
Merriam, KS 66202
913-724-2400