Letter to Senator Martinez, R-FL
Senator Martinez voted against ending cloture regarding S.185, a bill requiring the US to recognize the right of habeas corpus for detainees we capture on our own soil. In other words, Senator Martinez voted against the bill (technically he voted against allowing the Senate to put the bill to the whole Senate, where it would have passed by 6 or 7 votes, but the effect is the same).
So I wrote him a letter, and a nice staffer wrote me a letter back, so I'm writing this back.
Senator Martinez,
Thank you for your timely response (though I understand generally they're responses written by your staff, since Senators tend to be busy people), and the insightful content of said response. I wrote your office not even three days ago, and I have your e-mail response in my inbox.
I understand very much that we are engaged in a war where the lines between civilian and military personnel are blurred, and that it is often difficult to determine exactly what role a person may or may not have played in a potential terrorist organization.
As you are well aware, American citizens have been arrested and detained - sometimes indefinitely - by military procedures. Treasonous American citizens are being sought after this very moment, and will be found.
But when we've captured a combatant - American or alien - on our own soil, the question is then, what do we do with them?
What ought to define Americans is the freedoms and liberties of our citizens, and the dignity and humanity with which we treat even our enemies.
The lawful treatment of enemy combatants goes all the way back to World War II, when even German saboteurs, captured on American soil, were given a civilian trial, with all the rights and privileges thereunto.
When you move 'enemy combatants' out of the civilian court system, it implies that the civilian courts are, for some reason, unable to successfully try terrorist suspects. The question becomes, why? One theory might suggest that the sensitive (classified) nature of the evidence that potentially incriminates the suspects dictates that it be held inside a military context. But civilian courts have heard cases involving classified and sensitive information before; one case that comes to mind was brought by the Department of Energy, regarding the publication of nuclear secrets by an American citizen, but there are surely hundreds of others. Civilian courts have proven themselves competent to hear cases in which classified or sensitive information is involved.
So, again, why? What clear, imminent need do we have to remove from these defendants rights that have been recognized for hundreds of years, across international borders?
I certainly recognize the need to maintain national security. I was in the US Air Force, as was my father, and his father. Our military and our government exist - to uphold and protect the Constitution, and in doing so, the inherent and inalienable rights granted to all men. The opening statements of our Constitution make it reprehensible to treat the citizens of other nations in a worse manner than that of our own.
I am not suggesting that terrorists should not pay for what they've done. I'm not even suggesting that we should rule out any particular form of punishment. But as a nation, the principles upon which we were founded demand that we remain just in all our dealings with all people, and that includes the right of habeas corpus for all person whom we detain. This is why I urge you, should you have the chance to vote on this matter again, to promote the standards of liberty that have made this country great.
When given a choice between liberty and security, our founding fathers invariably chose liberty, freedom, and the inalienable rights granted all human beings - even if they are terrorists. It's what separates us from the people we're fighting.
Thanks for your time.
-Sean Flynn
So I wrote him a letter, and a nice staffer wrote me a letter back, so I'm writing this back.
Senator Martinez,
Thank you for your timely response (though I understand generally they're responses written by your staff, since Senators tend to be busy people), and the insightful content of said response. I wrote your office not even three days ago, and I have your e-mail response in my inbox.
I understand very much that we are engaged in a war where the lines between civilian and military personnel are blurred, and that it is often difficult to determine exactly what role a person may or may not have played in a potential terrorist organization.
As you are well aware, American citizens have been arrested and detained - sometimes indefinitely - by military procedures. Treasonous American citizens are being sought after this very moment, and will be found.
But when we've captured a combatant - American or alien - on our own soil, the question is then, what do we do with them?
What ought to define Americans is the freedoms and liberties of our citizens, and the dignity and humanity with which we treat even our enemies.
The lawful treatment of enemy combatants goes all the way back to World War II, when even German saboteurs, captured on American soil, were given a civilian trial, with all the rights and privileges thereunto.
When you move 'enemy combatants' out of the civilian court system, it implies that the civilian courts are, for some reason, unable to successfully try terrorist suspects. The question becomes, why? One theory might suggest that the sensitive (classified) nature of the evidence that potentially incriminates the suspects dictates that it be held inside a military context. But civilian courts have heard cases involving classified and sensitive information before; one case that comes to mind was brought by the Department of Energy, regarding the publication of nuclear secrets by an American citizen, but there are surely hundreds of others. Civilian courts have proven themselves competent to hear cases in which classified or sensitive information is involved.
So, again, why? What clear, imminent need do we have to remove from these defendants rights that have been recognized for hundreds of years, across international borders?
I certainly recognize the need to maintain national security. I was in the US Air Force, as was my father, and his father. Our military and our government exist - to uphold and protect the Constitution, and in doing so, the inherent and inalienable rights granted to all men. The opening statements of our Constitution make it reprehensible to treat the citizens of other nations in a worse manner than that of our own.
I am not suggesting that terrorists should not pay for what they've done. I'm not even suggesting that we should rule out any particular form of punishment. But as a nation, the principles upon which we were founded demand that we remain just in all our dealings with all people, and that includes the right of habeas corpus for all person whom we detain. This is why I urge you, should you have the chance to vote on this matter again, to promote the standards of liberty that have made this country great.
When given a choice between liberty and security, our founding fathers invariably chose liberty, freedom, and the inalienable rights granted all human beings - even if they are terrorists. It's what separates us from the people we're fighting.
Thanks for your time.
-Sean Flynn