I protest.

He said, she said.

From the "useless politician" category of public discourse comes a letter from California Senator Dianne Feinstein about, um, "the future of Iraq." This was supposedly in response to the following letter which I wrote at the instigation of the ACLU:

As your constituent, I strongly urge you to oppose the practice of indefinite detention of so-called 'enemy combatants' without charges, without a trial and without a right to a lawyer, and to oppose any legislation that would endorse this practice. By detaining individuals without charging them with a crime, the Bush Administration is violating international law and the U.S. Constitution.

Indefinite confinement of a so-called 'enemy combatant' without charge in a military brig violates the Constitution even in wartime. Our system of checks and balances was designed to ensure that individual liberty does not rest on the good faith of government officials. The rule of law assures us that proper checks and balances are placed on the exercise of government authority.

Prisoners who are detained in a zone of combat operations, such as those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently need not be criminally charged but can, consistent with the Geneva Conventions, be held as prisoners of war or as 'civilian internees.' While temporary military detention may be lawful for U.S. citizens who are captured fighting for the other side, they must promptly be taken out of the combat zone and given judicial review (as occurred, for example, with John Walker Lindh). The Bush Administration's treatment of other prisoners, even those in the United States, as 'enemy combatants' violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and must be ended.

I believe that access to a lawyer and a trial is critical to ensuring innocent people are not unfairly detained. If the government has evidence an individual is involved with terrorist activities, it can charge the person with a crime under existing law. By not giving these people a fair trial, the government is not only committing a grave injustice but is violating the principle of presumed innocence.

Once again, I urge you to oppose the Bush Administration's practice of indefinite detention and to oppose any legislation that would endorse or support this practice. I believe that individuals should never be denied their Constitutional rights, that they should not held without access to a lawyer or the requirement that the government prove their guilt at a trial.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

Here is Feinstein's (form letter) reply:

Thank you for writing me regarding the future of Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Throughout the majority of Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein has been defeated and removed from power. Despite our success in freeing the Iraqi people, our military continues to encounter resistance throughout the country and must maintain a presence until an interim authority can be established to restore order and begin helping the Iraqi people reconstitute their basic social services.

So, as the fighting stops and as the remnants of the regime are removed, we must take the lead in rebuilding the Iraqi nation, in stabilizing its new government, in providing interim security to prevent the emergence of tribal hostilities and to see that Iraq is no longer a producer of weapons of mass destruction.

I am hopeful that all Iraqis of every ethnic and faith group, large and small, will be engaged in the process to establish a new Iraq. I firmly believe that the U.S. should work closely with the United Nations and our allies in the reconstruction of Iraq.

It is essential to demonstrate to Muslims everywhere that the United States, while a powerful nation, is motivated by a sincere desire to one day see the entire world safe, prosperous, and free.

Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to keep me informed of your views and concerns. If you should have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

[etc.]

Hum. So I write about a fairly strictly domestic issue regarding "enemy combatants" and her staff replies with a form letter about the future of Iraq? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Were not all the realistic alternatives worse, I would be voting against her come the next time she's up for reelection. While I do tend to agree with her regarding a few social issues and a few more fiscal issues, as far as I'm concerned Feinstein's best days are long over. At this point she's pretty much indistinguishable from many California Republicans. She may still be to the left of Richard Nixon, but not by much.

Were it not for the fact that there are a hundred hungry, sharklike Republican ultraconservatives just waiting for an opportunity to grab that Senate seat, I would suggest she step down and let someone younger and somewhat more liberal take over. As it is, I can only suggest that she buy a clue, preferably by speaking with people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. She also needs to fire whoever it was who chose to answer my "enemy combatant" letter with a canned "future of Iraq" form letter.

Feh. This is why I generally despise politicians.