Re: Please reject indefinite detention

Our politicians are useless.

I specifically write this guy about ending indefinite detention, and what does he do? Babble on about respecting the rule of law while totally glossing over the sole reason I wrote to him in the first place. Thanks Ben for informing that the administration has put detainees into 5 categories, one of which is those who may be subject to indefinite detention. Now what the hell are you going to do about it???? Remember, that was the reason I wrote to you. Last time I checked, subjecting detainees to indefinite detention wasn't exactly meeting our international obligations, nor is it the right thing to do. So what was the with semantics you were waxing there?

Holy hell.

===================================================================
Reply from Ben Cardin (D-MD) in response to my email asking him to reject indefinite detention:
===================================================================
Dear Mr. Makowski:

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns regarding the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba (GTMO). As Chairman of both the Senate Judiciary Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee and the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I take a special interest in this issue. In July 2009, I chaired a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on this issue, and heard from government and private sector witnesses.

Shortly after taking office, President Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within one year. I commended President Obama at the time for ordering the closure of the detention center. President Obama is sending a clear message to the world that we are reestablishing the rule of law in the United States, and that we, as a nation, will abide by our international obligations.

I want the U.S. Government to bring terrorist suspects to justice quickly and effectively. We must remain vigilant after the terrorist attacks on our nation of September 11, 2001. But the system we use must meet fundamental and basic rule of law standards. Americans have a right to expect this under the Constitution, and our federal courts will demand it when reviewing a conviction. We would of course expect other nations to use a system that provides no less protection for Americans that are accused of committing crimes abroad and are called before foreign courts.

This May, President Obama classified the remaining Guantanamo detainees into five categories: first, detainees who have violated American criminal laws and can be tried in federal courts; second, detainees who violate the laws of war and can be tried through military commissions; third, detainees ordered released by the courts; fourth, detainees deemed no longer a threat; and fifth, detainees who may be subject to indefinite detention.

My July, 2009, Judiciary subcommittee hearing examined both civilian and military trials in detail. The hearing reaffirmed for me the central role that our civilian federal courts can play in prosecuting terrorists. Federal courts have the capacity, resources, and procedures in place to handle terrorism cases and violations of our criminal law, and have done so successfully for many years before the 9/11 attacks. We also examined what additional rights, if any, would attach to detainees brought into the United States, what happens to detainees upon completion of their sentence or acquittal by the courts, and the ability of our federal prison system to house detainees both pre- and post-trial. Properly redesigned military commissions may also play a role in prosecuting terrorists who violate the laws of war.

I will continue to work with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress in order to find the appropriate solution. We need to use a system of justice that protects the American people, prosecutes terrorists for their crimes, and permits convictions to be upheld by the courts as legal and constitutional. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter, and please feel free to contact me again in the future.